Fox News Chief Roger Ailes Lectures West Point Cadets About ‘The Military And The Media’
Fox News Chief Roger Ailes Lectures West Point Cadets About ‘The Military And The Media’
Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes was the guest teacher for two classes today at the United States Military Academy at West Point, lecturing cadets on “the overall historical relationship between the military and the media.” Ailes, who never served in the military, will also deliver a lecture there this evening on “a variety of media topics.”
As the boss at Fox News, Ailes has had no qualms about crossing the line from journalist to armchair general. Here are some of the lessons Ailes might be expected to impart to the military:
Lesson 1: The Public Won’t Support You, Unless You Do Things “Harshly”: Soon after 9/11, according to Bob Woodward, Ailes sent a “back-channel message” to President Bush, suggesting that he needed to take “the harshest measures possible” in retaliation for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He added that “support” for war “would dissipate if the public did not see Bush acting harshly.”
Lesson 2: The Public Does Not Need To Know The Full Reasons For Going To War: In 2003, a University of Maryland study found that “those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions” about basic facts related to the war. 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of three lies: the discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Lesson 3: When Things Go Bad, The Public Doesn’t Need To Know: “Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months” of 2007, “and considerably less than CNN.” Fox News “were obviously cheerleaders for the war,” said CNN U.S. President Jon Klein. “When the war went badly they had to dial back coverage because it didn’t fit their preconceived story lines.”
Most importantly, Ailes’ military philosophy holds that if someone “can’t face Fox’s” biased journalism, then they “can’t face al Qaeda.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ailes: 1., torture, 2., lie, 3., lie some more.
FOX SNOOZ encapsulated.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pmWhat the heck does this great fat hog have to say that’s of any use to military officers? He’s a political hack, not a military expert.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:33 pmNice photo. You rarely see wattles anymore.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:34 pmA king among scum. What’s next, parenting tips from Brittany?
November 19th, 2007 at 8:39 pmNice photo. You rarely see wattles anymore.
Comment by penalcolony — November 19, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
it’s a Thanksgiving portrait of a big, fat turkey.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:40 pm> Most importantly, Ailes’ military philosophy holds that if someone “can’t face Fox’s†biased journalism, then they “can’t face al Qaeda.â€
What nonsense. Put an apple in this pompous fat f*uck asshat and say Happy Thanksgiving !
November 19th, 2007 at 8:43 pmOff topic somewhat but check out Huffington post at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ arianna-huffington/ a-huffpost-project-poste_b_72899.html
There are three small slogan “posters†there that sum up the pathetic administration that we’ve had to endure. Download the “poster†of your choice and iron it on a T-Shirt. My wife the good conservative had some iron-on thingys that she used recently for something unassociated with politics and I borrowed one.
Friggin perfect transfer!
Be sure to reverse the image, a mirror image printed from a simple ink jet and presto a fine T-Shirt that expresses our collective outrage.
At the risk of sullying my inbox write me if you need directions, rocks911@gmail.com
November 19th, 2007 at 8:57 pmTranslation: the public has no need to know in a plutocracy.
However, since this is a democracy… a little sunshine and transparency on the the part of Government is every citizen’s right under the constitution… because WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT…
November 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pmIt is good to see the people that were behind the scenes for so long coming to the front and stating “their case” as it were. Ailes is another one who’s idiocy (insanity?) is front and center. Like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer among others, he is a major power broker who has tremendous influence. To see and here these crazies preaching in the light of day really draws the line in the sand between them and the rest of us.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:13 pmI believe their words, and the insanity they hold, should be repeated endlessly so as many people hear them as possible. Against the light of day, they will melt like the “Wicked Witch of the West.”
no lectures about “that regan woman”?
November 19th, 2007 at 9:16 pmroger ailes and fixed nooz….there had to be a few cadets there that know him for what he is.he’s just one of many lunatics with too much money,and not enough sense.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:40 pmRoger Ailes is a SICK chicken hawk f&*k.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:43 pmAiles: ” And in our Fox network terminology, war means peace,rememebr that”.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pmI bet you he could solve the wind energy problem with just a good old snap of his head and those cheek bags will ripple out about a gazillion watts of wind power.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:46 pmThe military is bringing in Ailes to talk to the cadets probably because they realize that they have to do something to counteract the fact that the desertion rates for the army are up an amazing 80 per cent since 2003. If only the Veterans for Peace and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War could smuggle into West Point copies of Sir! No Sir!, which focused on the GI resistance that took place during the Vietnam War, to alert these cadets that they do not have to automatically obey the orders that they are given, especially if those orders involve participating in an illegal and immoral war. Soldiers-resist!
November 19th, 2007 at 9:47 pmWe can laugh at him; we can scoff at him; we can denounce him, but I think most cadets are smart enough to know Ailes for what he is – there will surely be some who will take his words to heart, and for that, Ailes should be horsewhipped for treason and charged with crimes against the Constitution.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:52 pmRudy courts the NASCAR vote!
November 19th, 2007 at 9:59 pm.
What an ugly man. All of them are are ugly men. When will American women start saying this? Giuliani is also an ugly man. They are cronies.
Think for yourselves and get over the daddy thing.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pmAiles (the FauxSnooze one) is just a cog in the Murdoch machine. Don’t get to mad with him; he’s just doing bosses orders…. of course, his boss is a RW nutjob, so…..
Cheers,
November 19th, 2007 at 10:34 pmAgain, another slobbering Republican who never served his country on the battlefield, but wants to see more blood shed over profits. What a disgusting human being. The military is being dismantled by his friends, and he lectures the bloodshedders about what their duties are? Please, let them have some their target practice on this pig before he helps get them killed.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pmWhat an ugly man.
Comment by questioneverything — November 19, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
ugly? yes. but remember…
he’s only 36 years old!
November 19th, 2007 at 10:59 pmYou could store at least a half-dozen walnuts in each of his jowels.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:09 pmThis is what George Bush swore to in January, 2001 and again in January, 2005:
The President’s Oath of Office
Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution gives the President’s Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
This is the Oath that these cadets will swear to when they receive their military commissions:
The Federal Oath of Office for the Vice President, Senators, Representatives, Cabinet Officers, Civil Service and the Military.
I, (______), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office which I am about to enter. So help me God.
May be some of them will actually think about what they and Bush are doing…
November 19th, 2007 at 11:14 pmWhat an ugly man. All of them are are ugly men. When will American women start saying this? Giuliani is also an ugly man. They are cronies.
Think for yourselves and get over the daddy thing.
Comment by questioneverything — November 19, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
This Bulldog (no offense to bulldogs-I find them cute-as long as they are dogs) makes J. Edgar Hoover look handsome. Repuklicans don’t even have cute butts, which can win elections if promoted properly. Mutt Romney is the only one with a Presidential “Jaw”. Ghouliani reminds me of stinky Port Salut or Provolone cheese that has been sitting in the sun too long. McCain’s two brain hemispheres no longer communicate with each other. Ron Paul….well, I sort of like him, but that privatization thing………..Uhhhhh??? Fred Thompson should have cast as Herman Munster or maybe Lurch.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:30 pmAiles is probably telling them how important, and patriotic, it is for him to spread misinformation in a free country by giving voice to insanity.
Nixon thought television was a gimmick. Ailes proves it.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:52 pmAiles looks like the jowly guy Joe Buck beat up in “Midnight Cowboy”.
The fact that he has access to the president and tells him what to do is truly scary. Fox News is actually making policy for the president. It has been said that Bush takes the advice of the last person who talks to him. As if that makes any sense. Much of the time it was Rove who was the last guy to talk.
Please tell me when
we’ll be rid of these men
Somehow, I’m afraid it won’t be 1/20/09
November 20th, 2007 at 12:34 amOn Tuesday, November 20th, President Bush will reveal the identity of the National Thanksgiving Turkey, which in keeping with the annual White House tradition, will receive a presidential pardon. But according to well placed White House sources, the jailbird this year was selected months ago and is known internally by his code-name “Scooter.”
For the details, see:
November 20th, 2007 at 12:36 am“Thanksgiving Turkey ‘Scooter’ Receives Bush Pardon.”
“1984″
November 20th, 2007 at 12:53 am“… yet he was a strident war proponent when it came to Operation Desert Fox and Clinton’s war in Kosovo.”
Comment by Manslagt — November 20, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Look out, folks!
This person is a paid poster. No ordinary individual who just wants spout off would come up w/ the obscure references he is. He’s just here to screw w/ yer heads, period.
PHONY ALERT!!!! PHONY ALERT!!!! PHONY ALERT!!!!
November 20th, 2007 at 1:30 amAs for the little closet case republican, how long have you been in the closet son?
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 20, 2007 @ 1:37 am
That was my immediate take too.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:39 amWhy in the name of American values is West Point (an institution paid for by the TAXPAYERS) allowing Roger Ailes to “lecture” at all? Where’s the “fair and balanced” treatment here? Will Michael Moore be given equal time to speak at West Point?
November 20th, 2007 at 1:48 amThe US Senate and US House of Representatives should take steps to prevent such blatant ideological imbalance from being perpetrated at ANY and ALL of the military academies.
If Harvard or Yale want to do this, that’s perfectly fine–they’re PRIVATE institutions. (By the way, wasn’t there some kind of right-wing indignation when Columbia University decided to allow a certain Iranian leader to speak? Ailes is every bit as reprehensible as Ahmadinejad.)
I am appalled that my alma mater would have such a scoundrel “lecturing” the cadets. Hopefully, some instructors or other lecturers have offset the damage this chickenhawk may have done. It is impossible for me to believe that the Academy could not have done better. What of value could he have possibly added to anyone’s education?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:06 amUnder GHWB, about 250,000 people were killed in the ethnic cleansing in the ex-Yugoslavia. Clinton’s action stopped the killing WITHOUT LOSING A SINGLE AMERICAN LIFE. Neocons really hate that!
1,100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since our illegal invasion and occupation. About 3,872 US troops have died. It will cost US taxpayers over $2 TRILLION. According to every study, it has made us LESS secure.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:07 amFor Manslagt: A chickenhawk is someone who is a proponent for a war he is eligible to fight in but chooses to send someone else in his place, see Geo. W. Bush, et al.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:10 amW couldn’t even do his NG duty once they began including a drug test as part of the flight physical. At that exact point, he stopped.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:16 amBrilliant …….Fudgie the Whale speaking at West Point.
What next , Chimpy administration ?
Survival techniques by Karl Rove and Jeff Gannon ?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:18 amFor Manslagt and Scheuer: You may not think Abe Lincoln was very military but his peers did. They made him the head of their unit in Illinois in the Indian Wars, I believe. He was disappointed it all ended before he saw combat and was discharged.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:18 amLincoln as a congressman was the strongest opponent of the war with Mexico. He said it was US aggression. He was right. It was.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:20 amAiles: 1., torture, 2., lie, 3., lie some more.
FOX SNOOZ encapsulated.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
You forgot one: 4. Generate ratings and advertising dollars with the blood of service people and innocent Iraqis.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:34 amwait?…did he really compare fox news to al qaeduh?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:35 amKieth?.. the war with mexico created california? do you not like california? Do you think we should give it to Mexico? or the aztec descendants?
seriously?.. Do you want San Francisco to look more like Tijuana? Lose all that we worked for for 150 years because the war with mexico (which was inevitable because we were both drawing borders and claiming land at the same time)…
Lincoln thought it bad to go to war with Mexico but declaring martial law on fellow Americans and causing the deaths of 600,000 Americans just to take the souths wealth is just?… neo liberals suck. Liberals still rock.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:41 amThe one thing that our military should learn is that it is not OK to point weapons at or arrest American citizens – even if ordered by the President.
I fear that that our current administration has put us on a path that will result in just such a bizarre scenario. Impeach today before it is too late.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:17 amAll the more reason to shut FOX down.
It is State Sponsored TV.
Chavez.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:25 am>Your ignoring the facts.
definitions made up by websites aren’t “facts” you inbred loon…
November 20th, 2007 at 7:47 amKosovo didnt turn into a neverending money/deathpit that made us a worldwide parriah and crippled our military. so, even if clinton + co were chickenhawks, there were at least more comptetent about it than your heroes. and “he may not have been able to serve because he might be gay”? what kind of lame speculation is that? heck… if he wanted to serve that bad, he could just lie, like they did about the WMD that they knew where to find.. a chickenhawk, generally speaking, is pretty much someone who thinks things are important enough for other peopel to sacrifice thier lives, but for thier cronies to not even suffer so much as a tax increase to pay for the blood we are shedding..
> wait?…did he really compare fox news to al qaeduh?
yep.. you really can’t make this stuff up..the similarities are really quite striking…both fox and al-queda think taxes are too high here in america, and advocate a low, flat tax. both support and pander to religuious fundamentalism and xenophobia. both advocate solving thier disagreements with others through the use of force. two sides of the same coin..
November 20th, 2007 at 7:49 amLesson 2: The Public Does Not Need To Know The Full Reasons For Going To War
Yep, one of the most effective propaganda techniques is the selective
November 20th, 2007 at 8:32 amuse of information.
Leaving out information is almost as effective as misinformation.
yep.. you really can’t make this stuff up..the similarities are really quite striking…both fox and al-queda think taxes are too high here in america, and advocate a low, flat tax. both support and pander to religuious fundamentalism and xenophobia. both advocate solving thier disagreements with others through the use of force. two sides of the same coin..
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 20, 2007 @ 7:49 am
Another similarity – Fox and al-Qa’ida both complain that the mainstream media ignore their message. Fox bloviators constantly complain that the “good news” from Iraq gets glossed over, and al-Qa’ida bloviators complain that al-Jazeera edits out the “good news” in bin Laden’s announcements.
You’d think they were reading from the same Propaganda 101 textbook or something.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:44 amAll the more reason to shut FOX down. It is State Sponsored TV. Chavez.
Comment by Guido OBGYN Lover — November 20, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Did you just compare President Hugo Chavez to Roger Ailes?
You owe Hugo an apology! {:-)
btw: Those who oppose President Chavez can still operate TV networks on cable TV (and they do), they just can’t use the pulic airwaves anymore. We could do the same thing to the FAUX network, in this country, but FAUX NOISE could still spew forth on cable TV.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:53 amYou know, that guy looks kind of familiar…
http://www.southafrica.to/history/Apartheid/PW_Botha/PW_Botha.htm
November 20th, 2007 at 8:56 amTroll comment – November 20, 2007 @ 8:48 am – TROLL DUNG
If you want to see what happens when progressives respond to trolls on the Think Progress threads, go to http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/19/oreilly-redacted-ad/#comments (See: Comment by hterrya — November 20, 2007 @ 5:00 am – it is currently listed as Comment #160) for a HORRIBLE example! The TP Moderator has been kind enough to let my post stand, so you can see for yourself what a destructive mess trolls, and our response to trolls, make.
So, if you agree that it is a shame to let this happen to Think Progress threads, TP has given us the tools to use. When a troll has been identified (as I just did in my first line to this post), do not respond to the troll; report it for abuse. It is the only way to have a decent exchange of ideas among progressives on the topics that Think Progress has been kind enough to provide for us.
Thank you.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:58 amRoger Ailes is well-qualified to lecture at West Point. An enlistee in the Army in 1963, Ailes volunteered for three full tours in Vietnam, and his career culminated in being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1975, after rescuing a squad of trapped American soldiers at Khe Sanh. He was wounded in battle three times, and as a result of his experiences has been a vocal crusader on veteran’s health issues, and has called for reforming the VA to improve medical care. While an unabashed Republican, Ailes has consistently opposed the smearing of military vets running for office on the Democratic side of the ledger, and forcefully criticized both the smearing of John McCain by George Bush’s South Carolina campaign in 2000 and the swift boating of John Kerry by Karl Rove in 2004. Ailes has turned FoxNews into the dominant cable news organization but his childhood idolization of Dwight Eisenhower’s approach to public affairs has led him to a balanced and nuanced approach to the news that the other cable news organizations lack…
oh wait, that was in the alternate universe three spots over.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:25 amcold_hard_left
And you only have an Eastern sea board because Jimmy Carter basically managed to avert America’s very own Chernoble with the 3-Mile Island incident.
The rightwing needs to really remember what things were like under Ronald Reagan.
His first term saw an economic recession which forced him to raise taxes in his second term, his policies saw America selling arms to Iran, shortly after his campaign made mincemeat of Carter based on the Iranian hostage crisis.
Apartheid had no greater friends in world politics then Ronald Reagan, and it was only through Congress overriding his veto that America introduced sanctions against SA.
Even though the price of oil dropped dramatically under Reagan, basically because OPEC found it more profitable to lower its prices, the US deficit soared to highs previously associated with World War Two. Despite better trading conditions, America’s debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and America went from being the world’s biggest creditor, to the world’s biggest debtor nation.
Interest rates weren’t all that much better under Reagan, and inflationary concerns dogged his administration pretty much as they did under Carter.
Unemployment under Reagan hit 9.7% in 1982 and then dropped throughout his presidency, mainly because Reagan changed the way the US figures out its employment statistics to the current method.
1987 is a famous year in economic history – for a major stock market crash. The savings and loans crisis, echoed by the current administration with your sub-prime crisis, was also under Reagan’s two terms.
Reagan’s greatest victory, the end of the USSR, was mainly due to an error made by the governor of East Germany. In other words, dumb luck and good timing.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:35 amAiles philosophy in a nutshell ~
Baffle em with your bullshit.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:52 amIf the answer is “yes,†than the liberal, main stream media is here to help make it happen.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 20, 2007 @ 9:11 am
The liberal mainstream media is here? Hooray! Did it bring its other fictional friends, like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and Islamofascism?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:53 amManslagt
Remind me, did he act as if his support for Clinton’s war made him more of a man?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:58 amAiles lecturing about the military is like Gonzo lecturing about the law. Utter BS.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:00 ammanslagt; Clinton was NOT prowar during Vietnam. Dipsh!t!!
November 20th, 2007 at 10:01 ammanslagt, here is the definition of “Chickenhawk” taken by Think Progress. Please amend your statements accordingly.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/27/michael-turner/#comment-3967549
UPDATE: Commenter Midwest Product fine-tunes the definition of “chickenhawkâ€: “A chickenhawk is someone who ascribes the bravery of soldiers in wartime to themselves because they take a pro-war position.â€
November 20th, 2007 at 10:14 amOh, and manslagt? Next time you lie about someone’s definitions of something, please don’t do it on a site which offers a search function.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:20 ammanslagt; are you in favor of the Iraq war/ Have you/are you willing to enlist to fight in it? If you are pro-war, but not willing to enlist, by definition, you are a CHICKENHAWK.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:21 amBTW- just WTF is a manslagt?
No, on second thought, I don’t wanna go there.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:24 amUncle Ho
No, if you are pro war, unwilling to enlist, but still somehow think that your pro-war status makes you more courageous then those who are anti-war, you are by definition a chickenhawk.
Being pro-war but unwilling to enlist just makes you kind of a hypocrit.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:24 amUncle Ho
Slag is slaughter in Afrikaanse (And probably dutch/german)
Thus
Manslaughter.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:25 amManslagt is swatting at flies that died long ago. Partisan attacks on those not in office holds as much as the evidence cannister that contains the WMD’s we have sacrificed over 3,800 soldiers for.
Stay current and focused.
Fox has carried the Bush/War banner since day one. They decided to be partisan a long time ago. They put facts and evidence aside to push an agenda. America is waking up to this fact and are rejecting the lies Fox has pushed down our throats. Fox won’t let go of their hold easily, they have to be confronted at every step.
I worked for the Historian of the Army when I was in the service and learned a bit on the handling of the media in times of conflict. It’s a fine line to walk when conducting combat exercises and keeping the public informed. Ultimately the military is for the protection of the citizens of this country. We have a right to know how they are being used. To distort the events for a political gain happens all the time but will not be tolerated when discovered.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:27 amHiya Bruce!
November 20th, 2007 at 10:37 amUncle Ho
;)
hellinabucket
The thing is that we are gaining new terms, and how those terms work is kind of important. So many of our insults have lost currency from overuse, we cannot let the same happen with terms like “Chickenhawk” one of the most wonderful terms of our era.
It covers that special kind of cowardly, craven egotism that has so defines the Republican party so well that it is almost too tempting to misuse it to cover all Republicans or war supporters. Thus the definition is important, as without it one it ends up being about as meaningless as you can get.
Hmm, maybe I should come up with an article on the new words that are being defined in our political discourse…
November 20th, 2007 at 10:44 amI hope that these youngsters do not buy into this sinister bastard’s shit.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:25 amWhy do con types insist on spinning to Clinton instead of addressing the f@#k ups made by these assholes in power?
November 20th, 2007 at 11:26 ammanslagt; I was drafted in the Vietnam war.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:31 ammanslagt; Clinton gave us 9-11? WTF is your head? up your a$$?
9-11 happened on W’s watch numbnuts!
November 20th, 2007 at 11:34 amIf, God forbid, the people who gave us 9/11 (i.e., Clinton Inc.) return to the White House in 2009 and send our troops to a war, will you enlist? If not, can we call you a chickenhawk?
Comment by Manslagt — November 20, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Who was president on 9/11/2001, it wasn’t Clinton. It was Bush who ignored the warning of an imminent attack. And to one of your other posts about Somalia, it was Bush’s father who sent troops there. You truly are a moron.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:45 amQuestion:
November 20th, 2007 at 11:53 amWhy did our military allow a known right wing propagandist to soil the hallowed grounds of West Point ? And to propagandize with lies our officer candidates?
troll alert! troll alert! troll alert!
manslagt is a paid GOOPer troll citing Bush spin propaganda.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:23 pmPlease, we all need to trust every word from the rich white media magnate with face-bags. He and his kind never lie.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:25 pmManslagt
FDR was a polio victim who required assistance just walking. Somehow I doubt that his lack of service was indicative of his moral standing.
Robert Byrd, is an acknowledged scumbag and is indeed a chickenhawk to boot.
Oh, and while we are on the subject of Bush’s past and present: A president is responsible for what happens during his reign, not what happened before his reign, and not what happened after his reign but during his reign.
And while you republicans have absolutely no ability to take responsibility for your actions, you cannot shove responsibility for your actions, on the previous, or in the case of Somalia, future administration.
In short all you have demonstrated is the Republican propensity to claim a virtue and then prove conclusively, that Republicans don’t hold that virtue.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:29 pmIt’s Uncle Ho to you…,.as in Ho Chi Minh.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pmmaslagt; I wouldn’t speak about facts if I were you. You probably still believe that Saddam’s nukes are still there, waiting to be discovered.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:39 pmBTW- Ho Chi Minh is translated as ‘he who enlightens’
November 20th, 2007 at 12:41 pmActually, revise that on Byrd, he isn’t a chickenhawk he is just a scumbag. He hasn’t really come out in favour of war, nor made an issue of war making someone “More of a man.”
No, he is saying that someone who brings up irrelevant junk to try and cover for his lack of an argument is likely to be a paid troll.
Oh, and because I can’t see if that prior post is up there: If TP puts something up as an Update it means that they are going with the updated version of the story. That they put that definition of a Chickenhawk up as an update, means that is now the sites definition of a Chickenhawk. Twit.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:41 pmAttaboy Brucie! You just handed manslagt his head. Sock it to him!
November 20th, 2007 at 12:46 pmSimple fact, there are many more Republican chickenhawks who supported the war (Vietnam namely) than democrats. Here is the list.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
November 20th, 2007 at 1:08 pmmanslagt; about FDR’s polio, that may be true….but it is also IRRELEVANT
November 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pmSaddam’s chemical weapons were old and degraded, and Reagan/Rumsfeld gave him those in the 1980s(to use against Iran).
November 20th, 2007 at 1:11 pmhttp://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml
President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here’s a partial – yet incredibly long – list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition. President Clinton:
– sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
– sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
– sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
When Republicans couldn’t prevent executive action, President Clinton:
– Developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.
– Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
– Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
– Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
– Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
–Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
– Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
– Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
– Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
– Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
– Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
– Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
– Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
– Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton’s efforts “Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”
– Paul Bremer, Bush’s Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden. ”
– Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort.”
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:
November 20th, 2007 at 1:14 pm– Backed off Clinton administration’s anti-terrorism efforts.
– Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.
– Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.
– Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.
– Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.
– Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.
– Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.
– Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.
– Bush – knowing about the terrorists’ plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US – took a four week vacation.
– By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.
– Blamed President Clinton for 9/11.
Manslagt
WWI, I read as WWII.
Okay, what was FDR doing on 6 April 1917 (When America entered the war.)
He was doing what was reportedly a very good job as assistant secretary of the navy. Admin, but he was good at it.
Oh, and lets not forget, that FDR had backed Woodrow Wilson, a candidate who had tried his hardest to keep America out of the war.
I still don’t see where you get FDR being a chickenhawk.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:16 pm“I still don’t see where you get FDR being a chickenhawk.”
You either didn’t watch the same cartoons, or you were not present when Manslagt’s hysterical parents spouted this b.s. when he was a wee one.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pmOh, and Manslagt, to be a Chickenhawk you have to be a hawk, you have to promote a warlike attitude to foreign affairs.
Clinton authorised military action, but he was not a warlike president and he did not engage in wars frivolously, the way Bush, a warlike president, has.
You can be in favour of a war, while ducked out of a war you weren’t in favour of, without being a chickenhawk, but if you favour that past war as conservative commentators do with Vietnam (Including Bush) while having ducked out of combat in that war yourself, you are already two steps towards being a chickenhawk.
The final step, comes when you declare those who outright opposed that war as being less patriotic, less courageous or somehow worse people then you for opposing that war.
Bush is a chickenhawk because he used his connections to get a cushy job at the national guard rather then serve in a war he agreed with. Limbaugh’s the same, so are a huge number of conservatives who go on about pinko liberal peaceniks and the dirty hippies.
Mitt Romney, currently in the running for the Republican nomination, is a classic chickenhawk not simply because of his stance on Iraq, but on his stance on Vietnam, a war he approved of, and which he purposely avoided.
For a full illustration of chickenhawks watch this: http://www.vimeo.com/244640
November 20th, 2007 at 1:33 pmmanslagt; just how in the hell does being as assistant SecNav in WWI make FDR a chickenhawk? You truly are in bizarro world.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:59 pmDude, you can’t even keep your lies straight? I mean, you can’t even go one paragraph without contradicting yourself here?
What, are you really that stupid?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pmManslagt
I can’t say that because that would be lying. I misread what you wrote .
As to claiming that FDR was a chickenhawk?
He supported a president whose campaign promise was to keep America out of WWI. As to his support or opposition to WWI, you haven’t demonstrated it one way or the other, but as assistant secretary to the navy (and a good one by all reports) his position was actively involved in the war, positively contributed to it and for him to have resigned to go fight in the war would have hurt America’s efforts in the war.
I do not see how you can claim that FDR was by anybody’s definition a chickenhawk.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:06 pmManslagt
No contradiction? Really? Then can you explain how a non-existant strike can be feeble?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:09 pm“Clinton had eight full years to get bin Laden and he failed.”
And Georgie has improved upon this how? Even with the added impetus from 9-11?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pmManslagt
First, Wilson’s backwards looking platform very strongly implied a promise to continue to keep America out of WWI, and second:
FDR’s position was instrumental to America winning that war. If he had quit, it would have hurt America’s chances of winning.
Oh, and as to claiming that Bush’s blame laying on Clinton was appropriate, well lets see, who else believed in that? Oh yeah, the Soviet Union. Really worked for them now didn’t it?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pmManslagt
About as many times as it hit America between the first WTC bombing and Bush coming into power – if you hold both presidents to the same standard of only counting attacks on the mainland.
Otherwise there are a whole host of attacks on your allies which one can name, including the first ever Islamic terror attacks on Britain, those attacks on the Spannish that got them out of the war, and hey, lets not even mention what terrorism is doing to places like Pakistan shall we?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:20 pmmanslagt; Bush has had nearly 7 full years to get Osama. Whatever happened to W’s bragatto to get him ‘dead or alive’? especially after 9-11. So, bush is doing far less to get Osama than Clinton.
“I really don’t even think about him(Osama been Forgotten).”-George W. Bush.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:21 pm“Odd statement. The Soviet Union, thanks to Reagan, was gone before Clinton became president.”
HA HA HA HA HA. Yes, and he did it ALL in 4 seconds just by telling Gorbachev to tear down that wall! And he bare-knuckle-beat-up the rest of those Commies and turned the Gulags into Russian Disneylandskis … all with good old fashioned Amuhrucan fisticuffs! Amazing! Such a superhero!
November 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pm“How many times has al Qaeda hit America since 9/11?”
Once under GWB’s stewardship was enough – now shut your pie hole.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pmComment by Manslagt — November 20, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
You are truly a sick delusional person, seek some medical help. It will require you to leave your mother’s basement, but you can do it.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:42 pmHe was willing to send young men to war but would not fight himself.-comment by manslagt @2:11 pm
Hmmm. sounds like the deserter Bush and 5-deferment Dickhead (I had better things to do) Cheney to me.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:49 pmYou offer no facts, just tired Sean Hannity talking points. Simple FACT: Bush was president on 9/11, not Clinton, and therefore Bush is responsible. But responsibility is a foreign concept to people like you.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pmmanslagt- WTF is it with you about FDR? Do you have some sort of weird fetish about him? I mean, do you jack off looking at his portrait?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pm“Bill Clinton is Chris Farley. He created the conditions that led to 9/11 and then blamed Bush.”
Sorry, we’re too intelligent here to 1) watch Chris Farley movies and then 2) use them as props in a political discussion.
Now, again, shut your pie hole.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pmSurprising? No. Roger Ailes’ network is promoting insane views and giving them a sense of legitimacy and framing them as merely partisan. Look at the crap they just aired this morning -
Advocating tazing and beatings against anti-war demonstrators? Seriously?
VIDEO –
November 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pmFOX & Friends: Code Pink People Should Be Tazered, Beaten
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=18e5cf09-afd0-4975-b04b-2c6e7e488a36
What’s this d!ck doing lecturing people who go to school on our tax dollar?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:38 pmManslagt
Why not? Its not like you guys are counting the attacks on American military forces under Bush now is it?
Nor are you counting attacks on your allies – which pardon me for noticing, seem to be having a far more detrimental effect on America’s international power then all of the bombings under Clinton. Nobody cancelled any alliances with America over the USS Cole bombing.
As to Reagan? Reagan had about as much to do with the fall of the wall as he had to do with the success or failure of any American sports team during his reign – the fall of the wall actually came due to the USSR’s poor economic policies (Including its policy of blaming the previous administration and thus, avoiding having to do anything about current problems) and an error made by a government official in Eastern Germany, not because of anything that famous champion of Apartheid Reagan said or did.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:37 am