Do Fox News Anchors Only Watch Fox News?
Tweet
That’s the only thing I can think of that would excuse this from anchor Jamie Colby:”[W]hy would North Korea push our buttons, so to speak, by firing off these missiles when they know — they can see in Iraq — when we come in, we get the job done?”
Yeah, okaaaay.
30 Responses to “Do Fox News Anchors Only Watch Fox News?”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Is anyone from the original Iraqi government in charge now?
Is anyone in charge now?
The very obvious point is that the current leaders of NK would no longer be in charge if we chose to attack.
Do we have the personnel available to go into North Korea, go in and get the job done?
Shouldn’t we, if the job were done?
Let me rephrase that in better English:
Do we have the personnel available to go into North Korea and “get the job done”?
Shouldn’t we, if the first two jobs were “done”?
Did I miss something? Just what was the “job” that’s supposed to be “done” in Iraq?
If throwing an already beleaguered country further into chaos, reducing their already threatened standard of living to barely Third World conditions, and subjecting its citizens to regular violence with impunity is ‘getting the job done,’ well then, sure, North Korea knows it better watch its ass. So had South Korea, too (even though they’re supposed to be on our side).
Yeah, we’re quite ready to go into Korea and “get the job done.”
Yes.
Iraq. As the men on the carrier said to the CINC: Mission accomplished. We won the major war.
Now in the insurgency phase. That point is undeniable.
Dugger
If I presume scratch is answering my question, I’d like more than just his say-so.
And I’d like him to provide a rationale that either job, in Iraq or Afghanistan, can be considered “done.”
BD…
My answer was to Oliver’s question, the title of the original post.
Iraq, a castrated military with no WMDs. We knocked over a house of cards and the gungho war suporters have learned nothing about the cost and detrimental effect a lengthy opposed occupation has had on our military. As much as their egos have to equate Hussein with the second coming of Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich, the fact remains Hussein barely had the strength to maintain his own power and wasn’t a threat to us or his neighbors.
Contrast with North Korea. They have WMDs that can actually hit the US. They have an army that isn’t ready to desert at the first shot.
Easy story, if Bush had concentrated on the real threats instead of chasing madeup shadows in Iraq, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Ditto for Iran.
And Dukker, it was the Bush propaganda advance team that placed the Mission Accomplished sign, not the men from the carrier. They might have been happy that their mission was accomplished, but it was the Bush team that wanted to stage the entire photo op. Remember this included delaying that carrier’s docking a day so Bush could be flown there and pretend to be a fighter jock, instead of taking a helicopter.
“The very obvious point is that the current leaders of NK would no longer be in charge if we chose to attack.”
How is that obvious, JWG? Kindly elaborate for those of us who, unlike you, don’t inhale bus exhaust recreationally.
All at once, in small groups, or one by one?
To address the point of Oliver’s post: Yes
Can anyone seriously look at Fox News and NOT think it is propodanda? I really don’t CARE what televagilist journalistas think or thier opinion! Nothing is news anymore because EVERYTHING has to do with an opinion or viewpoint.
As for all the chest-thumping and pumping up thier nuts:
Saddam was a horrible leader and person, BUT NOT a Hitler figure. Thier was Zero justification or reason to invade Iraq, yet because he is a boogeyman of the right we must enter a sensless war. Kim Jong Ill on the other hand, is STARVING his people and ruling more ruthelessly than Saddam, yet because Bush is uniterested in thier OBVIOUS weapons capabilities, the Republicans turn a blind eye. This shows that reporters at Fox and republican supporters will put our president over national interest.
Isn’t that the similar to the WarChicken call of “Invade! Invade! We’re Doomed! We’re Doomed!” Unfortunately the WarChicken makes his call at passing shadows or for no real reason screwing up everybody’s peace.
Have they not heard the cry of the Yellow – Spined Dove? Get out! Get out! We’re doomed! We’re doomed!
No, it isn’t…
Mitter
“They might have been happy that their mission was accomplished, but it was the Bush team that wanted to stage the entire photo op.”
Don’t disagree with that. The world didn’t end when Bush did a photo op, or Bubba, or Read My Lips, etc.
But that sign would not have gone up without the blessing of the Captain of that ship.
W-Squared,
“Can anyone seriously look at Fox News and NOT think it is propodanda?”
yes
And, you really didn’t mean this, right:
“Thier was Zero justification or reason to invade Iraq”
I’m not sure I would have done it, but I would not be rash enough to argue ‘zero justification”.
Perhaps you meant insufficient justification in your mind .
Dugger
Frank, there was much broader Democratic support for Afghanistan than there was Republican support for Kosovo, but why let the facts intrude on your beautiful mind.
The left has a problem: They claim that they are not, in principle, opposed to war, but it seems that they’re unable to find a specific war they’re in favor of, when it’s supervised by a Republican.
Please, don’t get the wrong idea; there’s nothing partisan about their view.
/sarcasm
Which is why we supported the attack on Afghanistan, right Frank?
Before, during or after, I ask you both.
And, Oliver don’t pretend you speak for all Democrats on Afghanistan. There was a considerable amount of resistance to using the military.
And, I’m still asking, where are the liberals who support the efforts of our military in Iraq, now?
Frank, you just don’t get it. I have family in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think I want them killed? Hell no. But my love of my family members and respect for their sacrifices only increases my resolve to see them come home safely and quickly. I –speaking only for myself — do not support the Iraqi mission.
And Frank, let’s be very clear about the war in Afghanistan. The authorization to use force passed in the Senate 98-0 and in the House 420-1 just 3 days after the attacks on 9/11. We were one as a country in supporting that mission. Can you say the same about Kosovo?
Well, that’s a possible three. But I wasn’t surveying the blog’s population. I was referring to publicly known liberals, who have made statements supportive of the troops’ mission.
Excuse me FrankD, you are working under a false premise that most liberals don’t support the efforts of our troops. Bull crap. Many don’t believe we should have invaded in the first place, but that doesn’t mean we don’t support and applaud the efforts of our troops. We don’t think their efforts are being effective because of the overall strategy being run by Bush & Co. Many have called for a change in that failing strategy. In light of the inability or unwillingness of the civilian leadership to adapt, many call for the return of our troops because they support them.
Frank, you are sooooo right. I am gonna trade in my Hybrid for an SUV and slap a “Support the Troops” magnet to it. Then I will clearly belong to the righteous team.
You probably wouldn’t know where to by a “Support Magnet.”
Actually, some of us don’t claim that. Three hundred and fifty years ago, George Fox chose prison over war. Some still do.
You know, Quaker, that remark was an insult to my intelligence. I am trying very hard not to type a comment I’ll be sorry for later.
How quickly you’ve forgotten how I voluntarily came to your defense over this very issue.
Apparently, for you, being self – righteous is more important than being right. Even people who refuse to go to war can be evil, you know.
wow. do you honestly think for a second that we coulnd’t take out their nuke capababilities?
no one is talking about invading/occupying.
think about it.