When you have to turn to Fox to see a challenge to Bush's bullshit

[MSgt213]

TOOL TIME! To see George Bush’s misstatements challenged, you’ll just have to tune in to Fox:

TOOL TIME (WITH DAVID GREGORY): How corrupted, how defeated, is your “liberal” press corps? This weekend, to see somebody challenge George Bush’s wild statements, you had to turn Fox News Sunday! On Sunday, White House uber-shill Dan Bartlett appeared on three of the five major talk shows. But Russert and Blitzer put their feet in the air. Only Chris Wallace, hosting on Fox, dared to ask the obvious:

WALLACE (1/16/05): Let's turn if we can to another big issue, maybe the top of your legislative agenda on the domestic front: Social Security. The president keeps saying that there is a crisis, that if there is no change the system will go broke by 2042. Let's look.

BUSH (videotape): I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now.

WALLACE: As a simple fact, isn't that wrong?

Yes—as a simple matter of fact, that was wrong, or at best it was grossly misleading. And Bush misled average voters (even high school kids!) with claims like this all week long. But only on Fox were his misstatements challenged. Indeed, when Bartlett started the Russert Oration, Wallace quickly challenged that too:

BARTLETT (continuing directly): Absolutely not! And the bottom line is—the fact of the matter is that when you take the Social Security system as it is, this is a mathematical issue, not an ideological issue. In 1950, there were about 16 workers—

WALLACE: Let me just interrupt, because I know the fact that there were 14 workers for every person when it was first— The fact is that in 2042, if you did absolutely nothing to the system, it wouldn't be “broke.” It wouldn't be “bankrupt.” In fact, there would be a problem, but you would be able to still pay about three-quarters of everybody's guaranteed benefits.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

[Pepperbelly]

1. I noticed that during the election although I was poo-poohed here.

Wallace was far more willing to confront that the "liberal" networks.

It really is shameful. Not for Fox, of course. Good for them. But for the other networks.

[seabeyond]

2. but bush wants you to see it that way

bush wants people to see a lot of fiction as fact. and they work really hard to get people to see the story not the truth

[NeoTraitors]

3. What aworld they live in-

where only perception matters. I honestly enjoy seeing the bloodsucking RW 'heads spout hypocracy and known lies loudly over the voices of others. It lets me know for certain that these people are evil and must be stopped by any means necessary.

[underpants]

4. Their math is the "16 workers for every....." please ignore all other math

You are going to hear this simple straight forward MATH a lot in the coming weeks and months.

That is amazing that Wallace was the only one who stated the obvious but that was on when no one watches and they were just punching the "fair and balanced" time clock.

[moggie12]

5. Thanks for posting that

I didn't see it. David Gregory (CBS? NBC?) asked Bush same question but, unlike Wallace, didn't follow-up when Bush evaded question. Good for Wallace. The Fox people are sometimes "fair and balanced" (Cavuto more recently, e.g.). There's some, however, who are wretched in their lies and truth-twisting: Sean Hannity, for example, makes my blood boil. It's good to acknowledge the difference.