Posted on 06/19/2014 7:10:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It isn’t just the left that is cheering Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly this morning, a day after she gave former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney a sound grilling over Iraq, many on the right suspicious of an interventionist foreign policy are cheering her as well.
On Wednesday night, Kelly hosted the Cheney’s for what was billed as a discussion about their new political initiative aimed at crafting criticisms of President Barack Obama’s present approach to foreign policy. While there is much that is worthy of criticism in Obama’s handling of foreign affairs, some, including AllahPundit, wondered if the Cheneys could serve as helpful messengers.
Kelly brought those concerns directly to the Cheneys. After reading a portion of a brutal op-ed which essentially accused Cheney of setting in motion the events which have led to the present chaos in Iraq, Kelly voiced her own criticism of the former vice president.
“Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir,” she said
That’s a little harsh, and it’s certainly a debatable point, but the substance of this interview is not what struck me. What was important, and is frankly undervalued by the rest of the political press, is how frequently the supposedly conservative news network veers off what many believe is their script. What’s more, when this sort of contentious interview with a prominent Republican occurs, Fox is rewarded for it by their core audience.
The opposite is not the case, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey on cable news viewers’ satisfaction with the product they are consuming:
One thing that differs when it comes to MSNBC is that it does not draw the same uniformly positive reviews from consistent liberals that FNC does from consistent conservatives. While nearly half (45%) of consistent liberals view MSNBC favorably, that’s not much better than how MSNBC rates among those with mixed ideological views (38%). Nearly half of consistent liberals offer no opinion of MSNBC. By contrast, the vast majority of consistent conservatives offer an opinion of Fox News, with 74% favorable and just 5% unfavorable.
“When MSNBC President Phil Griffin decided to turn his network into a liberal answer to Fox News, he was betting that there was a progressive audience out there to match the conservative faithful on the other side,” Politico’s Dylan Byers reacted. “But people don’t simply watch opinion channels because the programming matches their partisan views. The programming has to be compelling.”
Yes, but it’s more than that. Having watched MSNBC evolve as a network over the last two years, it seems to me that their every answer to ratings challenges is strive to be even more predictable. It has become increasingly rare for an MSNBC host to go off the reservation of progressive thought.
Kelly’s interview of the Cheneys was compelling, but it was also contentious and tension makes for good television. It is possible that MSNBC’s core audience simply does not appreciate having the members of their “team” challenged by those who are supposedly on their side. When was the last time you saw Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow interrogate a Democratic officeholder from the right?
Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river
Evidence of WMDs in Iraq - Annonymous Freeper in Iraq
Cyanide Salt Block Found in Iraq
MSNBC - Cyanide & Mustard Agents Found in Euphrates River
NBC Forces Out Bob Arnot Who Delivered Upbeat Stories from Iraq(Arnot Charges Bias)
-PJ
Megyn Kelly’s show is one of the best on Fox news. She is a very able reporter and interviwer. That said, I thought her tone and attitude with the Cheneys was rather harsh — even if the questions were fair.
Cheney does not deserve that. He is still one of the most important real Americans to serve in political office.
RE: That said, I thought her tone and attitude with the Cheneys was rather harsh — even if the questions were fair.
I wonder why Hillary did not appear on Megyn’s show opting instead to talk to Greta and Brett...
Candidate Bush, in the debates preceding the presidential election in 2000, specifically criticized “nation-building”
following a military intervention (such as that of Bosnia).
So, like his “read my lips” father, once again a Bush went back on his words, and the nation paid the price as the result.
I daily watch Neil Cavoto to find out what the GOP-E will use as an excuse for caving-in to Obama Democrats on the topics of the day.
Neil is always spot on with GOP-E talking points, carefully timed interruptions to a guest’s point of view, and as always, very, Very rude to all Conservative guests.
I am always surprised at why Cavoto and O’Reilly even bother to have guests.
I guess Neil and Billy-O enjoy shouting down guests with slurs from the GOP-E and Obama Democrat Bi-Partisan Handbook.
She ambushed him!
This was beyond mere intermeddling, there was also a great concern that a wild Hussein placed the world-wide oil market at risk, that protecting that market was a noble objective.
That we didn't stay and finish the job may well come home to roost in the next few weeks, now that the terrorists have reportedly hoisted their flag over the largest oil facility in Iraq.
P.S., I enjoyed the "green thing" on your About page, will have to go back and read the rest of that page.
Saddam Hussein worked for the CIA for over 40 years.
His career reportedly began as part of a small assassination team in Iraq.
I watched this interchange, and was not offended.
First of all the old canard about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ was brought up. The fact is that Saddam H. did have WMD’s. He used chemical warfare against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. That is not disputed. WMD is not synonymous with only nuclear weapons!
Secondly, Dick Cheney was able to answer all these questions very well, because he is knowledgeable and is not afraid to speak truth to power.
I agree. Looking at some of the posts here, I was starting to wonder if there was a SECOND Kelly interview with the Cheneys that I had missed - she was asking some tough questions but I never noticed her being harsh or disrespectful, and (unlike many other talking heads) she actually allowed the Cheney’s to fully answer questions, rather than just interrupting to save her taling points.
Why do you spew liberal irrationality?
I believe the Cheneys handled Megan quite well and she allowed them time to answer her question. I agree she threw some tough questions but they answered well because she didn’t talk over them. Obama wouldn’t make a pimple on Dick Cheney’s (you know what).
-PJ
The reasons for going into Iraq were to get the weapons of mass destruction, and to stop Saddam from committing genocide. Even the Democrats signed onto it. We got Saddam, and we destroyed weapons stockpiles. We even got the side benefit of Libya surrendering, and turning over nuclear materials. Mission accomplished.
The reason for going into Afghanistan was to get the Taliban training camps, capture Osama, and get the radicals who trained the Saudis responsible for 911. Mission accomplished, more or less.
Occupying Islamic countries to install Democracy and democratic governments, with the hope of creating Western values, liberty and goodwill towards America was/is a mistake of moronic proportions. Western values and liberty that developed in the West didn’t happen overnight, and they didn’t happen in an Islamic vacuum. Democracy gives back what is put into it, and Islam is a poor medium for good expectations and results. What is presently happening in Iraq was entirely predictable from the day we marched into Baghdad, and the same will happen in Afghanistan when we are finally gone.
In my opinion, we should have bombed our way to justice, nuked Mecca, left every training camp and supportive country in piles of rubble, and decimated the heart of Islam, with promises that any further hostilities from Islam will be met with overwhelming destructive force. ...But that would have hurt Islamic feelings, and we would much rather strip search old Irish ladies in our airports. Whatever it takes to be PC.
RE: We got Saddam, and we destroyed weapons stockpiles.
When Bush spoke about WMD’s, people had in mind Nukes, Chemical Weapons and Biological weapons.
Did we find any?
Here’s the entire interview if you missed it, or want to review it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6dWbbaylo
RE: First of all the old canard about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ was brought up. The fact is that Saddam H. did have WMD’s. He used chemical warfare against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. That is not disputed. WMD is not synonymous with only nuclear weapons!
OK, did we find any chemical weapon stockpiles in Iraq ( the ones he used to kill over 5000 Kurds )?
it was mostly simple statements over the years, would take time to find. If the proof was on a hard drive somewhere...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/07/02/polish-troops-find-sarin-warheads/
Nuclear? heard the scientists lied to saddam.
The problem with Iraq was that the first war was never finished. That was the most infuriating stand down ever. bah.
Hey, I just read today that the ISIS Sunni fighters have captured Saddam Hussein’s cache of Chemical Weapons.
Did we find any?
As I understand it, we did get some chemical stockpiles. What we got as a result of Libya’s response shouldn’t be brushed aside. We probably could have accomplished as much or more with well planned carpet bombing, while skipping the occupation. But Bush’s plan was twofold. He wanted to shock and awe Islam with a demonstration of America’s overwhelming military force, and at the same time he wanted to demonstrate how magnanimous and fair we and our military can be. In a convoluted sense, the goal was to defeat and make allies of Islamic countries, like we did with Japan and Germany. ...It was an idiotic plan. We didn’t go nearly far enough to carry out our shock and awe, and trying to bring Islam into the age of reason without changing Islam would have been like encouraging Nazis to be good Nazis while learning to love the rest of the world.
Again, what we are getting with Iraq, and what we will get with Afghanistan was entirely predictable from the beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.