About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

FLASHBACK: When Fox News boasted about its "unprecedented" access to the Bush White House

June 17, 2009 1:32 pm ET by MMFA Staff

Suddenly ABC News has become "state controlled" media because it's working closely with the Obama White House on a primetime program. At least that's how Michelle Malkin and her friends explain the world to their outraged readers.

So if ABC News is now government controlled, what did that make Fox News in 2008? [Emphasis added]

FOX News' Bret Baier was granted unprecedented access by George W. Bush as the president begins the final year of his extraordinarily consequential tenure.

This historic documentary - shot in high definition - takes you inside the Oval Office, to the president's Texas ranch, aboard Air Force One and into his private sanctums in the White House residence.

You get the idea.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by progressiveright (June 17, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
      1  
      Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Yes fox is a bunch of hypocryts and they know it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (June 17, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
      1  
      Just as long as you do not pretend to be surprised.

      This is also in line with Fox News criticizing Obama for using teleprompters, cost of travel, budget deficits and bailouts while giving Bushie a free ride on all of those things.

      These things, as well as network access, are only OK when there is a Republican in the White House, OK?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by sw3246 (June 17, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
           
        No...these things are never OK, regardless of who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania. We need the press to be a watchdog, not a lapdog....

        I agree, FOX loses credibility by crying foul now..
        Report Abuse
    • Author by goesto11 (June 17, 2009 2:21 pm ET)
         

      "...his extraordinarily consequential tenure."

      Well, Fox sure got that part right.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by walstib (June 17, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
        1
      Whatever...

      You must know that since Bush wasn't a SOCIALIST it is a completely differnt thing.

      Why is that so hard for folks to understand?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 17, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
        2  
        He wasn't?

        You mean, the president responsible for the largest expansion of the federal government ever? That one?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by walstib (June 17, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
            2
          No.

          He was and is a G_d fearing Christian man that would never hurt a fly - unlike that illegally elected Muslim you kowtow to on a daily basis.


          Oh, and he never took drugs, served honorably in the military and began a new crusade to re-take our holiest lands from the true infidels.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by speaker145 (June 17, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
            1  
            I can't tell if you are being facetious or have been smoking crack. Never hurt a fly? He started an unprovoked, unjustified war in Iraq that has cost 10s of thousands of Iraqi lives, thousands of American lives, trillions of dollars and sent the economy into the toilet? What is your definition of "hurt"?

            He never took drugs? His alcoholism has been documented by numerous sources. Alcohol is a drug.

            Began a new crusade to retake our holiest lands from the true infidels? A crusade is a holy war fought for religious reasons. I guess you consider phony reports of weapons of mass destruction a justification for this "holy war" that Bush started.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (June 17, 2009 6:32 pm ET)
            2  
            He attended what church regularly during his administration?
            Wouldn't hurt a fly? No flys were hurt then during that new crusade? Your sure?
            "Unlike that illegally elected muslim you kowtow to on a daily basis."
            Not bad, four "noble" lies in twelve words. I've seen better though.
            No coacain or booze for our shrub, no sir, Choke.
            You have his complete military record? Oh watch out, we can't be having that information running arround where who knows what might get to read it. Karl's Rangers will be arriving shortly to reieve you of this dangerous information.
            I've lost track, who are the "true infidels" du jour?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by walstib (June 18, 2009 7:40 am ET)
                2
              Relax.

              My my my, folks here used to be able to detect sarcasm a whole lot better.

              Sheeeeesh.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (June 18, 2009 10:21 am ET)
                   
                We've had wingnut post's quite like yours. Though not often. I've had posts that have been missinterpted, it happens
                Report Abuse
                • Author by walstib (June 18, 2009 11:01 am ET)
                    1
                  It is a real shame that it appears our skin is getting this thin.

                  I've been around since this site came online and while the posts from MM staff have remained on point the comments seem to be getting more and more shrill on both sides.

                  That's why I only pop into the comments in spurts...


                  It's a shame.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (June 18, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
                       
                    Ha. Ha. See you in several months. And while you're away, work on your sarcasm.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 18, 2009 7:25 pm ET)
             
          I think he's kidding, magnolia. Not that we don't get Fox defenders on here who believe these things. But they are never presented in an intelligent way to actuualy make them sarcasm as this is.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (June 17, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
      2  
      Ah, yes, what was the term used by Shoes in the other thread to describe such an egregious whoring of the media? Oh yeah, "ridiculous infomercial."

      And where was the whiny letter from the DNC complaining about this? Oh that's right, there wasn't one.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 17, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
        2  
        Except he couldn't, or didn't point out anything in that interview or segment that he disagreed with, just that it was an "informercial". I'm willing to bet, he didn't even watch it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by seeryer (June 17, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
      1 2
      At least Fox has the balls to say what side they are on. ABC ought to title their special Barack H Obama: Fighting the AMA smears.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LuvLuLu (June 17, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
      3  
      Hannity was pushing this point last night too - saying that all the media except FoxNews was in the back pocket of Obama, and so he didn't understand why Obama was "attacking" FoxNews as being against him.

      Well, FoxNews IS against Obama. It doesn't matter if the other news media are fans of Obama, and tilted towards him. They aren't, but it doesn't change FoxNews anti-Obama slant!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 17, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
         
      "Extraordinarily consequential..." Now that's one way to describe Bush's time in office.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ NUTS (June 18, 2009 2:40 am ET)
         
      "the failure to catch Usama bin Laden"

      they could have at least spelled "Osama" correctly. other than that, this article was the perfect amount of fox news drooling over bush.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by walstib (June 18, 2009 7:42 am ET)
          1
        Usama is an accepted variation of Osama.

        Please to use the Google so you don't look as out of touch as those you wish to mock.

        http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (June 18, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
          1  
          Patronizing bast**d is an accept variation of walstib.

          Make a note of it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 18, 2009 7:27 pm ET)
             
          I think he was joking walstib. Ironic, that you would miss the sarcasm so quickly after dismissing those who missed yours.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by PigFox (June 18, 2009 8:39 am ET)
         
      "In his FINAL YEAR"! Had Bush allowed that within six months of his first term, yeah, you got something there but this is ridiculous! Be proud that ABC's got Obama's back. CBS, NBC, CNBC--all of 'em got his back. You worry too much about ONE news outlet, C'mon! Fox News doesn't stand a chance against the hordes of news outfits in support of the president so why the bellyaching? Whining makes you sound so sophomoric. Geez...
      Report Abuse