Media

So Which One is the Iron Sheik?

|

Make your own Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim joke.

At last someone gets it:

I have come to believe that the nearly daily back and forth between the White House and Fox News is good for both sides….The White House wants us to believe they are standing up to Fox's bullying–and they are. But what they are also doing is playing the Fox game: The White House's pretend sanctimony is like Fox's pretend sanctimony; it's all for the show of it, everybody's a big ham, everybody's playing everybody else.

That's Michael Wolff writing in Newser. Aside from the silly use of the word "bullying," he's exactly right. Like Nixon before him, Obama understands that he makes his base happy when he attacks unfriendly media, and that he might attract some sympathy from press-hating independents in the process. Meanwhile, Fox News sees its standing elevated, movement conservatives rally 'round it, and Glenn Beck gets a mountain of material. Anyone who looks at this contest and asks whether the White House is beating Fox or vice versa is missing the dynamic at work here. It's a win/win.

Now, that doesn't mean everyone else is winning. It isn't good for the First Amendment for the White House to play these games, and I don't think it's good for the president's other critics if Fox is the foremost face of dissent. But the people putting on the pro wrestling show—they're doing great.

NEXT: In Defense of Extreme Pornography

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course it is not good for the First Amendment, but what can you expect from an Administration that went to the UN Human Rights committee and worked on a resolution with Egypt that serves to limit the free expression of individuals as it pertains to critique of organized religions?

    1. I don’t see what the first amendment issue is here. The administration has merely pointed out that Fox is unfriendly towards it. That’s not a big deal; it’s self-evident.

      1. Saying that FOX is ‘not a news organization’ is a way to not only sideline FOX but also to chill other in the Washington press pool by sending the clear message that if you cover stories politically damaging to the president you may be singled out for similar treatment. Reporters, regardless of their tenure or pay or political affiliation, are people who are expressing themselves. Government putting a chill over how they express themselves is exactly the sort of thing envisioned in the crafting of the first amendment.

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        Sure, you can be technical and say its the President and not Congress doing it, but the President is a creature of the government and the intention of the White House stance with regards to FOX is clear: Chill the criticism, sideline the opposition, consolidate and entrench support–the very definition of divide and conquer.

        Previous administrations have been similarly abusive, but the Obama Administration takes it to a whole new level.

        1. I’m sorry, but that’s contra-intuitive and definitely not libertarian levels of wrong.

          Congress has made no law. Congress has not barred Fox from using its press power, or from petitioning against greivance, or from any of the other things that the First Amendment states clearly.

          All the White House has said is that it’s going to treat Fox as it treats the press room at the NRA: As an arm of a political faction with a view that is ideologically different from that of the White House.

          No power of the gun is being used here to prevent Fox from gathering news (okay, it has to get it second-hand from CNN; so do a lot of other institutions), and certainly no power of the gun is being used to prevent Fox from saying what it wants in a 24-hour news cycle on its own cable and broadcast networks. I think the original analysis is half correct: this is clearly a win/win, playing to the cerebrally challenged far-off wings of both parties, but this is hardly a threat to the First Amendment.

          If you’re going to absolutely insist that the Second Amendment be taken at face value (as many libertarians do), for Heaven’s sake do the same with the First.

          1. Apparently you have a problem with me stating that Congress made a law. Good thing I didn’t state that. In fact I said it wasn’t Congress at all but the President.

            “All the White House has said is that it’s going to treat Fox as it treats the press room at the NRA: As an arm of a political faction with a view that is ideologically different from that of the White House. ”

            That’s not ‘all’ the White House said.
            Rah Emanuel said “It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective, and that’s a different take” while Axelrod said “It’s really not news, it’s pushing a point of view and the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours, ought not to treat them that way. And we’re not going to treat them that way…”

            When the office of the President–an agency that now has the power to declare any organization to be a terrorist organization and deprive that organization of substantive rights–starts saying that a news organization is not a news organization, we are right to be concerned.

          2. All the White House has said is that it’s going to treat Fox as it treats the press room at the NRA: As an arm of a political faction with a view that is ideologically different from that of the White House.

            Simplified further: popularly elected White House = private special interest group.

            1. The government can violate the First Amendment without passing any laws. If Obama said shut down Fox News tomorrow, he’s be violating the First Amendment (and some other constitutional provisions).

              By the way, though I don’t think their actions rise to this just yet, there’s also law against the government doing anything that has a chilling effect on speech.

              1. Ironically, you seem to be the only one in this scenario calling for anyone to stop saying what they are saying: you don’t want the WH to be free to speak its mind.

                Criticizing someone, with words, is exercising the 1st amendment. The second Obama’s people move to actively use their powers to hamper Fox’s operations, then you’d have a point. But not granting them interview footage is not the same thing at all.

    2. Iran Number One!!!!
      USSR Number One!!!!

      1. Where Sergeant Slaughter?? I kick his puny American ass with my steel-toed elf shoes!!

        Iran Number One!!!
        USSR Number One!!!

  2. “I don’t think it’s good for the president’s other critics if Fox is the foremost face of dissent.”

    Why Jesse? Fox is a major news network with by far the largest audience of any cable news network. Who do you want to be the “face of dissent”? I would think an organization that reachs millions of homes every night wouldn’t be a bad choice.

    That statement is one of the reasons the Reason staff drives me crazy. You only say that because Fox just isn’t cool enough and you guys want so desparately to be liked by the type of people who refer to Fox as Faux News. This in spite of the fact that those people are against everything you claim to support. It is as if you guys would lose your Washinton office and Megan McArdle would dumb Suderman if you don’t keep your street creed among the “right crowd”.

    1. Who do you want to be the “face of dissent”?

      Someone driven by something other than ratings.

      You only say that because Fox just isn’t cool enough and you guys want so desparately to be liked by the type of people who refer to Fox as Faux News.

      You’ve offered this dime-store psychoanalysis many times. It remains inaccurate. I hate to break it to you, John, but the world is not a junior high school cafeteria.

      1. Someone driven by something other than ratings.

        Just what on earth is wrong with making money by telling the truth? I thought this was Reason.

        1. Since when does the truth get good ratings?

          1. Since FOX started ruling The Cables, apparently.

      2. If only it wasn’t Jesse. Most people never got passed high school. And you guys are no different. I for the life of me can’t figure out why you need to take cheap shots at Fox. If Fox writes or broadcasts something stupid, call them out. But why the cheap shots other than to show “you really are not one of them” whoever the hell “them” is.

        1. Signaling. They want the young DC chicks (who are overwhelmingly Leftist and Democrat) to still like them.

          1. I’m not normally a fan of [citation needed]. But people keep repeating this nonsense as if it is self-evident. So, where’s the evidence, beyond “I knew this guy in college…?”

        2. why the cheap shots

          What cheap shot? I said I don’t want them to be the foremost face of dissent. I didn’t say I want them to stop dissenting.

          The dynamics of running a 24-hour news-and-opinion channel drives Fox to fill its hours with ginned-up outrages. The phony outrages end up on equal footing with the real ones, and the serious policy disagreements that go beyond the outrage of the day often fade into the background. When Fox dominates the movement, the result is an activist base that cares more about the fact that Van Jones was going to run a green jobs program than the fact that the green jobs program was a boondoggle that no one should be running in the first place.

          All that said, I’m glad they give a platform to people like Napolitano. And I can appreciate the fact that O’Reilly and Beck, whatever their flaws, are not Hannity-style party-line Republicans. Actually, I’ll be blogging something about Beck’s ideological heterodoxy later today. I’ll be interested to hear how it proves that Reason’s readers are secretly motivated by the desire not to sit at the same lunch table as you.

          1. Being a self-declared communist and a believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories are not little things. Yes, it’s terrible that they have a green jobs program in the first place but attacking it is a daunting task for anyone let alone a 24/7 news network. The society is not really libertarian.

            P.S. Voting for another 9/11 truther Badnarik in 2004 is and was pretty shameful. I’m afraid many Reason people are guilty of this.

            1. Why is voting for a “9/11 truther” ipso facto shameful at all? We vote for people who profess a belief in a god all the time. Personally, I’ll take someone who doesn’t believe an official story over someone who fears imaginary beings in the course of their daily life and may govern accordingly.

          2. Then who do you want to be the foremost voice of dissent? And how do they achieve that position.

            Bitching and moaning because the people who are doing work that nneds to be done but are not doing it in the precise manner you approve of is rather petty, Jesse.

      3. Here’s my dime-store psychoanalysis:

        You sure are insecure. There is no other Reason writer that is so quick to defend their positions as frequently as you. I would suspect that it’s 10:1 over whomever is in second place.

        1. I am not familiar with this writer, being somewhat new to reading Reason with regularity, but I agree with the insecurity observation.

          Perhaps it is a cojones problem.

        2. Jesse is on the comment threads a lot because he’s policing the troll situation. aka, your psychoanalysis isn’t even worth a nickel.

          1. Can’t he police the troll situation wuth his mouth shut?

            1. wuth means with

          2. Jesse is on the comment threads a lot because he’s policing the troll situation.

            I’m not here to police the trolls. I come down to the comment threads because I recognize the readers as a part of the conversation. As far as I’m concerned, answering criticisms — or at least the ones that are serious and/or common — is a part of the writing process.

            Also, it’s fun to joke around with the regulars. And to poke fun at Lonewacko.

            1. I’m not here to police the trolls.

              If I were here to police the trolls, that’s exactly what I would say too. I like your style, dude.

      4. Someone driven by something other than ratings.

        A serious question here: do you think that Beck is insincere in what he says; that the whole thing is nothing but an act? If so, why?

        1. I think Beck is approaching that place that many conservatives come to when they really examine their beliefs. There are inherent inconsistencies within conservatism regarding the way they construct the idea of liberty and their authoritarian longing for an order they approve of. I think much of Beck’s thought can be seen in light of this. Hopefully he will become more libertarian and set aside some of his jingoism and other unfortunate attitudes, but some views are so sacred to the typical conservative that coming to the side of what is good and decent is unlikely.

          1. “but some views are so sacred to the typical conservative that coming to the side of what is good and decent is unlikely.”

            Views like belief in God? I think we’ve discussed here on this blog that conservatives seem able to adopt Ayn Rand’s godlessness where it suits them.

            As for Beck, I suppose reforming his ideas toward the libertarian is a development better late than never, but I for one can’t forget his sliming of Ron Paul at a critical time in the primaries. Reprehensible. I welcome Beck’s antics now, I do, but I can’t forget the past.

            1. I don’t think theism is necessarily incompatible with libertarianism. I would rather hang around with a tolerant fundamentalist (yes they exist) than a pompous Marxist any day.

              1. Oh I agree. I’ve met many a believer who was content to disagree with me and let me on my way. I’ve also met many a statist who admitted that for their vision to exist people like me would be destroyed. I’ll take the tolerant theist any day.

    2. John, you’re sounding disturbingly like Orange Line Special here.

      1. If that were the case, I would be talking about Mexicans or something. I just hate the fake too hip for thou attitude. They don’t like Fox for the basest of reasons. The wrong people watch it.

        1. This is true. If you don’t like Fox, ask it tough questions and put the video up on YouTube.

    3. There are a lot of people who don’t like Fox News who have libertarian sympathies. Like me!

      If your crusade is led by people like Glenn Beck with strong personalities (in the sense that Munster cheese is strong), there’s definitely an upper limit to how far it can grow outside the narrow base that hated Obama to begin with.

      1. Fox may be more tolerant of libertarians now that they can make common cause against Obama and co., but their dominant personalities are no friends of liberty. Beck says the occasional libertarian thing but then he says things supportive of Duncan fucking Hunter. O’ Reilly is a right wing populist buffoon, and gentle Mike Huckabee meek and mild is overtly anti-libertarian. I give Fox credit for giving voice to Stossel, Napolitano, and that Red Eye dude, but I would love to see a brazenly libertarian network with commentators from all over the libertarian spectrum.

        1. And I would love to see pigs fly too.

          Fox does a better job at promoting ideological diversity than any other MSM outlet.

        2. Unfortunately, I don’t see a libertarian network coming along anytime soon. What is needed is someone who is not only committed to fiscal sanity but also intelligent enough to avoid alienating possible allies over issues which have zilch to do with fiscal sanity. Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News gang don’t fit that description.

          There’s a reason the administration is happy to raise the profile of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as leaders of the opposition; they suck up the oxygen that might otherwise sustain a capable leader rather than an entertainer who’s wearing a leader costume.

          1. What about leaders wearing entertainer costumes?

            Politico: more politicians becoming celebrities:

            http://www.politico.com/click/…..away_.html

      2. Why is Beck so verbotten? The Left has Olberman and Maddow and Hitchens and some pretty unpleasent people. That never seems to hurt them. The right in contrast walks around saying mother may and and ashamed of any hell raiser on their side.

        So what if Beck is loud? Big deal. He has done a lot of damage to the otherside. Who would you rather have for your side someone with balls like him or some nutless wonder suckass like George Will?

        1. So doing “a lot of damage to the [sic] otherside” is enough to qualify someone as a libertarian? Sorry, John, no thanks. Beck gets hammered because he’s a douche who calls himself “libertarian” and creates a false impression in people’s minds about what “libertarian” stands for. In that way, he’s actually worse, because he damages what little credibility the brand has.

          1. And no one has anything better to do than hammer Beck. Because clearly he is the problem. Libertarians are a bit like leftists in that they like people in the abstract but they really have no use for the unwashed masses. Of course, that is their right. But, I don’t see how they can complain when the masses have no use for them.

            1. No, John. Libertarians are misunderstood and misrepresented enough without the likes of Beck. You might understand that when he claims to be one, they rush to explain that he’s not.

              1. Kind of like how people would go behind Dondero on other websites where he’d go off and say “please understand, this idiot does not speak for us”

        2. John,

          Olberman and Maddow aren’t seen as leaders of the left in the way that Beck and Limbaugh are of the right.

          Of course, the left’s true leaders (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) are doing plenty to piss off moderates these days — but we shouldn’t emulate them.

          1. Who sees Beck as the leader? Do Pelosi and Reid spend their time tearing down people who are helping them the way Reason and many on the “enligtened right” do? Maddow and Olberman may not be leaders but at least they aren’t attacked by their own side.

        3. Beck vs. Will? If that’s my only choice, I’ll take George every time.

      3. there’s definitely an upper limit to how far it can grow outside the narrow base that hated Obama to begin with.

        It didn’t seem all that narrow to me, when a pathetic sad-sack like John McCain got as much of the vote as he did in that economy, after one of the worst and least popular Republican presidents in American history.

  3. That’s Michael Wolff writing in Newser. Aside from the silly use of the word “bullying,” he’s exactly right.

    You think FOX is doing something like bullying but a different word should be used? Doesn’t look like they are doing any such thing. Citation needed.

    1. You think FOX is doing something like bullying but a different word should be used?

      No. I think they are doing something that is not like bullying, and that therefore a different word should be used.

      1. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

        I pick “being honest” as an appropriate replacement.

        1. Speaking truth to power that doesn’t want to hear truth.

            1. Or even better, power that wants to hear the truth — but can’t HANDLE the truth!

      2. I think they are doing something that is not like bullying

        They do some reporting, and some opining. If you think airing someone’s dirty laundry and disagreeing with them is “bullying”, well, there’s really no hope for you.

  4. Anyone recall when Ultimate Warrior went around to colleges decrying the “fagification” of America?

    This became an unavoidable reality when Franken and Coulter did joint appearances under the label of “debate.” The fact that this is now acceptable political discourse does more than cheapen politics, it diminishes us as a species.

  5. So. . . how does Reason get the White House to declare ware on them? Any ideas?

    1. Is that hardware or software?

      1. ‘Ware of both of them at times.

  6. They took his jerb!

    1. that may have been my favorite South Park ever

      1. Well, you did have 14 abortions by the time you were 7. You might be feeling a little sympathy.

        1. Capitalist swine. I will crush you.

        2. ?Dios mio, mataron El Pollo Loco!

      1. I love the subtle message they send McMahon at the end about what’s been wrong with RAW since Bischoff arrived: too much wrestling!

  7. Hit an administration official with the championship belt. Then remove their Obama shirts to reveal Palin shirts or somesuch, while an announcer screams, “Reason has turned heel on Obama!”

  8. We’ll see how they develop their characterizations in the second act.

  9. So now my replacement link doesn’t work either. WTF, did I get banned?

    1. You need to be controlled, Warty. You’re a madman.

  10. WTF, did I get banned?

    God, i hope so.

  11. Your forgetting the other win the White House gets out of this…

    Several segments a day spent on this crap takes up time that would have been spent analyzing policy.

    News channels split their time into groups of stories… human interest, celebrity, government policy, scandal… This thing is taking a chunk out of the policy slice of the pie. Of course FOX is a willing participant because it boosts their ratings, but I’d say the White House is the big winner. That’s why they went for this calculated strategy.

  12. This analogy would be more awesome if it was applied to the Chris Dodd and WEE CEO Linda McMahon Connecticut senate race.

  13. You’re living in the past, Xeones. Get with the times and thread, yo.

  14. Oh boy! A thread where I can direct everyone who hasn’t seen it to watch the classic Kenny vs. Spenny episode where the Iron Sheik made a guest appearance. Awesome!

  15. Maybe I’m not as informed as everyone else, but what’s wrong with the White House stating its opinion (which I would say is a fact) that Fox News is a propaganda outlet that opposes Obama? I recall during the 2008 race every day the Fox morning show would be showing headlines and running stories about how Obama was a socialist, and he might have been born in Kenya, and would be bad for America.

    Doesn’t the First Amendment protect the right of public officials to state their opinions about organizations that appear to be dedicated to opposing those officials?

    1. The truth as propaganda. I like that!

    2. Doesn’t the First Amendment protect the right of public officials to state their opinions about organizations that appear to be dedicated to opposing those officials?

      As citizens? Yes.

      As public officials? Hell no.

      So if Obama or Joe Gibbs want to go stand on a street corner with a cardboard sign decrying Fox News’ bias just like an ordinary citizen would, they’re more than welcome.

      Doing it from a podium with the words “THE WHITE HOUSE” on it, payed for by taxpayer money, in a forum that no other citizen could possibly have access to, is a different story.

      1. I don’t get the distinction. I think that Obama’s or Gibbs’s views would be covered wherever they stated them, and they’d still be getting paid with “taxpayer money” even if they didn’t stand behind a White House podium.

        Taking public office doesn’t require a person to become a punching bag for his/her political opponents, and the fact that a political opponent of Obama happens to be a media organization shouldn’t insulate it from criticism by the Administration.

    3. And that’s not even touching on the creepiness of the administration instructing news organizations to behave in a certain way (instruction which, to said organizations’ credit, they have not heeded).

    4. I recall during the 2008 race every day the Fox morning show would be showing headlines and running stories about how Obama was a socialist, and he might have been born in Kenya, and would be bad for America.

      Two out of three ain’t bad, Jonny. Not bad at all.

    5. You’re talking about an office of the President that since the counterterror acts of 1996 can declare political factions and groups ‘terrorists’, and since the post-911 security laws this power has been supersized. An office with that kind of power declaring that a news organization is not a news organization is and should be a disturbing development.

  16. What is needed is someone who is not only committed to fiscal sanity but also intelligent enough to avoid alienating possible allies over issues which have zilch to do with fiscal sanity.

    Taking pains not to alienate anyone is where we got compromise as a cultural end to politics. That’s working really well; both the the socialist Democrats and the socialist Republicans get what they want. Everyone wins!

    1. We shouldn’t worry about alienating people over fiscal issues — if that happens, you haven’t lost anyone you weren’t going to lose anyway.

      I’m saying conservatives shouldn’t couple their opposition to big spending to social issues that have absolutely nothing to do with fiscal sanity. You know, like the Fox News comedy troupe does.

    2. The problem with attaining fiscal sanity without alienating allies is this: Sound economics rarely makes for popular politics.

  17. This all just partisan and sensationalist hackery. Whether it was the first Bush and “Murphy Brown”, the second Bush and CNN, or Obama and Fox. But hey, bullshit makes the world go ’round, and all Americans love a good fight.

    The only thing worse than petty bickering is cheesy cliches.

    1. That was Quayle, not Bush.

    2. IIRC, the Murphy Brown thing came from Dan Quale.

      1. Right. Bush was The Simpsons. “I want American families to be more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons”.

        Bart: “Hey, we’re just trying to get through this depression like everyone else”.

        1. Yeah, and he also overlooked the fact that the Simpsons are Republicans while the Waltons were Democrats.

          1. Republicans and democrats are both pilloried on the Simpsons, Homer is a dumb republican voter, but the dems are profiled as profligate criminals as well

      2. POTATOE is a perfectly acceptable spelling for a specialist in medieval literature.

      3. I took a shit in Dan Quayle once.

  18. The first amendment is not threatened by Obama and his lieutenants telling the truth about FOX news.

    The GOP dominated American politics for a long time by lumping Democrats in with the so-called liberal media and making them all out to be a scary fringe. Obama’s strategy is no different. Besides, everyone knows FOX will be hammering the administration every single day for the rest of his term. He’s not allowed to fight back against their ridiculousness?

    1. The GOP dominated American politics for a long time

      What, four years?

      Obama’s strategy is no different.

      So it was OK when the GOPers did it because Obama does the same thing, or its terrible for Obama to do it because the GOPers did it? Help me out here, Tony, I’m confused.

      1. I’m not interested in whether it makes Jesus cry, just whether it’s a good strategy. It worked for the GOP. Not for four years, for a generation. They made being a liberal seem like having herpes and accused most of journalism of being liberal.

        The difference I see here is that Obama is singling out one network, not most of journalism, and it has the virtue of being true. FOX is the anti-Obama GOP propaganda wing. Its nonsense should scare off sane people, and the more voters identify the GOP with FOX the worse off the GOP will be.

        1. “FOX is the anti-Obama GOP propaganda wing. Its nonsense should scare off sane people, and the more voters identify the GOP with FOX the worse off the GOP will be.”

          Considering FOX has the clear win for ratings, you are labeling a huge swath of people as insane. Only an idealist makes such grand pronouncements.

          1. Over half of the voting public voted for Bush’s second term in 2004, the other half voted for Obama in 2008.

            It’s not just Fox that makes the argument for a huge swath of people being insane.

          2. Good for them, they pull in TWO maybe THREE million people. Yeah those are good ratings for a cable channel. They’re not good numbers for a national political party.

        2. They made being a liberal seem like having herpes

          It’s not?

          and accused most of journalism of being liberal.

          It’s not?

        3. The difference I see here is that Obama is singling out one network, not most of journalism,

          Doesn’t personalizing an attack from the Oval Office make it even worse? More likely to have a chilling effect on the discourse?

          I’m not interested in whether it makes Jesus cry, just whether it’s a good strategy.

          So, you are a proud partisan hack, who cares not at all about anything but whether Your Team is winning. Noted.

          As to whether its good strategy, I don’t see Obama benefitting from this strategy. Do you?

          1. “So, you are a proud partisan hack, who cares not at all about anything but whether Your Team is winning. Noted.”

            Seconded.

          2. Well, my main motivation in life is to make sure that Republicans hold as few public offices as possible, because they are dangerous and beholden to the most ignorant and paranoid people in the western world. So perhaps I’m partisan.

            Yes I do see him benefiting, but it’s more about Dems in general. It’s about marginalizing the GOP and making it toxic to swing voters, a strategy FOX’s talking heads seem curiously willing to go along with by remaining crazy.

            1. Holy fuck you’re an empty-headed douche. So who are the Dems beholden to? Get a fucking clue.

            2. Your main motivation in life?

        4. No Tony, being a liberal is not like having herpes. You can still be be a decent intelligent human being if you have herpes.

      2. Wouldn’t that be from 2000 to 2006?

  19. Forget Kenny vs. Spenny, this is the Sheik’s piece de resistance…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K-wEUCCvE0

    1. I was so sad when I entered this thread and it hadn’t devolved into an Iron Sheik Youtube freak out compilation.
      HE HATES EVERYONE
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRRHvw0s1Yc

  20. John, it’s the same thing as when Fahrenheit 9-11 came out. Moore could have made a movie about how the Bush administration pressured the CIA to lie about WMD’s, and based his movie on facts.

    Instead, he went off on a bunch of bogus BS about oil pipelines in Kyrgyzstan or some shit, walked around Washington DC with some disgruntled Marine NCO, and took pointless pot shots.

    He was one of, if not the most, prominent faces of opposition to Bush, and that allowed all opposition to the War and Bush to be tied to his jackassery. Since you are an Iraq War supporter, you should thank him, because he made everyone who was against it look that much worse.

    FOX and Beck are doing the same thing for the anti-Obama opposition.

    1. Do you ever watch Fox? I watched it last weekend for the first time in a long time. I don’t see how their news is that slanted or somehow illegitimate. They seem like a perfectly acceptable news organizaiton to me. I didn’t see any crazy stories. Some tabloid trash but everyone does that.

      The only reason people go after fox is because liberals have screamed the same thing for so long that people like you who should know better have started to beleive it.

      1. Every now and then they will put a D in front of a republican that’s involved in a scandal.

        They have argued in court that they have no obligation to be honest in their reporting.

        “””The only reason people go after fox is because liberals have screamed the same thing for so long that people like you who should know better have started to beleive it. “””

        Like the existance of WMDs in Iraq?

    2. …how the Bush administration pressured the CIA to lie about WMD’s

      You are either too young to remember or you are willfully ignorant. For your statement to be true, it also must be true that Bush was able to influence the British intelligence (which stated their belief in Sadaam’s WMD, and also the U.N.’s Hans Blix who stated that couldn’t clear Sadaam’s regime form having such WMD’s without more time to make a determination.

      1. British intel? Our partners in the war? Naturally they are going to drink the same cool aid.

        http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

      2. British intel? Our partners in the endevor. They were drinking the same cool-aid.

        http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

        The truth is, for every claim in the NIE, there were contradiction to those claims in the same NIE. The Bush admin willfully ignored anything that was contra to their claim. So did Congress for that matter.

  21. Like Nixon before him, Obama understands that he makes his base happy when he attacks unfriendly media, and that he might attract some sympathy from press-hating independents in the process.

    Uh, McCain/Palin ’08? Anybody?

  22. Johnny half-scrum : “Maybe I’m not as informed as everyone else, but what’s wrong with the White House stating its opinion (which I would say is a fact) that Fox News is a propaganda outlet that opposes Obama? ”

    You mean as opposed to non-propaganda machines like CBS who went with a story based on a bogus forged memo to influence an election(to which I never heard Bush say anything about, let alone brand them NON-news entities)? You mean like CNN who didn’t report on Sadaam’s villany to his own populace just to keep acces to the monster? You mean like NBC who faked a gas tank explosion on a pickup truck to ‘make a statement’? Should I go on , or do you understand now how some of us feel Obama shows an extreme lack of class by throwing Fox news in with such trash without any evidence of the falsehoods and perfidy these networks tried to get away with?

    1. I actually like the fact that Fox more or less cops to its bias, despite the “fair and balanced” slogan. I wish more news outlets would do that. That said I still pine for a world where there is a giant uber libertarian news network.

    2. I wouldn’t get worked up if any President took a view on how a news organization did its business, except that I’d either agree or disagree with its opinion. I’m not going to defend the other media outlets — they’re generally pretty crappy, although I think that the charges of “liberal bias” have been overblown for about 10 years now.

      To answer your question, I really don’t understand why people think that it’s okay for Fox News to have an overtly anti-Obama bias and then expect Obama not to respond. Whether that shows a “lack of class” on Obama’s part, or even whether it’s a good strategy for Obama, doesn’t really matter to me.

  23. I don’t see where the issue is. Just as Fox News has performed an about face and become dissenters, MSNBC has become the Administration’s Cheerleaders. This isn’t new, that’s why you had newspapers like “The Arizona Democrat” or “The Kansas Republican.” The rags were written as propaganda machines for their respective pundits.

    The more things change the more they stay the same. The only obvious lie here is the belief that only one side does it. Wasn’t Fox News created on the belief that there was a disenfranchised block of Conservatives who wanted news slanted to their politics?

  24. Who ever write this is a gay..like my faggot manager eric simms.I make the hulk Hogan to be de michael jackson ehhh michael jordan of wrestling..hulk hogan..everybody know ..if it were not for iron sheik ..you be some kinda gay bar bouncer..hulk hogan..am the raaaale all america gold medal not you..you are a piece of shit hollywood blonde faggot..thank you and have a good day

  25. doubled is a jackass and a punk motherfucker who’s blinded in his biases. I make him humble.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.