Discussing President Obama's Tuesday Iraq speech on Fox News Sunday's morning panel, "fair and balanced" moderator Chris Wallace cited Obama's discussion of the economy in order to ask the panelists, "Is it unfair to say that this a president whose heart doesn't seem to be into winning the war on terror":
WALLACE: In that speech, to say "my central mission is to restore the economy," is it unfair to say that this a president whose heart doesn't seem to be into winning the war on terror, no matter what it costs?
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (34)
In contrast to the Bush administration, which needlessly and disastrously conflated and confused who the real threat was, since taking office, Obama has relentlesslyfocused on al Qaeda and significantly intensified U.S. efforts to find, frustrate and destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist infrastructure. But for Fox News, nothing will ever be enough.
- 9 votes
, Obama has relentlesslyfocused on al Qaeda and significantly intensified U.S. efforts to find, frustrate and destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist infrastructure
Once again, this is why we say it's about his race.
- 6 votes
It's totally ignorant and disingenuous for people to keep pulling the race card and saying its "about his race". That's the biggest load of bull@!$%# from the Left since he took office.
- 1 vote
You wonder how these seasoned, and (so called) respected reporters, and moderators, see when they go home and look in the mirror at night, and feel proud or embarrassed, to be the representative of FOX News, and Murdock, who is the puppet master, pulling their strings.
- 4 votes
It's the only thing that explains the irrationality.
Partisanship seems like a better explanation.
- 2 votes
He made a similar complaint in 2006 when he interviewed Clinton.
That's beside the point. The difference here is that he knows (or should know-if he doesn't he has no business in that job) that Obama has been more successful than Bush in prosecuting the WOT. Yet, he says Obama doesn't have the heart for it. There are some other things Obama doesn't have the heart for, but waging the WOT isn't one of them.
- 3 votes
That's beside the point.
I disagree, but I'll move on.
The difference here is that he knows (or should know-if he doesn't he has no business in that job) that Obama has been more successful than Bush in prosecuting the WOT.
For the sake of argument, let's assume your right: He's either lying or is just clueless about Obama's success on the WOT. Now, what evidence do you have that connects Wallace lying/being-clueless to racism?
He's either lying or is just clueless about Obama's success on the WOT. Now, what evidence do you have that connects Wallace lying/being-clueless to racism?
The willingness to be wilfully ignorant, and be seen to be ignorant. Only when it invloves racism do people not mind being seen as stupid...as long as they get their way.
- 3 votes
When I asked for evidence, I was kinda hoping for... ya know... evidence. Maybe some background info or previous reports by Wallace that would leave you to believe he was racist. These vague generalities do nothing to further your assertion.
These vague generalities do nothing to further your assertion.
Well, I don't feel any particular need to prove it to you...as if I ever could. Despite the amount of argument that goes on over the subject, it's really not something we need to argue about. It's something we need to know.
- 2 votes
Plantsmantx #1.10
The willingness to be willfully ignorent, and be seen to be ignorent. Only when it involes racism do people not mind being seen as stupid...as long as they get thier way.
Igonrence Racism. All he had to say is the word prejudice.That was all that was needed to get Obummer ( Obama ) into office.
I had forgotten whom said this:
That's what happens when you let stupid people vote.
and Wolfman
Got conned once. It could happen again.
Ignorence knows Right from Wrong...
- 1 vote
Has there ever been a period in US history when a new president faced so many crises on every front? I may not agree with every action taken by Pres Obama but I support him and his efforts to take our country into recovery.
- 6 votes
Has there ever been a period in US history when a new president faced so many crises on every front?
As a matter of fact, there was. The President was Franklin Roosevelt.
- 5 votes
dave,
i'll give you the economy as a huge problem but what two wars did he inherit from the previous administration in 1933 when he took office?
- 5 votes
The makings of the one in the Pacific and the one in Europe. There was no way we were going to avoid being involved in either of those. The seeds of the one in Europe were planted in the treaty that ended WWI.
- 1 vote
those wars were no where in site in 1933 when roosevelt first entered office and it was his decision to enter the war in europe. the pacific was brought to us, but again, he did not inherit these wars having to face these crisis of a previous administration right out of the box. people now also expect obama to have fixed these situations in less than two years when the economy has had since reagan to get in the fix it is in and the wars where 7 years in the making when obama took office.
- 3 votes
Hitler took office in January of 1933 and the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931, but whatever you think.
- 1 vote
I hear ya...It's pretty sad.
I got a question for ya :-)
When do you think ( if it's possible
just funning HAHAHA!!! :-) ) they will come
to Realization?
Thanks! I thoght so :-)
I'm still waiting Time is runing out
WAKE UP PEOPLE it's time to come to
REALIZATION
Our Country is going Down Hill
Obummer has his FOOT to THE PETAL
That WALL is coming up FAST and STRONG
The END is NEAR...
This coming from a person who advocated for invading a country that not only had nothing to do with 9/11 and is also partially the reason why the economy is in the shape that it's in...
- 5 votes
Chris Wallace: Obama's 'Heart Isn't Really Into Winning The War On Terror'
Gee Golly!! Could it be that calling it a war on terror is ridiculous much like Dubya was? You can't fight terror, you can't fight an idea. You go after the people that do such terror and that's Al Qaeda. They're the ones that blew the towers up.
- 4 votes
Is it unfair to say that Chris Wallace is a stooge for the neocons?
Just asking.
- 8 votes
War on which form of terror”?
The one promoted by Islamic extremists, or the one being waged by Mexican drug lords, or the domestic terrorism being threatened by far right wing factions of the tea party/conservative movement?
Just more political contrarianism coming from the clowns at FOX PAC. Had Obama stated that his number one priority was foreign policy, Wallace and his biased cohort would no doubt have indignantly proclaimed, "it's the economy, stupid".
Translation: In the fantasy realm of the "fair and balanced", Obama is damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesn't.
- 10 votes
Translation: In the fantasy realm of the "fair and balanced", Obama is damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesn't.
Isn't that really all the opposition have since they do not seem to have any answer that is not the same policies that got us into the mess we find this country in today.
- 4 votes
I thought according to Faux "News" it was treasonous to question or criticize a President during a war...
- 8 votes
look what i found;
Americans for Sarah Palin Discussions
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=70766502955&topic=15889
“I frankly find the partisan attacks against this President and resentment towards this president at a time of war unprecedented. “Sean Hannity March 28, 2003
Maybe Sean Hannity isn’t a biased right-wing hatchet man after all. He is a patriotic journalist merely following an established precedent (that he used to think was treasonous).
Sean Hannity used to think it was unpatriotic to criticize a president during wartime. So did Dick Cheney for that matter. In fact, many conservatives and pundits at Fox News passionately espoused the idea that politicizing events and undermining the President during wartime was unpatriotic and dangerous. But that was before Obama was in office and they were the ones doing the politicizing and undermining. Or maybe they have all forgotten that it is still wartime.
When Bush was president Fox News told us that Americans who criticize the President in wartime were a “bunch of traitors” should be put in detention camps or hung for sedition. Trent Lott, (R-Mississippi) once accused Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) of trying to "divide the country." Lott ranted, "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism?"
Well aren’t we still fighting a war on terror? Aren’t troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan?
In 2007 Bill O’Reilly said, “There is no question the far left lives to hate the president.” But from the election of 2008 to this very moment you could say the same thing about Fox News and Obama. Fox News is essentially running a non-stop scripted Obama attack ad. I am personally in favor of an educated and informed public capable of voicing disagreement with the leadership, but I find the “flip-flop” Fox and the rest of the neo-cons have pulled on the issue of “patriotic Presidential critique” a little hard to stomach.
Note: In fairness to Chris Wallace, who is possibly the only serious journalist on Fox, there does not seem to be 100% compliance with the 24-7 scripted Obama attack ad. Here he is calling out the three hosts of Fox and Friends to task for their one-sided misrepresentation of Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-E0-xsOfEoJon Stewart also highlighted the hypocrisy of Fox News, comparing the way they treated Bush and the way the have treated Obama.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908200012
- 5 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



