Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Ralph Peters: Obama ‘A Terrified Little Man In A Great Big Job He Can’t Do’
2014-09-13 15:59:27 -0400
· Flag
Rhonda Toler, are you sure you’re actually in Egypt? Are you sure you’re not an American right winger living a little closer to the US who just wants to stir up some nonsensical trouble on a site with which you disagree?
You cite the right wing American Center for Security Policy – an anti-Muslim group that regularly gets called out for its bias and inaccurate statements. Your account of Gaddafi’s attempt to hang on to power leaves out several important details and conflates others. First, the whole thing was disputed as to whether it had even happened. The real reporting on it was done by al Jazeera, something you would have known had you actually been in the area. Further reporting was done by Asharq al-Awsat in London and al-Bayan in the UAE, all citing unnamed sources on the rebels’ interim council in Libya. Reuters did a report that said that Gaddafi was saying privately he would step down if he was paid a sum of money to leave.
Obviously, this was all rejected by the rebels, who didn’t want Gaddafi to have what they thought of as an “honourable exit” and they sure didn’t want him to leave with a large sum of the country’s money. Again, it’s disputed as to whether it in fact happened – it sounds like a trial balloon was floated and then popped. And from all these accounts, there is no indication that President Obama or his people were personally involved. This was an internal Libyan matter. Interesting that your only source is a right wing website that regularly attacks President Obama in ludicrous ways, depending on what’s upsetting Frank Gaffney that day.
As for Assad, your idea there comes from a 2013 Facebook post by Ahmad Ramadan. What makes this interesting is that Ynet reported in 2012 that the US wanted Assad to step down but Russia was saying that he did not need to do so. Your stated opinion here leaves out the Russian middleman in this entire situation, and attempts to ascribe something that nobody else is alleging that isn’t on the far right wing.
These are complicated international issues, as you would know were you actually on the ground in Libya, Syria or even Egypt. From what you’ve been presenting here, we must conclude that you are not actually in the Middle East, or are so biased by your own dislike of this president that you cannot objectively perceive the events happening around you. I strongly recommend that you take some time to actually read up on these events and try to learn a little more about them before making strident condemnations that make little sense when seen in the light of day.
You cite the right wing American Center for Security Policy – an anti-Muslim group that regularly gets called out for its bias and inaccurate statements. Your account of Gaddafi’s attempt to hang on to power leaves out several important details and conflates others. First, the whole thing was disputed as to whether it had even happened. The real reporting on it was done by al Jazeera, something you would have known had you actually been in the area. Further reporting was done by Asharq al-Awsat in London and al-Bayan in the UAE, all citing unnamed sources on the rebels’ interim council in Libya. Reuters did a report that said that Gaddafi was saying privately he would step down if he was paid a sum of money to leave.
Obviously, this was all rejected by the rebels, who didn’t want Gaddafi to have what they thought of as an “honourable exit” and they sure didn’t want him to leave with a large sum of the country’s money. Again, it’s disputed as to whether it in fact happened – it sounds like a trial balloon was floated and then popped. And from all these accounts, there is no indication that President Obama or his people were personally involved. This was an internal Libyan matter. Interesting that your only source is a right wing website that regularly attacks President Obama in ludicrous ways, depending on what’s upsetting Frank Gaffney that day.
As for Assad, your idea there comes from a 2013 Facebook post by Ahmad Ramadan. What makes this interesting is that Ynet reported in 2012 that the US wanted Assad to step down but Russia was saying that he did not need to do so. Your stated opinion here leaves out the Russian middleman in this entire situation, and attempts to ascribe something that nobody else is alleging that isn’t on the far right wing.
These are complicated international issues, as you would know were you actually on the ground in Libya, Syria or even Egypt. From what you’ve been presenting here, we must conclude that you are not actually in the Middle East, or are so biased by your own dislike of this president that you cannot objectively perceive the events happening around you. I strongly recommend that you take some time to actually read up on these events and try to learn a little more about them before making strident condemnations that make little sense when seen in the light of day.
Kevin Koster commented on Laura Ingraham Blames Obama For Deteriorating Race Relations
2014-08-28 12:48:00 -0400
· Flag
Funny that neither O’Reilly nor Ingraham takes into account any of the really nasty racist displays that have happened in this country since President Obama began his first campaign for the office.
Is it possible that years of the right wing hectoring at President Obama might have been noticed by everyone else? Is it possible that people have noticed how the right wing has repeatedly tried to challenge the legitimacy of President Obama – over everything from his qualifications, his abilities and even whether his birth certificate is genuine? Is it possible that people have noticed how the right wing has spent 6 years attacking and blaming President Obama for everything from the latest overseas crisis to the sun coming up later? Is it possible that cases like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown have added to racial animosity, for obvious reasons?
And is it possible that the conduct of right wing pundits at Fox News and AM radio has added to the problem in a big way? Is it possible that Rush Limbaugh happily musing about riots after the Trayvon Martin verdict might have angered people along racial lines? For that matter, is it possible that some people might find Bill O’Reilly’s repeated attempts to lecture them perhaps a bit offensive?
Is it possible that years of the right wing hectoring at President Obama might have been noticed by everyone else? Is it possible that people have noticed how the right wing has repeatedly tried to challenge the legitimacy of President Obama – over everything from his qualifications, his abilities and even whether his birth certificate is genuine? Is it possible that people have noticed how the right wing has spent 6 years attacking and blaming President Obama for everything from the latest overseas crisis to the sun coming up later? Is it possible that cases like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown have added to racial animosity, for obvious reasons?
And is it possible that the conduct of right wing pundits at Fox News and AM radio has added to the problem in a big way? Is it possible that Rush Limbaugh happily musing about riots after the Trayvon Martin verdict might have angered people along racial lines? For that matter, is it possible that some people might find Bill O’Reilly’s repeated attempts to lecture them perhaps a bit offensive?
Kevin Koster commented on Jeanine Pirro Demands Obama Resign. Is This Fox’s Latest Meme?
2014-08-28 04:32:11 -0400
· Flag
There is definitely a Fox News meme that somehow President Obama is “bored” with being President and is suddenly “disengaged”. That meme is intended to show President Obama as a lazy person who isn’t up to doing the job – and of course, they’re happy to recommend that he quit.
The fact that there is no substance to this claim doesn’t seem to have any affect at Fox News.
The fact that there is no substance to this claim doesn’t seem to have any affect at Fox News.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox ObamaCare Special Now A Republican Campaign Video
2014-08-24 13:43:38 -0400
· Flag
Frankly, I don’t see any of these “documentaries” that air on Fox News as such. They’re propaganda pieces, with cleverly positioned sound bites and talking points designed to support the GOP/Fox News narrative attacking President Obama and the Dems at every opportunity.
Ten years ago, those same “documentaries” were being used to market George W. Bush in his second campaign and to attack John Kerry every way they could.
It should be no surprise that GOP candidates, particularly ones as closely tied to Fox News as Scott Brown, are using that propaganda directly for the purpose it was intended.
Ten years ago, those same “documentaries” were being used to market George W. Bush in his second campaign and to attack John Kerry every way they could.
It should be no surprise that GOP candidates, particularly ones as closely tied to Fox News as Scott Brown, are using that propaganda directly for the purpose it was intended.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Stirewalt Uses Iraqi Airstrikes As An Excuse To Swipe At Obama
2014-08-09 15:13:42 -0400
· Flag
I’m sure that President Obama is heartened to see that Chris Stirewalt has such great advice for him on how to deliver a foreign policy address. I wonder how much of this advice he doled out to George W. Bush when he made similar announcements during his presidency. As I recall, Fox News really celebrated that “Mission Accomplished” photo op on the aircraft carrier. Did Stirewalt think this was a good idea – particularly after it was repeatedly shown that the photo op was, shall we say, premature?
Kevin Koster commented on Heather Nauert Doesn’t Want To Reveal Fox’s Ratio Of Liberal To Conservative Pundits
2014-08-09 13:49:53 -0400
· Flag
Richard, you make a good point. But I have a feeling Fox News would have been quite happy to have Ralph Nader on in 2004, when they felt he was helping divide the Dems so the GOP could conquer them. And based on his pattern of behavior, I’d say they had no problem having someone on hawking a book that could make the owner a bit more coin. Keep in mind that Murdoch was giving him publishing money specifically so that Nader could throw mud at the Dems. Once he’d served that purpose, Murdoch had no more use for him.
Joseph, you also raise a good point both about Ralph Nader and progressives. Many of them are NOT fans of President Obama. Amy Goodman has made it her career to challenge EVERYONE in office, most notably when she pinned Bill Clinton in a combative 30 minute interview on Election Day 2000. It’s one of the things I admire about her. Larry Bensky has similarly challenged every elected official in his lifetime for any conservative or right wing action they’ve inflicted. Nader is essentially a gadfly at this point, and you’re correct that he’d say a bunch of things about how timid he believes President Obama is about dealing with corporate crime. But Nader would also present a worldview that is literally 180 degrees apart from someone like Neil Cavuto. He’s probably forgotten more about government’s role in a private economy in his lifetime than Cavuto has ever read talking points about. And that’s why they wouldn’t have him on. He’s too unpredictable for them. Much safer to have a Juan Williams or a Dennis Kucinich, where you know they won’t rock the boat all that much.
Again, I’d love to see Bill O’Reilly actually have a real discussion with someone from the left – like Amy Goodman or Larry Bensky. They’d wipe the floor with him on every subject. But it’s clear this kind of thing is NOT what Fox News wants. They want to preach to the choir, not challenge anyone’s expectations. And frankly, it’s clear that Fox News and O’Reilly are simply frightened of being confronted with a real debate. If they truly were “fair and balanced”, they’d have no problem with one.
Joseph, you also raise a good point both about Ralph Nader and progressives. Many of them are NOT fans of President Obama. Amy Goodman has made it her career to challenge EVERYONE in office, most notably when she pinned Bill Clinton in a combative 30 minute interview on Election Day 2000. It’s one of the things I admire about her. Larry Bensky has similarly challenged every elected official in his lifetime for any conservative or right wing action they’ve inflicted. Nader is essentially a gadfly at this point, and you’re correct that he’d say a bunch of things about how timid he believes President Obama is about dealing with corporate crime. But Nader would also present a worldview that is literally 180 degrees apart from someone like Neil Cavuto. He’s probably forgotten more about government’s role in a private economy in his lifetime than Cavuto has ever read talking points about. And that’s why they wouldn’t have him on. He’s too unpredictable for them. Much safer to have a Juan Williams or a Dennis Kucinich, where you know they won’t rock the boat all that much.
Again, I’d love to see Bill O’Reilly actually have a real discussion with someone from the left – like Amy Goodman or Larry Bensky. They’d wipe the floor with him on every subject. But it’s clear this kind of thing is NOT what Fox News wants. They want to preach to the choir, not challenge anyone’s expectations. And frankly, it’s clear that Fox News and O’Reilly are simply frightened of being confronted with a real debate. If they truly were “fair and balanced”, they’d have no problem with one.
Kevin Koster commented on After Repeatedly Promoting Impeachment, Fox Accuses Obama Of ‘Trolling’ For Impeachment
2014-07-30 00:58:53 -0400
· Flag
Hannity was also spending some time backpedaling tonight. Although he wasn’t exactly backpedaling. Instead, he spent his time repeatedly trying to get Dana Perino to agree with him that President Obama SHOULD be impeached, whether or not it would happen at this moment. Hannity’s only objection to this was that it’s clearly helping the Dems raise a lot of funds. Come to think of it, that was also Perino’s objection.
But we should keep something rather serious in mind here. Let’s say that the GOP actually gets a majority in the Senate in November, which is something they’re clearly salivating over. We know they’ll keep a majority in the House. If they actually have majorities in both houses, and a rabid far-right group in their base that irrationally hates this President, what would stop them from pursuing impeachment proceedings? In other words, if the GOP gets their way this November, we could be looking at moves toward impeachment in early 2015.
Of course, the GOP and their promoters wouldn’t want anyone to think they’re REALLY going to do that, would they? Because that’s the sort of thing that would fire up the base of the Dems and get people to vote in a midterm election where they wouldn’t otherwise do so. So it makes sense that Roger Ailes is telling his on-air personalities to downplay that whole idea until after the election.
But we should keep something rather serious in mind here. Let’s say that the GOP actually gets a majority in the Senate in November, which is something they’re clearly salivating over. We know they’ll keep a majority in the House. If they actually have majorities in both houses, and a rabid far-right group in their base that irrationally hates this President, what would stop them from pursuing impeachment proceedings? In other words, if the GOP gets their way this November, we could be looking at moves toward impeachment in early 2015.
Of course, the GOP and their promoters wouldn’t want anyone to think they’re REALLY going to do that, would they? Because that’s the sort of thing that would fire up the base of the Dems and get people to vote in a midterm election where they wouldn’t otherwise do so. So it makes sense that Roger Ailes is telling his on-air personalities to downplay that whole idea until after the election.
Kevin Koster commented on Why You Won’t See The Latest Anti-Clinton Books On The O’Reilly Factor
2014-07-25 20:19:35 -0400
· Flag
Has Ed Klein already appeared on Hannity to promote his stuff this time, or is that just pending? Hannity had no qualms about this last tie.
Kevin Koster commented on Thoughts From News Hound Judy On Our 10th Anniversary
2014-07-13 05:49:05 -0400
· Flag
I find the value of this website to be the immediate and historical corrective it places on the desperate spin Fox News regularly applies to current affairs. The intent of Fox News by Roger Ailes is to create a narrative that reinforces the right wing beliefs of its core audience. In this narrative, there’s almost nothing a right wing official can do wrong and almost nothing a non-right wing official can do correctly.
If you were to listen to the Fox News version of history, you would conclude that Ronald Reagan led the greatest presidency the world has ever known, that George HW Bush was a beloved president, and that George W Bush was a great and strong president. If you listened to Fox News, you would conclude that the only events of the Bill Clinton presidency were Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and Newt Gingrich’s rise to power.
If you were to rely on Fox News, you would conclude that the presidency of Barack Obama was one of unmitigated disaster and failure. You would conclude that only unabashed far-right libertarian approaches would address any problems anyone might face.
Fox News is an important part of the right wing’s attempt to rewrite both current and past history in its own image.
Which is why the efforts of News Hounds are so important. Because it’s necessary to continually point out where Fox News is either leaving out important facts or inventing its own material in the process of rewriting that history. Left unchecked, the right wing would simply assert that its assumptions were in fact true historical facts. By constantly correcting these attempts, News Hounds clarifies not only the underhanded methods Fox News and GOP pundits in general are using but also what the actual historical facts are.
Because of News Hounds, in twenty years it will be possible to immediately counter and correct the attempts of the Bill O’Reillys and the Greg Gutfelds to play their assumptions as historical truth. It will be possible to publicly question these people as they try to act as elder statesmen/women, and it will be possible to reveal their biases for what they are.
This is a service that will be necessary and useful long after Fox News has faded from memory.
If you were to listen to the Fox News version of history, you would conclude that Ronald Reagan led the greatest presidency the world has ever known, that George HW Bush was a beloved president, and that George W Bush was a great and strong president. If you listened to Fox News, you would conclude that the only events of the Bill Clinton presidency were Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and Newt Gingrich’s rise to power.
If you were to rely on Fox News, you would conclude that the presidency of Barack Obama was one of unmitigated disaster and failure. You would conclude that only unabashed far-right libertarian approaches would address any problems anyone might face.
Fox News is an important part of the right wing’s attempt to rewrite both current and past history in its own image.
Which is why the efforts of News Hounds are so important. Because it’s necessary to continually point out where Fox News is either leaving out important facts or inventing its own material in the process of rewriting that history. Left unchecked, the right wing would simply assert that its assumptions were in fact true historical facts. By constantly correcting these attempts, News Hounds clarifies not only the underhanded methods Fox News and GOP pundits in general are using but also what the actual historical facts are.
Because of News Hounds, in twenty years it will be possible to immediately counter and correct the attempts of the Bill O’Reillys and the Greg Gutfelds to play their assumptions as historical truth. It will be possible to publicly question these people as they try to act as elder statesmen/women, and it will be possible to reveal their biases for what they are.
This is a service that will be necessary and useful long after Fox News has faded from memory.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Helps Extremist Guest Compare Obama To Mafia Kingpin
2014-06-23 20:13:14 -0400
· Flag
Shapiro is a smug, angry guy who got his start writing hit pieces for Breitbart. He has no credibility. The only reason Fox News gives him airtime is because he guarantees at least one outrageous statement each time he comes on.
Shapiro’s latest nonsense – that President Obama should be impeached and prosecuted – is laughable on its face. And it’s following a far right meme of trying to find equivalences in the Obama administration with the very real criminality seen in the Bush Administration. The problem for Shapiro is that there’s a difference between what happened in the Bush years and the current atmosphere of poisonous extreme partisanship being blasted at any and every action taken by President Obama and the Democrats.
Shapiro and his ilk hope that they can put their mark into the history books with all these nasty smears, so that when the official history is written, they can say that this was somehow a “corrupt” presidency. Sadly for Shapiro, too many people have been paying attention, and too many resources exist, for such myths to get much purchase. Other than at Fox News, where most of the viewers already believe that kind of material.
Shapiro’s latest nonsense – that President Obama should be impeached and prosecuted – is laughable on its face. And it’s following a far right meme of trying to find equivalences in the Obama administration with the very real criminality seen in the Bush Administration. The problem for Shapiro is that there’s a difference between what happened in the Bush years and the current atmosphere of poisonous extreme partisanship being blasted at any and every action taken by President Obama and the Democrats.
Shapiro and his ilk hope that they can put their mark into the history books with all these nasty smears, so that when the official history is written, they can say that this was somehow a “corrupt” presidency. Sadly for Shapiro, too many people have been paying attention, and too many resources exist, for such myths to get much purchase. Other than at Fox News, where most of the viewers already believe that kind of material.
Kevin Koster commented on What Fox News Didn’t Cover About Cantor’s Loss
2014-06-12 14:29:33 -0400
· Flag
Doors is correct. And the Fox News mess with Griff Jenkins was actually worse than that. Jenkins and his producer were actually caught on camera trying to “pep up” a Tea Party rally so that Jenkins could say on camera that he was in the middle of a huge, energetic protest of the grassroots against the policies of Barack Obama. When the video of the producer went viral, Fox News did the understandable thing. Instead of admitting that they’d been caught playing games, they simply attacked the producer – as if she would have just done this on her own.
The reality of Eric Cantor’s humiliating loss this week has partly to do with the GOP base moving so far to the right that it’s difficult to see how they think they’ll win a national election again. If the GOP goes through another painful primary season in 2016, one has to wonder WHO they think they could nominate as a party. Here in California, we just had the spectacle of Tim Donnelly vs Neel Kashkari, with Kashkari winning as simply a right wing GOP candidate and former Bush Administration staffer. Donnelly is a far right wing ideologue, and he had hoped the “Tea Party” would allow him a statewide berth to spout nonsense at Jerry Brown. Didn’t work out for him, and I don’t see how it will work out on a national scale in 2016.
The other part of Cantor’s fall is that he was known for really enjoying his position in the House and for his obvious thinking that he could challenge the leadership of not only John Boehner but also President Obama. Even his own constituents look like they’d had enough of his behavior. It’s telling that even Bill O’Reilly is mentioning the stat about Cantor’s dinners adding up to most of the announced entire campaign budget of Dave Brat. Of course, they’re also not mentioning that Brat was heavily supported by the right wing radio hosts in his area as well as names like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin.
It is indeed interesting that Cantor is not being interviewed by the Fox News machine. Instead, he’s clearly being treated as yesterday’s news. Adding to his humiliation was the mandate that he step down from his power position as soon as possible, so as to allow the GOP to have an existing Majority Leader through the fall that can most likely hang on to the position next January. I had expected Cantor to try to run at Boehner’s position. Instead, he’ll be looking for private sector right wing think tank positions. (This is similar to what happened when Newt Gingrich was forced to leave the House in disgrace.)
In the end, I believe history will show that it wasn’t immigration reform that ended Eric Cantor’s career. It was Eric Cantor that ended his own career.
The reality of Eric Cantor’s humiliating loss this week has partly to do with the GOP base moving so far to the right that it’s difficult to see how they think they’ll win a national election again. If the GOP goes through another painful primary season in 2016, one has to wonder WHO they think they could nominate as a party. Here in California, we just had the spectacle of Tim Donnelly vs Neel Kashkari, with Kashkari winning as simply a right wing GOP candidate and former Bush Administration staffer. Donnelly is a far right wing ideologue, and he had hoped the “Tea Party” would allow him a statewide berth to spout nonsense at Jerry Brown. Didn’t work out for him, and I don’t see how it will work out on a national scale in 2016.
The other part of Cantor’s fall is that he was known for really enjoying his position in the House and for his obvious thinking that he could challenge the leadership of not only John Boehner but also President Obama. Even his own constituents look like they’d had enough of his behavior. It’s telling that even Bill O’Reilly is mentioning the stat about Cantor’s dinners adding up to most of the announced entire campaign budget of Dave Brat. Of course, they’re also not mentioning that Brat was heavily supported by the right wing radio hosts in his area as well as names like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin.
It is indeed interesting that Cantor is not being interviewed by the Fox News machine. Instead, he’s clearly being treated as yesterday’s news. Adding to his humiliation was the mandate that he step down from his power position as soon as possible, so as to allow the GOP to have an existing Majority Leader through the fall that can most likely hang on to the position next January. I had expected Cantor to try to run at Boehner’s position. Instead, he’ll be looking for private sector right wing think tank positions. (This is similar to what happened when Newt Gingrich was forced to leave the House in disgrace.)
In the end, I believe history will show that it wasn’t immigration reform that ended Eric Cantor’s career. It was Eric Cantor that ended his own career.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Endorses Xenophobic Filmmaker's Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Obama Hysteria
2014-06-12 14:12:19 -0400
· Flag
Fox News is desperately trying to tie this kind of coverage to Eric Cantor’s humiliating loss this week. It’s obviously another manufactured “crisis”, meant to fire up the right wing base about how all these dangerous people are somehow swarming over the border from Mexico. Bill O’Reilly took it a step further last night by openly asking why they couldn’t take all the refugees that make it to Texas from wherever in Central America, put them on buses and dump them back in Mexico. When his interviewee replied “Bill, they’re not from Mexico”, O’Reilly sagely responded “So what? They’re getting in through Mexico – let Mexico deal with them!”
Kevin Koster commented on Dennis Miller: Hillary Clinton Has Been ‘Cheated On More Frequently Than A Blind Woman Playing Scrabble With Gypsies’
2014-06-12 19:10:50 -0400
· Flag
Same thing actually happened with Ron Silver after 9/11. It was as if he became a completely different person.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly’s Kangaroo Court Electronically Lynches Bergdahl And Obama
2014-06-07 05:33:32 -0400
· Flag
We don’t know that Bergdahl was a deserter. We also really don’t know that anyone died just because they were looking for him. Both of these are right wing memes designed to smear him and President Obama.
Even those soldiers don’t know the full story. They know what they heard at the time, and what their opinion was of Bergdahl before he was captured.
This is just another right wing attack on Obama disguised as phony concern.
And I note again that nobody asked these soldiers what they thought of Ronald Reagan knowingly sending 1500 TOW missiles to Iran in 1986 so he could say he’d freed a bunch of hostages just in time for the 1986 midterms.
Even those soldiers don’t know the full story. They know what they heard at the time, and what their opinion was of Bergdahl before he was captured.
This is just another right wing attack on Obama disguised as phony concern.
And I note again that nobody asked these soldiers what they thought of Ronald Reagan knowingly sending 1500 TOW missiles to Iran in 1986 so he could say he’d freed a bunch of hostages just in time for the 1986 midterms.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News 'Exclusive' - 'Secret Documents' Prove Bergdahl Is Muslim Jihadist!!!
2014-06-06 15:04:01 -0400
· Flag
As soon as I heard the name Dewey Clarridge, I knew this was a mostly unreliable report. It sounds like a mess of some eyewitness accounts mixed with a lot of hearsay and opinion. Which frankly has been the basis for almost all of Fox News’ material on this matter.
For example, we keep hearing two other nonsensical stories trumpeted as fact.
One is the notion that Bergdahl was supposedly out looking to join the Taliban, based on rumors and what are said to be the accounts of a couple of local Afghanis who encountered a wandering Caucasian man and tried to warn him. Of course, we don’t know what actually happened in that interaction or if Bergdahl understood or trusted anything he was being told.
Another is the more noxious idea that somehow Bergdahl was the cause of multiple soldiers dying in some effort to search for or rescue him. The facts actually line up with Chuck Hegel’s statement that we have no indication that anyone died specifically because they were on a mission to look for Bergdahl. Multiple soldiers were killed around the time that Bergdahl was taken captive, but there are many other potential reasons – including the facts that we had an offensive surge going on, that there were multiple other dangerous operations going on that these soldiers were involved in at the time, that this was a period where there were statistically more casualties (these numbers go up and down, going through their own lulls and surges), etc.. To blame those deaths on Bergdahl alone is to not understand what was happening on the ground at the time, and Fox News’ military analysts should know this.
There’s also the matter where they want to label Bergdahl as a “deserter” before any military hearing is conducted. As Carville pointed out last night, this is something that the military will deal with in their own way. It is not up to Hannity, O’Reilly or any of the others at Fox News to unilaterally declare this to be the case before a military court rules about it. And just because his fellow soldiers were angry with him and have let that fester during his captivity does not automatically mean that they’re right about the situation either.
Even Clarridge’s bizarre concoction includes the notes that Bergdahl repeatedly attempted to escape. Any of these accounts of him in captivity could easily be him trying multiple ways to lull his captors into dropping their guard so he could escape again.
None of this will make a difference to Fox News, since they’ve already made up their mind what the narrative here is. And I note that a non-Fox reporter who appeared on Hannity last night did repeatedly try to explain this to him without success.
For example, we keep hearing two other nonsensical stories trumpeted as fact.
One is the notion that Bergdahl was supposedly out looking to join the Taliban, based on rumors and what are said to be the accounts of a couple of local Afghanis who encountered a wandering Caucasian man and tried to warn him. Of course, we don’t know what actually happened in that interaction or if Bergdahl understood or trusted anything he was being told.
Another is the more noxious idea that somehow Bergdahl was the cause of multiple soldiers dying in some effort to search for or rescue him. The facts actually line up with Chuck Hegel’s statement that we have no indication that anyone died specifically because they were on a mission to look for Bergdahl. Multiple soldiers were killed around the time that Bergdahl was taken captive, but there are many other potential reasons – including the facts that we had an offensive surge going on, that there were multiple other dangerous operations going on that these soldiers were involved in at the time, that this was a period where there were statistically more casualties (these numbers go up and down, going through their own lulls and surges), etc.. To blame those deaths on Bergdahl alone is to not understand what was happening on the ground at the time, and Fox News’ military analysts should know this.
There’s also the matter where they want to label Bergdahl as a “deserter” before any military hearing is conducted. As Carville pointed out last night, this is something that the military will deal with in their own way. It is not up to Hannity, O’Reilly or any of the others at Fox News to unilaterally declare this to be the case before a military court rules about it. And just because his fellow soldiers were angry with him and have let that fester during his captivity does not automatically mean that they’re right about the situation either.
Even Clarridge’s bizarre concoction includes the notes that Bergdahl repeatedly attempted to escape. Any of these accounts of him in captivity could easily be him trying multiple ways to lull his captors into dropping their guard so he could escape again.
None of this will make a difference to Fox News, since they’ve already made up their mind what the narrative here is. And I note that a non-Fox reporter who appeared on Hannity last night did repeatedly try to explain this to him without success.
Kevin Koster commented on Oliver North Has No Business Attacking President Obama Over Bergdahl - And Jon Stewart Explains Why
2014-06-06 03:06:40 -0400
· Flag
Stewart is making an important point here, and it’s one that really needs to be underscored.
Republican politicians and pundits are screaming about the hostage swap for Bergdahl, saying that this somehow makes us “weak” and “unsafe”. Riiight.
Let’s take a minute and look back at the attempted “arms for hostages” trade of 1986. Keep in mind that at first it was just supposed to be a sale of TOW missiles to Israel who would in turn sell them to Iran for use against Iraq. President Reagan was warned at the time that this was illegal, and that washing the missiles through Israel wouldn’t be illegal. Reagan famously answered his cabinet by saying that he could deal with the legal matter but couldn’t deal with the notion of Ronald Reagan refusing to take an opportunity to get hostages out. To which Cap Weinberger famously answered “visiting hours are on Thursdays”. And the purpose of that arms/hostages swap was to allow Reagan to stand in the Rose Garden with multiple freed hostages, just in time for the 1986 midterms.
Who knew that Ollie North would think it a “neat idea” to take the proceeds of the TOW sales and then give the money to the Contras? Who knew that Bob McFarlane would find himself in Tehran with a bible and a cake trying to play “Let’s Make a Deal”? Who knew the whole thing would blow up when Eugene Hasenfus’ plane got shot down as a Contra resupply operation went bad?
It’s entirely possible that Bergdahl was trying to walk away from the Army. It’s entirely possible that the 5 people released from Gitmo may try to participate in further mayhem now. The former will be established in military court. The latter may never be known – and in fact may never happen since these guys have been out of commission for 13 years and may no longer be of much use to their buddies. But these are debatable matters that the right wing is desperately trying to inflame, just as they have every other thing that’s happened during the Obama presidency.
It’s not debatable whether the sale of missiles to Iran in the 1980s absolutely presented a danger to the US in every way imaginable. It’s not debatable whether Ronald Reagan knew how serious this matter was – he absolutely did. If Andrew Napolitano is concerned about President Obama somehow giving “aid and comfort to America’s enemies”, how does he deal with Reagan’s presentation of TOW missiles to a known hostile state harboring terrorists?
If George W. Bush had made a deal to release a US soldier being held captive, Fox News would be trumpeting this as a sign of Bush’s dedication to the troops and never leaving a man behind. Since it’s Obama taking this action, Fox News wants to find a way to attack it – and to attack the soldier and his family. I think Paul Begala put it best – if President Obama found a way to cure cancer, Fox News would immediately attack him for putting all those oncologists out of work.
Republican politicians and pundits are screaming about the hostage swap for Bergdahl, saying that this somehow makes us “weak” and “unsafe”. Riiight.
Let’s take a minute and look back at the attempted “arms for hostages” trade of 1986. Keep in mind that at first it was just supposed to be a sale of TOW missiles to Israel who would in turn sell them to Iran for use against Iraq. President Reagan was warned at the time that this was illegal, and that washing the missiles through Israel wouldn’t be illegal. Reagan famously answered his cabinet by saying that he could deal with the legal matter but couldn’t deal with the notion of Ronald Reagan refusing to take an opportunity to get hostages out. To which Cap Weinberger famously answered “visiting hours are on Thursdays”. And the purpose of that arms/hostages swap was to allow Reagan to stand in the Rose Garden with multiple freed hostages, just in time for the 1986 midterms.
Who knew that Ollie North would think it a “neat idea” to take the proceeds of the TOW sales and then give the money to the Contras? Who knew that Bob McFarlane would find himself in Tehran with a bible and a cake trying to play “Let’s Make a Deal”? Who knew the whole thing would blow up when Eugene Hasenfus’ plane got shot down as a Contra resupply operation went bad?
It’s entirely possible that Bergdahl was trying to walk away from the Army. It’s entirely possible that the 5 people released from Gitmo may try to participate in further mayhem now. The former will be established in military court. The latter may never be known – and in fact may never happen since these guys have been out of commission for 13 years and may no longer be of much use to their buddies. But these are debatable matters that the right wing is desperately trying to inflame, just as they have every other thing that’s happened during the Obama presidency.
It’s not debatable whether the sale of missiles to Iran in the 1980s absolutely presented a danger to the US in every way imaginable. It’s not debatable whether Ronald Reagan knew how serious this matter was – he absolutely did. If Andrew Napolitano is concerned about President Obama somehow giving “aid and comfort to America’s enemies”, how does he deal with Reagan’s presentation of TOW missiles to a known hostile state harboring terrorists?
If George W. Bush had made a deal to release a US soldier being held captive, Fox News would be trumpeting this as a sign of Bush’s dedication to the troops and never leaving a man behind. Since it’s Obama taking this action, Fox News wants to find a way to attack it – and to attack the soldier and his family. I think Paul Begala put it best – if President Obama found a way to cure cancer, Fox News would immediately attack him for putting all those oncologists out of work.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity Mocks Obama’s Fitness Routine, Slobbers Over Putin As ‘Rocky’
2014-06-06 02:52:16 -0400
· Flag
What would Hannity have said if someone had run a segment like this about George W. Bush? Would he have accused such a person of committing treason?