Fox News Bloodlust: Crusading For A Pro-War President

Fox News radio host, John Gibson, embarked on a disturbingly hawkish fit of war mongering that was re-published today on the Fox News community web site, and Festival of Lies, Fox Nation. Gibson displayed his unabashed affinity for mortal combat with a screed that questioned whether an anti-war president should be trusted with war.

Fox Nation

The utter stupidity of that question was the basis for a rant that would only make sense to a confirmed sociopath. Gibson’s self-righteous indignation stemmed from a few sentence fragments that he extracted from President Obama’s press conference on the mess in Syria. Gibson was terribly upset that Obama said that “I was elected to end wars not start them,” and that “I’m not itching for military action,” and that “I’ve spent the last four years trying to reduce our reliance on military action.”

Hellfire and Damnation! It’s an abominable outrage, is what it is. Imagine that, a Commander-in-Chief who expresses a reluctance to unreservedly bomb the crap out of some uppity foreigners. Gibson wonders whether the President’s reluctance will result in a use of force that is hesitant, weak, and confused – which is an outright insult to America’s soldiers. He goes on to say that…

“The President’s resolve to stop the world’s worst actors from using the world’s worst weapons requires that he is willing, even ‘itching’, to act. His stated reluctance to act, his core mission to end wars not start them, stands in the way of taking his resolve seriously.”

Gibson is hankering for a president who is “itching” to start a war. And if that isn’t ludicrous enough, he offers as an example the cowboy antics of a former president, asking whether Obama “has enough George W. Bush in him to decisively use military force.” Apparently Gibson defines decisive as a determination to thrust the country into a decade-long quagmire that produced no benefit and didn’t even bring to justice the terrorist who was supposedly the instigation of it all. Obama, on the other hand, led the nation when Osama Bin Laden was killed, along with dozens of other top Al-Qaeda operatives. It’s pretty safe to say that the ghosts of those terrorist leaders do not doubt Obama’s resolve.

But even setting aside the failures and lies of the Bush administration’s conduct of war, Gibson has presented an utterly falsified version of recent history. Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, spoke about Bush’s pre-Iraq hesitancy saying “Nobody, but nobody, is more reluctant to go to war than President Bush….He does not want to lead the nation to war.” Bush himself said that “I don’t like war. War is the last choice a president should make, not the first.”

Do these admissions that Bush was not “itching” to go to war mean that his management of the military would be weak and confused, and that he should not be trusted? We will never know Gibson’s opinion of that because he will never address it. Nor will anyone else at Fox News.

However, an accurate historical account would note that, despite Bush’s pronouncements, he was, in fact, quite anxious to attack Iraq, even before 9/11. So the argument could be made that it was his craving for war that was a foretelling of the eventual disaster to which he subjected America and the world. Sincere reluctance would more likely result in a conscientious and well thought out plan.

So Gibson not only gets the history wrong, but his misrepresentation reflects a brutal, gung-ho attitude toward launching a deadly and dangerous conflagration in the notoriously unstable Middle East. Gibson advocates for expanding the mission of any Syrian strike to include eliminating Assad, but he fails to address what would be left after the fall.

This is the sort of hungering for war that characterizes right-wing, neo-cons. Interestingly, many on the right have abandoned their traditional hawkishness because they still hate Obama more than they love killing Muslims. But Fox News has generously provided Gibson this platform to lead a cheering squad for another conflict in the region. It’s a wholly ineffective and illogical effort, but that won’t make any difference to Fox’s audience who aren’t capable of, or interested in, doing the sort of research that proves Gibson is an idiot.

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News (Not Very) Alert: The Voter Fraud Story That Fox News Ignored

For a network that has devoted hundreds of hours to baseless allegations of voter fraud in order to advance their voter suppression agenda, it’s interesting to note that a confirmed case of unlawful voting was completely ignored by Fox News.

The Union Leader of New Hampshire reported Thursday that Sebastian Bradley registered to vote in his home state of New Hampshire, as well as the state of Colorado where he was attending college. Authorities confirmed that he also voted in both locations. Sebastian is the son of Republican state Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, who was running for a seat in the U.S. congress when Sebastian decided to help his dad out with an extra vote.

Fox News apparently found nothing newsworthy in this story of Republican voter fraud, so they avoided any mention of it. First and foremost, it reflects badly on their GOP pals, given the culprit was the son of a powerful Republican politician. Fox is only interested in electoral malfeasance if it can be blamed on Democrats. Secondly, the type of fraud committed would not have been prevented by the onerous voter ID laws that Fox and the Republican Party have been advocating. The voting reforms sought by the right have been carefully concocted to burden mainly citizens who tend to vote for Democrats.

This isn’t the first time that Fox has tailored their reporting to whitewash GOP criminality. Last November Fox reported on a case of voting fraud in Nevada. Unfortunately, they managed to run the whole segment without ever mentioning the fact that the woman arrested for the crime was a registered Republican. That omission resulted in some noxious comments on Fox’s web site by their openly racist audience who simply assumed that the woman was an Obama supporter.

Fox News
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

This is further evidence of the hypocrisy and bias that is employed by Fox in their attempts to suppress the votes of legitimate citizens. They will shamelessly hype any allegation of voter misconduct if it involves a Democrat – even if there was never any actual wrongdoing (as in the ACORN debacle). And they will ignore or misreport any crimes committed by Republicans. Then they will continue to promote reforms that unfairly burden seniors, students, minorities, and the poor, in their efforts to steal elections they would otherwise lose. It’s a coordinated campaign to deny citizens of their right to vote, and it is proudly sponsored by Fox News and enacted by the Republican Party.


Fox News Media Analyst, Howard Kurtz, Absolves Fox Of Its Sins

When Howard Kurtz announced that he was leaving CNN to become a media analyst at Fox News, he said that…

“Fox wouldn’t have hired me if it wasn’t interested in my independent brand of media criticism. So, I’m very comfortable that I’ll have the freedom to criticize anyone I need to in my new role.”

First of all, Fox never hires anyone for their independence or accuracy. In fact, the further you stray from reality, the better your employment opportunities at Fox.

Howard Kurtz

Secondly, Kurtz has not been as comfortable, or as independent, as his statement suggests. Media Matters has published a study that shows that Kurtz has rarely criticized Fox when there were obvious opportunities to do so. For instance, he said nothing about the controversial firing of Fox’s head of communications, Brian Lewis. He said nothing about the much-ridiculed interview of author Reza Aslan by Christian reporter Lauren Green. These were two of the biggest media stories in the two months since Kurtz moved to Fox, but not one word was said or written about them.

Today Kurtz posted the latest issue of his Media Buzz column on Fox News. In it he purports to cover the publication of a study (pdf) from Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. It’s a pretty mealy review of the study’s fascinating insights with regard to the impact of social media on modern political campaigns.

Somehow Kurtz managed to leave out entirely a portion of the study that directly referred to Fox News. The study’s author, Peter Hamby, spoke to Mitt Romney’s senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom (of Etch-a-Sketch fame), about how the campaign took advantage of the friendly environment provided by Fox:

Fehrnstrom: We’d much rather go on a Fox program where we know the question is going to come up and Mitt can give his answer and it’s not going to a frenzy of questioning. He will be able to give his response. There may be a follow up or two, and then that’s it. The frenzy is not something that you would willingly do if you had other options. It’s like here you can either do this frenzied news conference, or we can do a more sedate studio appearance with Sean Hannity. I’d take the sedate over the frenzy any day.

It’s funny how that remarkably candid admission escaped Kurtz’s notice. If you are reviewing an academic study that specifically cites the organization for whom you work, it would be appropriate to make some mention of it. But since this casts a negative (or accurate) light on Fox, Kurtz elected to ignore it. That’s not exactly a fulfillment of his promise to be independent or to criticize anyone. In fact, Kurtz is behaving more like Fox’s PR agent, promoting his client’s interests and suppressing bad publicity. For someone who identifies himself as a media analyst, it is the death knell of credibility.

By the way, here is what Kurtz’s new colleagues at Fox had to say about him prior to his joining the team:

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook


Rush Limbaugh’s Conspiracy Theory Infects Congressional Tea Party Republicans

No matter what President Obama does there will be a cacophony of lunatics leaping up to foment a delusional conspiracy theory as an explanation. The crisis in Syria is no exception. As a starting point, Foreign Policy has helpfully compiled the 5 Craziest Conspiracy Theories About Syria’s Chemical Attacks.

Rush Limbaugh
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Rush Limbaugh’s contribution to the call for crackpot conjecture is a particularly obtuse fantasy in which President Obama is a prime suspect in the horrific gassing of Syrian civilians. But even worse, Limbaugh wonders whether poor Bashar Assad is merely a victim of an evil American regime, asking “What if Bashar is being framed?”

Limbaugh: We could be looking here at a frame job, a pretty big setup. […] It’s the rebels nerve-gassing themselves, framing Bashar, setting him up so as to engineer a response that takes Bashar out; so that the Al-Qaeda guys win, and then we end up on the side of Al-Qaeda.

Talk about your brilliant Master Plan. This scheme would let Obama join his Al-Qaeda pals in a coup that unseats Assad, the Middle East’s best friend to democracy. How did we not see this coming?

Thankfully, Republicans in congress have been paying close attention to Syria and, more importantly, to Limbaugh. Several of them have advanced his theory within the halls of congress:

Joe Wilson: Why was there no call for military response in April? Was it delayed to divert attention today from the Benghazi, IRS, NSA scandals; the failure of Obamacare enforcement; the tragedy of the White House-drafted sequestration or the upcoming debt limit vote?

Of course. Obama orchestrated the gassing of 1,500 innocent people so that he could divert attention from the screwball antics of Darrell Issa and GOP attempts to derail ObamaCare that have been going nowhere.

Jeff Duncan: I can’t discuss the possibility of the U.S. involvement in Syria’s civil war without also talking about Benghazi.

This appears to be an admission of some rare form of Tourette’s Syndrome that causes the sufferer to involuntarily blurt out Benghazi whether or not it was the topic of the conversation. Hopefully he will get the medical attention he so obviously needs.

Ted Cruz: We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.

Sen. Cruz has jumped to the front of the pack with the most offensive statement yet. He has opted to insult the members of the United States armed forces by portraying them as allies of America’s terrorist enemies.

When the level of debate over a serious matter involving the deployment of American soldiers sinks to such despicable lows, it is usually with the help of rabid extremists like Rush Limbaugh. But it is especially disturbing when elected representatives take up his baton and use it to whip up irrational hysteria based on nothing more than their warped fantasies.


Fox News Dementia: Media Is Not As Hard On Obama/Syria As They Were On Bush/Iraq

On Fox News this morning there was a segment debating the media coverage of the “Crisis in Syria” (video below). On any other network this would have been a legitimate subject for debate and a fascinating topic. But leave it to Fox News to broadcast a version of history that makes Snow White’s adventures with seven diminutive forest dwellers look like a PBS documentary.

Fox’s Martha MacCallum opened the segment with a declarative motion for which she provided no factual basis: “Critics are suggesting that the media is not nearly as hard on President Obama about the potential of going into Syria, as they were on President Bush and his war that he fought in Iraq.” The reliance on a ghostly assemblage of unnamed critics is a variant of the “some say” tactic of inventing a premise with which a lazy commentator can project a dishonest argument. But it was just the lead-in that conservative guest Monica Crowley required to say this:

“Most of the media were very skeptical about any kind of military intervention in Iraq. They raised a lot of very legitimate questions. They also pounded President Bush and his team relentlessly in the run-up, during the war and of course even still to this day over that war. […] It was just the fact that it was President Bush prosecuting this war. When you look at the difference between that coverage and the coverage of President Obama…in this run-up to a possible action in Syria, it’s like night and day.”

Fox News
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Indeed, it is like night and day. But not in any way meant by Crowley. Prior to the Iraq war, the media was in virtual unanimity with respect to supporting Bush and his fraudulent escapade. Even the factions of the media that are most often regard as liberal enclaves were banging the drums of war.

Recall that it was the New York Times that employed Judith Miller (now with Fox News) who was instrumental in providing cover for the Bush administration’s pro-war agenda. She was a trusty vessel for the dissemination of propaganda from Bush’s war hawks. She was the reporter most responsible for validating false intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities and ambitions.

If you watched MSNBC at the time, you might recall that the top rated program was hosted by talk show legend Phil Donahue. He was a prominent skeptic of the looming U.S. invasion of Iraq. Consequently, the management of MSNBC viewed him as a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.” His show was canceled in February of 2003, shortly before the invasion.

The media presentation of dissent was nearly non-existent. Despite the fact that millions of Americans took to the streets to protest the war, the media declined to cover the demonstrations. Contrast that with the way they slobbered over a few malcontents in a tiny and unpopular political sect known as the Tea Party, and a handful of their hollering rubes at town hall meetings ranting about their opposition to health care.

The characterization of the media as going soft on Obama with regard to Syria is also delusional in the extreme. As expected, Fox News has been harshly critical of Obama no matter what he does. Last week they hammered him for taking a unilateral stance and failing to consult Congress on a possible reprisal for Syria’s chemical weapons deployment. This week they are bashing him for wasting time with congressional consultations and weakening the presidency by seeking them. What’s more, Obama has come in for criticism by pundits on the left like Rachel Maddow and Thom Hartmann and even Jon Stewart.

The right-wing directive to refrain from criticizing a president during international hostilities is apparently only in effect when a Republican is in the White House. Critics of Bush were often called traitors when they expressed their opposition to his policies. But outraged Tea-publicans are now encouraged to disparage the Commander-in-Chief in the most vile terms. Today it is the President who is called a traitor by right-wing protesters who fancy themselves as patriots.

In light of these facts, it is incomprehensible how Crowley can take to the Fox News channel and offer a twisted version of history wherein Obama is getting a pass and Bush suffered outrageous slings and arrows. And what is even more disturbing is that so many Fox News viewers are too dimwitted to separate the Fox fallacy from reality.


Fairly Unbalanced: Fox News Politburo Purges Democrats At Senate Hearing On Syria

When President Obama announced that he would seek the opinion of Congress with regard to a military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the hypocrisy of the right immediately rose to the surface of the debate. Many of the same people who had previously condemned the President for not seeking congressional approval, shifted to criticizing him for doing so.

Fox News
For more Fox [distortions of the] News read
Fox Nation vs. Reality.

However, nothing illustrates the transparent intention to oppose Obama regardless of what he does as the coverage of the Senate hearings on Syria that commenced today.

Fox News was generous enough to broadcast the opening statements of Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, as well as those of the committee chairman Robert Menendez and ranking GOP member Bob Corker. From there on, however, their coverage had a much more partisan hue.

At about 4:00 pm (ET), Fox cut away from the hearings for an interview with former congressman Ron Paul. Fox then methodically skipped questioning from Democratic senators as if they were mere interruptions. Then, when it was Tea Party darling Marco Rubio’s turn, Fox went back to the live broadcast. But their return was just for Rubio’s opening statement and initial question. They immediately cut away again when Sec. Kerry began his answer. Fox then skipped the next Democratic senator completely, but aired the accusatory inquiries of GOP Sen. Ron Johnson. Guess what happened when Johnson finished his question and the cameras turned to the witness table – live coverage stops. This pattern repeated itself again with Democratic Sen. Coons getting cut, followed by John McCain getting covered in full.

At one point during the coverage, while Fox was airing a series of right-wing analysts bashing Obama, Neil Cavuto promised that as soon as Rand Paul’s turn came around, he would return to the live hearing. It was an explicit admission that Fox had no intention of airing any other part of the hearing that might include Democrats, but would faithfully broadcast their pal Rand Paul. And since Cavuto’s program ended before Paul’s time came, the promise was repeated by Dana Perino in the next Fox program. Lo and behold, Fox refrained from airing anything else from the hearing until Paul, then left the hearing again when Democrat Tim Kaine began his question time.

This couldn’t have been a more blatant demonstration of bias. Democratic senators were virtually ignored. After Republican questions were aired, the answers by the Democratic representatives of the administration’s cabinet were likewise ignored. This was clearly an editorial decision, and it is further evidence that Fox cannot be taken seriously as a news network. They are an openly partisan propaganda outfit for the benefit of the Republican Party. Their mission is to advance a conservative agenda, and that means preventing their already ignorant audience from being exposed to opinions that differ from those of the right-wing commentariat.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Stupid Burns: Fox News SHOCKED That State Health Care Programs Aren’t Called “ObamaCare”

Ever since Barack Obama was elected President, Fox News has endeavored to sabotage his administration with insults and brazenly dishonest characterizations of his policies. They have referred to him as lazy, ignorant, and ineffectual, while simultaneously portraying him as a persistent, evil, genius, working hard and successfully at destroying the country.

Setting aside the obvious paradox in those contrasting descriptions, one of Fox’s proudest achievements was the labeling of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as “ObamaCare.” It was an attempt to hang the legislation that was a product of a fractured congress around the President’s neck, and was clearly meant derogatorily. The President later adopted the name as an affirmation that he does indeed care about Americans having access to health care. However, now Fox is pretending that “ObamaCare” is some sort of official title, and that avoidance of it is tantamount to a snub.

Fox News
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The absurdity of this criticism is mind-boggling on multiple levels. First of all, the name “ObamaCare” was the creation of the President’s foes and is in no way official. It would be like expecting GOP-controlled states to call their photo-ID laws, the Voter Suppression Act (although that, at least, would be accurate).

Secondly, the fact that states are creating names like MNsure, Vermont Health Connect, California Covered, etc., is evidence that refutes one of the biggest Tea-publican myths about the ACA – that it is a big-government, federally controlled program. In fact, the ACA is just an insurance reform that permits states to create their own system of exchanges that offer health coverage to people who cannot get it from their employer or other private provider.

The ACA’s exchanges are entirely implemented at the state level, which is something that conservatives ought to be celebrating. Instead, they invent lies about Washington intruding on the jurisdiction of the states. But this complaint about how the states name their programs is an ironic example of the right inadvertently admitting their own lies. The states obviously have the right to control their own affairs, and if they choose not to use a name that was invented by anti-health care activists, it is within their power to do so.

It is notable that this epically idiotic article is the product of Fox News, not its lie-riddled affiliate Fox Nation (whose dishonesty is documented in Fox Nation vs. Reality). And the embarrassment of an allegedly serious news operation spewing such nonsense is even more pronounced when Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal is cited as the source for the story. The Journal included a couple of telling examples of insurance consumers. One was a rather moronic Tea-publican who was opposed to his own self-interests:

“The all-Minnesota marketing of the insurance plan didn’t persuade Andrew De Jong, a 25-year-old volunteer in the Minnesota Republican Party’s state-fair booth who said he currently works at a ‘bunch’ of part-time jobs that don’t offer him insurance. He said he has no plans to look for coverage on MNsure because he opposes Obamacare.”

What a brainiac. He would reject even exploring potentially valuable benefits because of his anti-Obama indoctrination. And then there was the liberal who made quite a bit more sense based on actual facts:

“Mr. Schauer, a part-time student, also works part-time as a park-and-water patrolman at the Dakota County Sheriff’s office, where he doesn’t qualify for employer-based health insurance. He said he broke his arm last winter in a snowboarding accident and was motivated to keep coverage. The MNsure calculator estimated he would pay about $65 a month for coverage with tax credits. ‘I figured it would be higher,’ he said.”

The summations by these two prospective health insurance consumers pretty much says it all. Conservatives blindly reject things they’ve been told to reject without any thoughtful consideration. Liberals weigh the facts and arrive at conclusions that best meet their needs.

As for Fox News, they just continue to make up phony issues and disseminate them to their undiscerning audience. Their well established goal is to make ObamaCare fail by discouraging people from enrolling in the exchanges, even if that means they are left unable to seek care if they need it, or driving them into bankruptcy because of their lack of coverage. This was explicitly stated by a Republican quoted in the Wall Street Journal article who said flatly that “We want to keep people out of the exchanges so they will fail.”

Notice that they don’t want to keep people out of the exchanges because they don’t work. They want to keep people out so that the program fails, which, of course, would mean that Americans who choose to participate would be left without options to seek necessary, perhaps life-saving, medical attention. That’s what they must mean by “compassionate conservatism.”


Rush Limbaugh’s Spiritual Guidance On Climate Change Refuted By 200 Evangelical Scientists

Last month Rush Limbaugh put on his pastor’s bonnet and proceeded to hand out religious advice to his audience of glassy-eyed dittoheads.

Limbaugh: In my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can’t create.

Rush Limbaugh

How Limbaugh arrives at this spurious conclusion is never clearly explained. Obviously humans control many things that they can’t create. We split atoms, we clear-cut forests, we drive animal species into extinction, we destroy cancer cells, we defy gravity. What would make Limbaugh think that our excessive disbursement of pollutants wouldn’t have an effect on the atmosphere?

Limbaugh also makes a logical leap that a belief in God, which has a faith, rather than intellectual basis, can be a foundation for intellectually refuting science. It’s like saying that if you believe in Santa Claus, then intellectually you can’t believe in Hasbro. But it’s not as if Limbaugh’s ecumenical guidance has ever been held in high esteem. And that is still the case today as a coalition of 200 evangelical scientists smack down Limbaugh’s absurd biblical analysis, saying that they “were appalled at the ignorance behind Rush Limbaugh’s statement but we weren’t surprised.”

“For us, global warming is not a matter of belief – it is about applying our understanding of science to the climate of this planet. The author of Hebrews tells us, ‘faith is … the evidence of things not seen.’ We believe in God through faith. Science, on the other hand, is the evidence of our eyes. We can measure the extent to which natural levels of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere regulate and maintain our climate. We can track how excess heat-trapping gases, beyond what would naturally occur, are being added to the atmosphere every day by human activities. We can calculate how this artificially warms the Earth’s surface, increasing risks of extreme heat, rain, and drought. We can see how these impacts often fall disproportionately on those with the least resources to adapt, the very people we are told to care for by our faith.

“While our expertise allows us to understand the complexity of a changing climate and its causes, it is our faith that compels us to speak out and motivates us to push forward despite the opposition from voices like Rush Limbaugh and gridlock in Washington.”

In July these observant scientists sent a letter to Congress urging them to reduce carbon pollution and adopt policies consistent with God’s instructions to care for his creation. They cite scripture and verse attesting to the fact that Christians have a responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth.

This is something that Limbaugh apparently cannot comprehend in his pedestrian, political, and self-serving exploitation of faith. And it is evidence that anyone who takes Limbaugh’s spiritual advice is as foolish as anyone who takes his political advice. All of it is crafted without facts or reason, specifically for an audience that Limbaugh himself characterizes as so incapable of cogent thinking that they can only repeat his ignorant nit-witticisms.


Not So Breitbart: Obama Golfs While Rome Seeks Congressional Approval

Several news agencies reported the fact that, after announcing his decision to have Congress weigh in on the matter of a response to Syria’s chemical weapons attack, President Obama dashed off to get in a few holes of golf. It wasn’t a particularly newsworthy observation considering that the key disclosure in the announcement was that nothing substantive would be happening until Congress returned from vacation next week (which, by the way, none of these news vultures seemed to think was frivolous on the part of congress). It was perhaps a mildly interesting factlet, but hardly the stuff of national emergencies.

Nevertheless, that is precisely how Breitbart News framed the story with a headline blaring “Obama Hits Golf Course After Announcing National Emergency.”

Breitbart Obama Golf
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The numbskull dishonesty of the article begins with the fact that Obama did not announce a national emergency. But it gets worse. BreitBrat Mike Flynn, in a moment of lucid self-awareness, says that “I’m not an expert in foreign policy.” That confession is made more obvious when he continues with his suggestions for what the President might have done instead of golfing.

Flynn: There are probably some Congressional leaders who ought to be briefed. There are likely one or two world leaders who would appreciate a chat about the US plans. No doubt generals in the military would have a thought or two about how things should proceed.

Flynn must have ignored the President’s speech entirely and switched from Honey Boo Boo to Fox News just as the network’s scandalous details about Obama’s golf outing were exposed. Had he listened to the speech he would have known that Obama had spoken to all of the congressional leadership prior to making this announcement. Likewise, he spoke explicitly about his discussions with both the civilian and military national security chiefs before venturing out to the Rose Garden to brief the press and the American people.

Obviously the BreitBrats are so consumed with disparaging Obama that they can’t be bothered with actually paying attention to what he says. And if they were so concerned about presidential golf trips, why didn’t they ever complain about this:

In that video, George W. Bush did not scurry off to a tee time after making remarks about looming terror threats. No, he made them directly from the golf course, and then immediately trivialized the serious nature of his words by comically drawing attention to his alleged athletic prowess.

On the other hand, Obama conducted himself with the dignity that his office implies and the gravity that the circumstances demand. Then he went about his personal business which he is entitled to do. Maybe Flynn should spend more time researching his stories than rerunning videos of Mylie Cyrus twerking.


Fox News/GOP On Syria, Obama: Whatever It Is, We’re Against It

This morning President Obama stepped up to a podium in the White House Rose Garden and announced that he would be doing the responsible thing with regard to Syria’s use of chemical weapons:

“While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

Obama has been harshly criticized by members of both parties for his apparent intention to move forward with a strike on Syria without first getting a specific authorization from Congress. This morning’s announcement came as a surprise to many in the media who had presumed that the President had made up his mind to act unilaterally. Now that he has put the ball in Congress’s court, the same critics on the right are criticizing him for doing precisely what they advised him to do. Immediately following Obama’s address, Fox News turned to their panel of pundits for analysis, and they reacted in a predictably negative fashion, saying the President was weak and reluctant and indecisive. All because he took their advice, and that of many others including, according to the polls, the American people.

Steve Hayes: One can certainly argue the case, and there are plenty of people who believe, both in congress and out, that he should get congressional authorization, but there’s a long history…where presidents have taken it upon themselves as Commander-in-Chief…to take that action, that authority, upon himself and go ahead. […] It’s a good political decision. I’m not so sure it’s a good decision for the Commander-in-Chief.

Charles Krauthammer: This should be done in three days. It isn’t as if people aren’t aware of the arguments. He should go out there, bring them in, and have it done by the end of the week, and the world, I think, will have a little bit higher respect.

James Rosen: Presidents, of course, like to portray themselves as the shapers of history, as shaping the forces around them. In this case, what President Obama has effectively done, and this requires no resort to opinion here – this is a matter of objective fact – is he has placed himself now in the role of witness to power, the power he has now invested in congress.

All of these critics, who essentially agree with Obama’s decision to seek the opinion of congress, still manage to fault him for doing so. So even though he is doing the right thing, he is still wrong because other presidents didn’t bother to ask for congressional approval; or because it will take too long; or because he is abdicating power to another equal branch of government. It’s just as I predicted yesterday when I wrote that conservatives will always find a reason to bash whatever this President does:

They have instituted their typical strategy of being against anything and everything that might emerge from the White House. One faction of the GOP says that if Obama does not strike Syria, then he is weak. Simultaneously, another faction warns that such an attack would be an unconstitutional abuse of power. One side says he must strike because he drew a “red line” last year over chemical weapons. The other side says attacking for that reason would be an act of vanity. One side says he must wait for allies and the United Nations to sanction any attack. The other side says that doing so would be an abdication of our sovereignty.

There is one thing missing from every right-wing criticism: what they would do. I have yet to hear what Ted Cruz’s plan is; or John Boehner’s; or Don Rumsfeld’s; or Rush Limbaugh’s. These people have nothing but complaints and no ideas or solutions. It’s pretty much the same way they deal with health care, immigration reform, the economy, etc. They bitch relentlessly and offer nothing constructive.

They have proven this repeatedly in the past, and today just confirms their commitment to a kneejerk hostility toward Obama. These right-wing pundits could easily be replaced by an automated outrage machine. Just play a statement from Obama, push a button, and get a pre-chewed Tea-publican rant about how awful whatever he said was. We already know what Mitch McConnell thinks; or Donald Trump; or even Sarah Palin who said yesterday, “Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war.” She also said that her solution is to just “let Allah sort it out.” So what do you think she will say now that Obama is seeking congressional approval? My guess is that she will viciously attack him for it. After all, she also said this yesterday:

Sarah Palin
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook