The Outfoxed animals take on Special Report with Brit Hume, but they end up chasing their tails.

The newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) have launched a new assault on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume. How did they do?

This report started with Hume quoting Kerry as saying that Bush's plan to withdraw troops is a bad idea adding, "Didn't he (Kerry) say the same thing a few weeks ago?"

The report didn't start with anything of the kind. Even Hume's introduction to the report said nothing of the kind. So where are the newspoodles getting this from? They're quoting a teaser for the program, not the program itself! And of course, since it's a newshounds quote, it can't be verbatim:

HUME: Next, on Special Report, John Kerry tells the VFW that President Bush's plans to withdraw troops from overseas is a bad idea. But didn't Kerry say he'd do something similar a few weeks ago? We'll find out...[other stories are teased]

Back to the dog pound:

[Carl] Cameron then quoted Kerry as criticizing Bush's funding of benefits for vets, then added that Bush said that funding for vets has gone up twice as fast during his administration.

Cameron didn't quote Kerry at all; he showed a clip from Kerry's speech. (The canines don't want you to know that, since one of their favorite falsehoods is that Fox is always showing clips from Bush but only shows video from Kerry with voice-overs.) And how odd that the media mastiffs who complain long and loud about reporters not being critical enough about administration claims on everything that comes down the pike, are all of a sudden outraged when one sentence of fact-checking appears.

Then Cameron showed a couple of vets in the audience standing with their backs to Kerry, saying that the military tends to lean republican.

The actual transcript:

CAMERON: A pair of veterans out of a few thousand present turned their backs.

Where's the comment that the military leans Republican? He didn't say it while showing vets "standing with their backs to Kerry". It came at the tail end of the report, in a completely different context:

CAMERON: Military and veteran voters tend to lean Republican, and given the closeness of this race, Senator Kerry has announced that he will, at least a little bit, campaign during President Bush's convention, in two weeks. On the same day that Vice-President Dick Cheney will address the Republican National Convention in New York City, Senator Kerry will be courting veterans voters in Nashville, TN, at the convention of the American Legion.

As we continue to decipher the chronological jumble the anti-Fox terriers have made of all this, the newspups turn to Jim Angle's report on Bush's campaign day:

Cameron's report, as you can see, had a point by point rebuttal of what Kerry said on the campaign trail today. Angle's report had supporting points for Bush's comments on the campaign trail, with no democratic position offered, except the observation that Kerry is appealing to soldiers who are no longer active, while Bush's concern lies with our fighting troops. This kind of reporting is typical.

What a surprise...another lie! (This kind of newshound reporting is typical.)

ANGLE: The Kerry campaign dug up some 1991 statements by then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in which he said that further force reductions in South Korea should wait until the North Korean nuclear threat were clear.

Sounds like he offered a Democratic position to us. And oddly enough, the newshounds, just one paragraph before saying Angle offered no Democratic positions, actually referenced this themselves:

He [Angle] added that even though Cheney made a statement in 1991 that we should wait to withdraw troops until the nuclear threat is gone, things have changed since then.

But even here the doggies are dissembling. As worded by the newshounds, Jim Angle said that "things have changed since then". What Angle actually said:

ANGLE: Administration officials now say the US capabilities in the region have greatly expanded since then.

Just as in the Outfoxed video, statements by reporters are made to look like they are giving personal opinions, when in fact they are reporting what someone else said.

Dishonest? Sure. Fraudulent? Obviously. But we are dealing with the great minds behind Outfoxed.