Author Topic: Is Fox So Anxious To Attack Obama.. They'd Endanger Covert Military Personnel?  (Read 874 times)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Is Fox So Anxious To Attack Obama That They'd Endanger Covert Military Personnel?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103250011

This is a new low for Fox. It's one thing to argue that the ongoing operations in Libya came too late, or shouldn't have happened at all, or are backed by a coalition that's too big, or too small, or that U.S. involvement is too much, or too little -- all of which the right-wing media have managed to say in the past few weeks, sometimes in the same breath -- but it's another to engage in baseless fearmongering that even they admit could put our troops in danger. But, hey! When public opinion polls show that Americans support Obama's actions in Libya, they have to do something to turn the tide against Obama, right?

This began last night, when host Bill O'Reilly interviewed retired Colonel David Hunt and Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer, a former Army intelligence officer, about whether or not the U.S. has "boots on the ground" in Libya. From the March 24 edition of The O'Reilly Factor (via Nexis):

    O'REILLY: In the impact segment tonight, not much new to report out of Libya other than Gadhafi's ground forces continue to be hammered by NATO war planes. Some Americans fear there will be boots on the ground in Libya.

    The Obama administration says that's not going to happen, but what is happening on the ground may surprise you. Joining us now from Washington Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer, a former Army Intelligence Officer and from Boston Colonel David Hunt, Fox News military analyst.

    So we hear special forces are already on the ground in Libya. True, Colonel Hunt?

    COLONEL DAVID HUNT, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED): Yes, absolutely. You've got British service been in there about three weeks ago and captured and released. The French GIGN have been in there and our special forces and our U.S. intelligence operatives and their assets.

    We do not conduct operations like this, large scale air operations without people on the ground. They have been very successful, very good, not a lot of contact with the rebels because you don't know who to talk to.

    But, yes, we have got Intel gathering, and rescue guys and special operations guys on the ground, have had them for about 12 days.

    O'REILLY: Now, do you agree with that, Colonel Shaffer?

    LT. COLONEL TONY SHAFFER, FORMER ARMY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: Yes, I have heard from my sources -- I got a call from one of my key sources on Monday and that's exactly what's going on. Let's be really clear here.

    You have got to have these individuals doing what Dave just said, especially when you are talking about trying to protect and the stated goal here, Bill, is humanitarian support.

    So you don't want to have weapons hitting the wrong targets. So, Dave is very good on the fact that we have special operations guys sitting there with laser designators. Bill, you saw -

    O'REILLY: Well, tell me what a laser designator is?

    SHAFFER: Well, laser designator is a thing you put on a target especially when you are talking about having close quarters between the adversary -

    O'REILLY: So they actually from the air can see these laser designators? So we have guys saying here, you get these people?

    SHAFFER: Right, right.

Horrifyingly, even as Hunt acknowledged that usually such special operations are not discussed because "t's protecting guys whose assets are on the ground," O'Reilly egged him on, encouraging him to continue to talk publicly about operations that are normally kept secret in order to "[protect] our guys" (via Nexis, emphasis added):

    O'REILLY: Now, the Obama administration says flat out we don't have any boots on the ground there. We are not going to have them. Is that a lie, Colonel Hunt?

    HUNT: Yes, it's disinformation. It's protecting guys whose assets on the ground. We don't talk about covert activity. Some the stuff I have been involved in both the Southeast Asia and the Balkans, you know, it's really protecting our guys.

    O'REILLY: You were one of the guys on grounds in the Balkans, Colonel Hunt was, when we weren't supposed it have any guys on the ground, correct?

    HUNT: Yes, and the reason it's not published want to protect the guys I was with. In this case, it was Seals and trying to do some Intel work -- without the bad guys knowing about it. It's the same issue here with Libya.

    O'REILLY: All right, but you were there yourself doing this while the Clinton administration was saying we didn't have anybody there. You were there. I just want people to know that that you have hands on experience and you know what's going on.

    Now, Colonel Shaffer, when you say that we have guys in there, you are talking Delta Force guys? Green Beret guys? Navy Seals? All of those people?

    SHAFFER: I know what group I was told are in there and their primary duty, their primary job is to make -- we would call them Forward Air controllers, Combat Air controllers.

    O'REILLY: OK, but they are attached to the military service. We assume CIA guys are in there. You have got to assume that they are in there. They are everywhere, but they are civilians. You are talking about a military guys in there?

    SHAFFER: Right, and their job is to basically make sure that on the terminal phase, the terminal ballistic phase of a bomb going into target that it goes into the target we want.

    O'REILLY: Doesn't blow up villagers that have nothing to do with it.

    SHAFFER: The bottom line is we trust our guys more than anyone else.

    O'REILLY: Of course, look, we have the best Intel people in the world. They are all over the place and -- but I want people to know what's going on in Libya. That's my job.

Well, Bill, it might be your job to keep people informed, but doesn't it strike you as irresponsible to publicly speculate about operations that are normally kept secret for the safety of our troops?

Instead of reflecting on whether or not such reporting is responsible, Fox doubled down. This morning, Fox & Friends repeatedly replayed and hyped Hunt's interview, often without clarifying that Hunt -- who himself offered no concrete evidence for his claims -- specifically meant special forces whose missions are normally not discussed.

This text, for example, was repeatedly aired on screen:

Boots on the Ground chyron

Like O'Reilly, Fox & Friends co-hosts also seemed to possess no self-awareness about how their shameless fearmongering could be harmful, if there are indeed secret U.S. military operatives on the ground:

    BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Special ops are involved in 100 different operations at any point. And as -- you were on the show last night. You heard, they use the term painting the targets. They're on there, so when the jets come over, you have special ops on the ground actually saying, "Okay, hit here" -

    STEVE DOOCY (co-host): The laser pointers --

    KILMEADE: -- and the laser goes right there, and the bomb hits right there.

    DOOCY: The other guy in the split screen is Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer, in operations like this, we always have guys on the ground who do recon, and surveillance and stuff like that. But for the administration to say, don't worry, we're not going to have boots on the ground, that's not exactly honest. Is it? Because we already do have boots on the ground.

At this point, co-host Gretchen Carlson's conscience seemed to catch up with her, though that still didn't stop her from talking about possible "secret, covert people" the U.S. military might have in Libya:

    CARLSON: Well -- no. I don't think that's an issue. I think that you need to protect those people who are there. I think when it becomes an issue is if we actually have boots on the ground.

    DOOCY: We have boots on the ground!

    CARLSON: No, no, no, if we actually are there.

    DOOCY: If we invade?

    CARLSON: Yes. When you say boots on the ground --

    DOOCY: We're not going to invade.

    CARLSON: Ok, well, that's a totally different thing and most Americans would understand that we have secret, covert people there, and we don't want to blow their cover. But it's totally different when you're talking about what our long-term mission is there, and that remains unknown.

Fox & Friends didn't even bother to conceal their true motive with this irresponsible reporting. Following that segment, Doocy teased the story again later on the show by saying:

    DOOCY: Meanwhile, a stunning revelation -- sources say there are troops on the ground in Libya. Will this spell more trouble for President Obama in the court of public opinion?

Carlson spelled this out even more clearly in a later segment with Geraldo Rivera:

    CARLSON: Don't you think it changes the entire tone of this discussion with the American public, if, in fact, there's any inkling that we have boots on the ground? I mean, I do. I think it changes the whole -- those polls would change dramatically about whether or not Americans support this or not.

In other words, Fox has noticed that polls show most Americans support the military action in Libya -- a Reuters poll released yesterday shows 60 percent back the action -- and has essentially decided: "There might be covert troops on the ground, and if so, it would be irresponsible to report on them. But let's do it anyway, because it could make Obama look like a liar!"

Is Fox willing to put the safety of our troops ahead of their shameless desire to smear Obama? It sure looks that way.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Funny - this same orginazation didnt say boo when the NYT did it to GWB on a ton of issues. 

Typial liberal double standards.   

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Funny - this same orginazation didnt say boo when the NYT did it to GWB on a ton of issues. 

Typial liberal double standards.   

No different than typical right wing double standards.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
No different than typical right wing double standards.

Maybe not, but media matters has ZERO credibility on this or almost any issue.   


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Meh.  Like the guy said, SF are always on the ground somewhere.  Not really news.  Except to the poor saps in Libya who get taken out.   :)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Its all good, SF on ground over there is probably a good thing if it ends the violence quicker.  But we shouldn't be involved in this in the first dam place.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Its all good, SF on ground over there is probably a good thing if it ends the violence quicker.  But we shouldn't be involved in this in the first dam place.

Agree.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Republican credo is always Party before Country

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Republican credo is always Party before Country

Fucking please ::)

Anyone with a ounce of brains knows SF are inserted anywhere  we are "fighting",  just the way it is. Politicians are always claiming no ground forces, yeah sure ::)
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Fucking please ::)

Anyone with a ounce of brains knows SF are inserted anywhere  we are "fighting",  just the way it is. Politicians are always claiming no ground forces, yeah sure ::)

I didn't say they weren't

I'm sure we have SF running around Iran and other countries too and probably have for years

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Julian Assange had no problem doing this. Same goes for the left.

How many innocent people got their heads chopped off as a result of the NY Times plastering the Abu Ghraib photos all over the planet?  ::)


headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Once again..the douchbag left are really reaching. It also shows they have no clue how SOF is used despite years of war and that odd new invention...the internet. Unless we're trying to actively kill daffy..I doubt Delta is running around. I also have to assume that once we started firing tomahawks..Libiyan intel was looking for our FAC's if they were even there. I have a hard time thinking that he and his military ignore how we fight. They can watch the Military channel and figure out what we do..generally. 
L

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Once again..the douchbag left are really reaching. It also shows they have no clue how SOF is used despite years of war and that odd new invention...the internet. Unless we're trying to actively kill daffy..I doubt Delta is running around. I also have to assume that once we started firing tomahawks..Libiyan intel was looking for our FAC's if they were even there. I have a hard time thinking that he and his military ignore how we fight. They can watch the Military channel and figure out what we do..generally. 
I wouldn't be too sure of that.  This is an Arab military we are talking about.  They don't exactly have the greatest track record.

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
 ::)

Gee, you think Media Matters has an agenda?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html

Media Matters' war against Fox


By BEN SMITH | 3/26/11 7:23 AM EDT Updated: 3/27/11 5:06 PM EDT
The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

The group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites, which its leaders view as political organizations and the “nerve center” of the conservative movement. The shift reflects the centrality of the cable channel to the contemporary conservative movement, as well as the loathing it inspires among liberals — not least among the donors who fund Media Matters’ staff of about 90, who are arrayed in neat rows in a giant war room above Massachusetts Avenue.


“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.

The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”

In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)

Brock said Media Matters also plans to run a broad campaign against Fox’s parent company, News Corp., an effort which most likely will involve opening a United Kingdom arm in London to attack the company’s interests there. The group hired an executive from MoveOn.org to work on developing campaigns among News Corp. shareholders and also is looking for ways to turn regulators in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network.

The group will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests — whether that be here or looking at what’s going on in London right now,” Brock said, referring to News Corp.’s — apparently successful — move to take a majority stake in the satellite broadcaster BSkyB.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html#ixzz1HwK3pCCT
A spokeswoman for Fox News, Irena Briganti, declined to comment on Media Matters’ efforts, but the group draws regular barbs from Fox hosts Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

“Tonight is not an episode you casually watch and take out of context like Media Matters does,” Beck remarked last month.

Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen
A more extended attack came in February on the freewheeling late night show Red Eye, which conducted a mock interview with a purported Media Matters employee.

“It’s horrible. All we do is sit and watch Fox News and make up stuff about Fox News. It is the saddest place I have ever seen in my life. I think about it, and I want to throw up,” the mock employee said. “I get to work and I take off my clothes, and they strap me into a chair in front of a TV with [Fox News Channel] on. They keep my eyelids propped open like in “Clockwork Orange,” and I sit and type all day.

“If there was no Beck, George Soros would come down and demand we make it up,” the “interviewee” continued. “I would watch the “Flintstones” and transcribe Fred Flintstone’s words and attribute them to Beck. It was the only way to get Soros to stop hitting me.”

(A Soros associate said the financier, who gave Media Matters $1 million last year, did not earmark it for the Fox campaign. Soros suggested in a recent CNN interview that the Fox depictions of him as a sinister media manipulator would better be applied to Murdoch.)

In some views, the war between Media Matters and Fox is not, necessarily, bad for either side. Media Matters has transformed itself into a pillar of the progressive movement with its aggressive new brand of media campaigning. And the attacks cement Fox’s status on the right.

“Fox is happy about it — and it makes their position more vivid among their supporters,” said Paul Levinson, a media studies professor at Fordham University. “One way of keeping your core supporters happy is to be attacked by people your core supporters don’t like.”

But Media Matters says its digging has begun to pay off. The group has trickled out a series of emails from Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon, leaks from inside the network, which show him, for instance, circulating a memo on “Obama’s references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists.”

The leaks are part of a broader project to take advantage of internal dissent, Media Matters Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt said.

“We made a list of every single person who works for Fox and tried to figure out who might be disgruntled and why, and we went out to try to meet them,” he said. “Clearly, somebody in that organization is giving us primary source documents.”

Media Matters, he said, is also conducting “opposition research” on a dozen or so “mid- and senior-level execs and producers,” a campaign style move that he and Brock said would simply involve recording their public appearances and digging into public records associated with them.

And Brock’s 2010 planning memo offers a glimpse at Media Matters’ shift from media critic to a new species of political animal.

“Criticizing Fox News has nothing to do with criticizing the press,” its memo says. “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949_Page2.html#ixzz1HwJqWP4S

whork25

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Getbig!
 “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”


So true

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Whether it's media matters or news max, the messenger will always Be attacked by the other side. So what?  The question is, was it factual?

Johnny_Blaze

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Its all good, SF on ground over there is probably a good thing if it ends the violence quicker.  But we shouldn't be involved in this in the first dam place.


They want to create a new America over there, don't you know?
Just Do It

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy

They want to create a new America over there, don't you know?

Put a couple thousand Micky Dee's over there and make pot legal and they will all be too fat to fight.