{"id":20496,"date":"2014-09-10T20:29:08","date_gmt":"2014-09-11T03:29:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newscorpse.com\/ncWP\/?p=20496"},"modified":"2014-09-10T20:29:08","modified_gmt":"2014-09-11T03:29:08","slug":"just-as-i-predicted-fox-news-hated-obamas-speech-surprise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newscorpse.com\/ncWP\/?p=20496","title":{"rendered":"Just As I Predicted, Fox News Hated Obama’s Speech (Surprise)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just as I predicted this morning<\/a>, Fox News, and their Republican comrades, marched in lock-step opposition to President’s Obama speech on dealing with the threat of ISIL.<\/p>\n

\"Republicans\"<\/p>\n

Immediately following the speech, Fox News spent the next couple of hours picking it apart with sometimes ludicrous logic. They began with commentary from their White House correspondent Ed Henry who asserted his opinion that Obama, by calling for decisive action to destroy ISIL, had reversed himself on his prior foreign policy which, of course, was to destroy ISIL.<\/p>\n

Megyn Kelly, who anchored the post-speech discussion, led with a series of poll results that cast the President in a negative light. She then approached her guests with blatantly leading questions, such as her wondering whether Obama’s heart was in his stated intention to take out ISIL. She also asked whether Obama’s policy to leave Iraq in 2011 caused the situation now where we have to go back “in a way that is even more dangerous.”<\/em> That question ignores certain facts, such as the date for the departure of U.S. troops which was set by George W. Bush. Also, it can hardly be characterized as “more dangerous”<\/em> when Obama’s plan will result in about 1,500 American soldiers in Iraq, as opposed to the 140,000 that were there previously. As for what caused the situation that allowed ISIL to emerge, that was solely due to Bush’s plundering of the government of Saddam Hussein (based on lies) and banishing his generals and other military personal, who went on to form ISIL.<\/p>\n

Dana Perino, Bush’s former press secretary, said that she liked Obama’s line “If you threaten the United States you will have no safe haven.”<\/em> But she said that the reason she liked it was because she had heard the same thing before from her old boss when he said “You are either with us or you are against us.”<\/em> How is that even remotely the same?<\/p>\n

However, the most idiotic commentary came from Brit Hume who said…<\/p>\n

“If the threat is sufficiently great to American interests and to America itself, then it seems that one would do whatever it takes to eliminate the threat. [Obama] didn’t quite go that far. He said he was determined to destroy ISIS, but you heard at the end when he was talking about what we do in these situations. He said “We do what it takes.” He didn’t say we do whatever it takes.<\/strong>“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Are you FRIGGIN’ kidding me? I would love to know what Hume thinks is different about those two statements. Obviously, these cretins are so consumed with finding fault that their cranial synapses are misfiring.<\/p>\n

Every guest during the remainder of Kelly’s program was an Obama opponent, including Hume, Perino, General Jack Keane, Chris Stirewalt, and Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz launched his tirade by saying that Obama’s speech was “fundamentally unserious,”<\/em> and was representative of the “failed Obama\/Clinton foreign policy.”<\/em> That was his way of injecting politics into the discussion by invoking the name of the women he hopes to challenge in 2016. Kelly’s show was followed by Sean Hannity who added John McCain and Rand Paul to the bitchfest.<\/p>\n

Not a single Democrat or pundit supportive of the President or his policy was allowed on the air during the post-speech analysis. So much for the “fair and balanced”<\/em> network. This is why the prediction I made earlier was so easy. The same prediction can be made for pretty much any event that involves Obama or any progressive politician or policy. Fox News single-mindedly follows the philosophy of Marx (Groucho, that is):<\/p>\n

Whatever it is, I’m against it.
\n