About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Fox Really Reaching To Attack Obama's Afghanistan Speech

June 22, 2011 11:45 pm ET by Hardeep Dhillon

Following President Obama's speech on Afghanistan, Fox Nation went on the attack, stating that "Obama referred to himself over a dozen times [during his speech on Afghanistan] but never mentioned General [David] Petraeus, the architect of the troop surge." The criticism was followed by a full excerpt of Obama's speech on Afghanistan. From Fox Nation:

Following suit, Fox News' Sean Hannity stated: "The one thing -- I don't know if you noticed this -- I didn't hear General Petraeus' name. I heard the President mention himself, 'I, I, me, I, I, I,' I think about a dozen times. I didn't hear him mention General Petraeus in this speech. That was an omission? How is that possible?"

Unmentioned by Hannity was the fact that, while Obama did not directly thank Petraeus, he did single out our troops for thanks several times during his speech.

For instance, Obama said:

Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment.  Thanks to our extraordinary men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals.  As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point.

Obama also said:

Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al Qaeda's leadership.  And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever known.  This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11.  One soldier summed it up well.  "The message," he said, "is we don't forget.  You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes." 

[...]

In this effort, we draw inspiration from our fellow Americans who have sacrificed so much on our behalf.  To our troops, our veterans and their families, I speak for all Americans when I say that we will keep our sacred trust with you, and provide you with the care and benefits and opportunity that you deserve.  

I met some of these patriotic Americans at Fort Campbell.  A while back, I spoke to the 101st Airborne that has fought to turn the tide in Afghanistan, and to the team that took out Osama bin Laden.  Standing in front of a model of bin Laden's compound, the Navy SEAL who led that effort paid tribute to those who had been lost -- brothers and sisters in arms whose names are now written on bases where our troops stand guard overseas, and on headstones in quiet corners of our country where their memory will never be forgotten.  This officer -- like so many others I've met on bases, in Baghdad and Bagram, and at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital -- spoke with humility about how his unit worked together as one, depending on each other, and trusting one another, as a family might do in a time of peril. 

That's a lesson worth remembering -- that we are all a part of one American family.

[...]

With confidence in our cause, with faith in our fellow citizens, and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America -- for this generation, and the next. 

Fox's attack is reminiscent of a previous attack on an Obama speech ginned up by Fox executive Bill Sammon. Following Obama's 2009 address to the Muslim world in Cairo, Sammon sent an e-mail to Fox reporters, producers, and other personnel, stating that Obama did not use the words "terror," "terrorist," or "terrorism."

Sammon's email to his staff did not include any text beyond the subject line but read as follows:

From: Sammon, Bill

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:23 AM

To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 036 -FOX.WHU; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers

Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay

Subject: FYI: My cursory check of Obama's 6,000-word speech to the Muslim world did not turn up the words "terror," "terrorist" or "terrorism"

Sammon's "cursory check" quickly became the editorial focus for Fox News journalists covering Obama's speech, and was repeated (in some instances almost verbatim) by the network's hosts.

Sammon himself appeared on Fox shortly after sending the email and claimed that Obama, in not using "terrorism" or any of its variants, showed that "he has taken us off a war footing as a nation."

Just like the current Fox attack on Obama's Afghanistan speech, Sammon's criticism was misleading. Obama devoted a significant section of his remarks to denouncing and confronting Al Qaeda and other "violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security." Sammon's criticism also disregarded the analyses of Middle East and terrorism experts who viewed Obama's word choice as an effort to remove as a source of tension terms that, through overuse and misuse, have become incendiary in the Muslim world.

But Fox is apparently up to the same old tricks yet again.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Dem02020 (June 23, 2011 12:14 am ET)
      19 1

      The President must have delivered an effective speech, for these Fox hacks and underlings to try and distract from it's substance, by making petty and unimportant observations about style, specifically about speaking in a subjective style versus speaking objectively.

      And to illustrate how irrelevant is this distinction of style, I could just as easily have written the above as...

      I think the President must have delivered an effective speech, because it seems to me these Fox hacks and underlings are trying to distract from it's substance, I believe they're making petty and unimportant observations about style, specifically I'm referring to their distinctions between the subjective versus objective manner of speaking.

      I, me, I again, and I'm, were all added in the rewritten sentence, yet what difference did it make in substance or meaning, other than to be a more subjective way speaking?

      Again, the President must have delivered an effective and important speech, regardless of whether it was delivered subjectively or objectively.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by NotSure8 (June 23, 2011 4:52 pm ET)
           
        Also, at the points in the above quotes, the "I" was used properly, for things that he actually specifically did, was doing, or was going to do. Things that are/were a group effort, he appropriately used the pronoun "we".

        What this article made me notice is that he used the word "we" a heck of a lot more than he referred to himself. Of course, the Fox bunch would simply use that to say he wasn't willing to take the blame. You just can't win with them, and for that reason I am glad he didn't try to avoid using the appropriate pronouns in the appropriate places. (they've used this "I" smear in previous speeches)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jonimacaroni1 (June 23, 2011 3:01 am ET)
      13  
      And isn't General David Petraus going to be the next CIA director?

      So, Obama thinks enough of him to appoint him to that post, and Petraus thinks enough of Obama to have accepted that post.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (June 23, 2011 3:02 am ET)
        11  
        This is just conservative boiler-plate stuff that they roll out after EVERY Obama speech: he's such a megalomaniac that he says I & me toooooooo much!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mattcable250650 (June 23, 2011 10:17 am ET)
           
        I have a real problem with people being able to evaluate their own performance. As CIA Director, Petraeus will be giving the American people his view as to how the war in Afghanistan is going. Naturally, he's going to be very strongly tempted to "massage" the data so that it reflects well on his recent tenure there.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (June 23, 2011 3:02 am ET)
      5 1
      Perhaps the better way of thanking Patreaus would be too, oh I don't know, NAME HIM FRIGGIN' HEAD OF THE FRIGGIN' DOD ???

      Idiots ...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MiddleAmerica (June 23, 2011 8:02 am ET)
         
      Had Bush still been president, the speech would have pretty much been the same though the reaction from liberal and conservative pundits would have been much different.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (June 23, 2011 10:10 am ET)
      3  
      I rarely come across the name David Kilcullen - the Australian Lt. Colonel(res) who advised Petraeus on counterinsurgency - in FNC output. If you're going to talk about persons below the rank of Commander in Chief maybe credit should be given where it is due.

      That said, when the President speaks it should be remembered that it is with that person and that office that ultimate responsibility lies - as Harry S. Truman so eloquently put it "The buck stops here". Would the Fox pack prefer the royal "We"?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mattcable250650 (June 23, 2011 10:13 am ET)
      3  
      So our Commander-in-Chief should thank one of his subordinates, eh? That would make some sense if Petraeus' strategy had been not just successful, but obviously successful. Problem is, the offensive in Marjah (Launched February 2010) appeared to be successful and quickly dropped out of the news, but several months later, was still going on.
      No, I disagree that the President owes The Man Called Petraeus any special thanks.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jsteve (June 23, 2011 2:11 pm ET)
         
      Democracy Now! aired an analysis of the speech with guest Gareth Porter, a historain and inverstigative journalist. Porter pointed out to what he considered falsehoods in the speech, and called it unrealistic to expect to negotiate with the Taliban without an announcement of a withdrawal timeline. "There is an effort here to create a narrative that, as he put it, the war is receding, the tide of war is receding, when in fact nothing of the sort is happening." He said that that he thinks that Pres. Obama will regret his vague language on promising to ebb the tide of war. He also talked about the research he has done is which he questions Gen. Petraeus's claims of successes in Afghanistan. Check it out: bit.ly/iSHRYs
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ignatov (June 23, 2011 2:35 pm ET)
      4 1
      Notice how many times Hannity refers to himself in the short clip given above:

      "I don't know if you noticed this; I didn't hear General Petraeus' name. I heard the President mention himself... I think about a dozen times. I didn't hear him mention General Petraeus in this speech."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by brains101 (June 24, 2011 3:23 am ET)
         
      I see this as a difference in belief. The President laying out his plan for troop extraction and Fox not agreeing with it by the way neither do the Generals agree with the President. President thinking we should remove troops and the Generals think they should stay through October of next year. He did give credit to the troops but also took credit for the way the war has gone. I consider the Generals had more to do with the success then the President. But what has got me is the plug for energy where did that come from?
      Report Abuse