About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox & Friends uses battleship as backdrop for segment on whether Obama is "putting American lives at risk"

November 05, 2009 7:34 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

On-screen graphic asks: "President's inaction on Afghanistan: Is he putting American lives at risk?"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by princeofwheels (November 05, 2009 7:51 am ET)
      8  
      What Bush administration? It never existed. Just ask Dicki Cheney..he seems to have forgotten.
      This Douchy guy doesn't seems to understand that the word dithering is being worn out.
      And these "military" guys refuse to mention Gen McCrytals(sic) entire report to the President.

      P.S. Bush is not responsible, I saw the sign that said
      MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Where is the sign on this ship?

      Douchy, you should be embarassed to wear play military guy with that hat. Sign-up, go help the troops. You don't need to fight, just go over to help.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (November 05, 2009 8:03 am ET)
      5  
      "President's inaction on Afghanistan: Is he putting American lives at risk?"

      Yes, G.W. Bush did put a lot of American lives at risk when he ignored Afghanistan shortly after invading it.

      Thanks for nothing!
      ~
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (November 05, 2009 8:11 am ET)
      4  
      Funny, these Naval officers aren't in command any more, they have no access to the information and no influence on the decisions being made, why do they get to sit in their comfy chairs and play the blame game. What about making a decision and moving on. They are civilians now, they should deal with that.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by christopher howard (November 05, 2009 8:12 am ET)
      4  
      So Doocy blames things on Clinton at the beginning of the segment, and then all four men agree that you shouldn't look to the past.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by manofmystique (November 05, 2009 8:23 am ET)
      4  
      The blame game continues because dumb-a*# reporters and Fox News insist on making this Obama's war, when in fact, he didn't start it. And it's really not a blame game, it's telling the truth. You idiots want to forget or overlook the person really responsible for this misguided war, and now you want to skate-goat the man who is trying to clean up the mess. What you no-good liars should be doing is advocating the arrest and prosecution of former President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
      Untold number of people died, including American soldiers, because of their decision to go to war on faulty or unreliable "Intelligence" and out-right lies.
      You people are incapable of being honest with the American people. You hypocrites are only out to undermine and discredit the President; that makes YOU part of the problem- instead of being part of the solution.
      Let the real criminals (Bush and Cheney) off the hook and criticize and attack the one who inherited the situation. You call yourselves journalists and leaders. All of you bastards should go straight to H*ll.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (November 05, 2009 8:23 am ET)
      4  
      Leadership does not mean totally ignoring the past...it involves not making the same mistakes someone else before you made.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by marco21 (November 05, 2009 8:43 am ET)
      1  
      Wow, unanimous agreement on Fox's attack, Cheney talking points and weak slams on the Obama Administration.

      Shocking. See, Fox is full of true patriots for attacking the President during a time of war, but you were a jerk for doing so as late as last year.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (November 05, 2009 9:12 am ET)
      2  
      Amazing.

      Just think back a few years. Imagine the uproar in Troglodyte Land if some journalist had asked the same question about President Numbnuts needlessly invading Iraq.

      Bush did put American lives at risk, but anyone who said so was shouted down as "unpatriotic".

      What a difference one election makes.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (November 05, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
           
        We'd still be hearing the echoes, nerzog, had this question been asked six or seven years ago. That's how loud the uproar would've been. Don'tcha just love "Bush is no longer President. We have to look forward. It's Clinton's fault!" line of 'reasoning'?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by drempala (November 05, 2009 9:16 am ET)
      1  
      Three out of three generals agree, we need to send those soldiers in there so that we can prop up the ultra-stable Karzai government.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jediknight65 (November 05, 2009 9:52 am ET)
      1  
      hmmm funny they use a battleship as a backdrop....since there are no battleships currently having been used since what 1991 or 1992, something like that?

      its a perfect analogy for the neo con thought process....something old, outdated and no longer in use.

      btw before anyone tries to bash me for this. im not knocking battleships at all, they had their uses, they still could have their uses....if there was about 2 billion in refits made to them and whole new stocks of the gunpowder were made....even though no factory has made any stocks of powder for 50 years. truth is they had their time and unless there is some dire emergency they are no longer needed.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (November 05, 2009 10:04 am ET)
           
        The last Iowa class battleships were removed from the US Naval Lists in 2006. It's possible that the Wisconsin will be turned into a museum, though it has not been de-militarized yet.

        The 16 guns, with a range of some 25 miles, while extremely powerful, are simply no match for current missile technology. I have a hard time picturing a dire enough emergency to undertake refitting one of these ships, to be honest. Also, they kind of end up being big sitting targets, since their top speed is also no match for even propeller driven aircraft. Pearl Harbor and Midway were the ultimate proof of this.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jediknight65 (November 05, 2009 10:44 am ET)
             
          they could be reactivated if needed but the costs are astronomical and you are right about missile tech being better anyway. plus lets not forget one of the Iowa battleships is missing one of its main guns. the Iowa itself. the company that had built the guns for the battleships no longer exists (Bethlehem Steel) and the factory that made the guns is slated to be turned into a casino. (at present the factory complex is just gathering rust)
          Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (November 05, 2009 11:05 am ET)
           
        hmmm funny they use a battleship as a backdrop....

        A battleship is the perfect metaphor for Faux News - clumsy, obsolete, and no longer useful.....
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (November 05, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
             
          A battleship is the perfect metaphor for Faux News - clumsy, obsolete, and no longer useful.....

          We need a Faux News Pearl Harbor.
          While many of the battleships were destroyed (notably the Arizona, which is the memorial) at PH, it also pushed the military leaders of the time (and, remember, the military is always fighting the previous war) into accepting that aircraft carriers were really the wave of the future. (Beyond that, with the development of more destructive and accurate missiles, aircraft became secondary similarly to battleships)
          Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (November 05, 2009 9:58 am ET)
         
      "...and they've gotta quit playing the blame game." Because, over here at FOX Propaganda, that's our shtick, and it's trademarked. Now, on with the real version of the blame game, right admiral? By the way, are you still in command? Are you fully briefed on the situation? And, when you were in command, weren't you bound by the decision of the commander in chief anyway?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by spring2009 (November 05, 2009 10:03 am ET)
      1  
      Shameful, simply shameful how they continually qualify themselves as a news agency when they are clearly a propaganda machine for the republican party.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Redfairy (November 05, 2009 10:48 am ET)
      1  
      This isn't news and this isn't news reporting. These "reporters" (though really, they're not reporters at all - they are the Purveyors of Propaganda or POP) are irresponsible and rather shameless.

      I seem to recall how when Bush was in office, anyone critizing that administration was unpatriotic by FOX standards. But now, there is nothing the Obama administration could do that these people would ever agree with because in the FOX world, the only thing that matters is their IDEOLOGY.

      At least the Obama Administration is willing to weigh the options and the consequences of a surge into Afganistan. Frankly, Obama's reticence and caution will bear far better fruit than Bush's seemingly impulsive push to go into Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaida was in Afganistan and Pakistan and Bush invades Iraq. Did FOX raise any concerns about this? Hell no.

      I can't stand FOX News.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (November 05, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
           
        Very true, Redfairy. I guess the old guys on the panel just really miss the 'Ready! Shoot! Aim!' diplomacy of days gone by. It's about that time of year, at least in my neck of the woods. They could always go hunt quail with Cheney if they really do long for the good ol' days.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bewildered (November 06, 2009 2:01 am ET)
         
      Fox is promoting war?

      I'm sure Halliburton is impressed.
      Report Abuse