Fox News hosts go off-message in hyping N. Korea missile tests
SUMMARY: Though White House press secretary Tony Snow criticized "attempts to try to describe" North Korea's recent missile tests "in breathless World War III terms," Fox News hosts, analysts, and guests repeatedly suggested using force to prevent North Korea from conducting further missile tests and acquiring more nuclear weapons-grade material, with one military analyst even advocating the "nuclear" option.
During a July 5 White House press briefing, press secretary Tony Snow criticized "attempts to try to describe" North Korea's recent missile tests "in breathless World War III terms," cautioning that "[t]his is a situation in which people are working with a regime in North Korea, trying to reason with a dictator, to step back from provocative activities." Yet Snow's call for calm was not heeded for much of the rest of the day on Fox News, where Snow worked before joining the White House and which frequently offers a reliable echo chamber for GOP talking points. During July 5 discussions on Your World with Neil Cavuto, The Big Story with John Gibson, and The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News hosts, analysts, and guests repeatedly suggested using force to prevent North Korea from conducting further missile tests and acquiring more nuclear weapons-grade material, with Fox News military analyst retired Lt. Col Tim Eads even advocating the "nuclear" option. Conversely, Hannity & Colmes co-host Sean Hannity echoed Snow's comments and the Bush administration's official stance toward North Korea, asserting that "the world is overreacting" to the situation.
As Media Matters for America noted, Gordon Chang, author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World (Random House, January 2006), remarked on the July 4 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that the administration has muted its response to North Korea "because they don't want to highlight the failure of American policy for the last five years."
During the July 5 edition of Your World, guest host David Asman, noting current diplomatic overtures to resolve the crisis with North Korea, asked: "[W]hat are America's military options? Should we hit missiles on the launch pad before the next test? ... Should we hit the missiles before they launch?" Asman's guest, former deputy assistant secretary of the Army Van D. Hipp, replied: "[A]bsolutely. We need a pre-emptive strike to take out those fixed facilities."
Also during the program, Heritage Foundation senior fellow James Carafano falsely asserted that the United States currently has "a missile defense system which can interdict these things [missiles] in flight," adding that "we do have a capability to intercept either short-range or long-range ballistic missiles for Japan and the United States." But as Media Matters has recently noted (here, here and here), no successful test of the U.S. missile defense system has occurred in roughly three years, and no test of the currently deployed system as a whole has occurred. During the segment, an on-screen graphic illustrated a successful missile defense capability:
Similarly, during the July 5 edition of The Big Story, guest host Julie Banderas pondered a U.S. military response to North Korea, asserting that a U.N. Security Council resolution could "open the way for a possible military response." Banderas asked Eads, "[I]f North Korea keeps shooting off missiles ... what else can we do about it?" Eads responded that, because the U.S. military is "stretched pretty thin right now ... we'd have to look at some other option, you know, nuclear, that kind of thing." Then, wanting to "talk about possible air strikes," Banderas asked Eads: "If we were to go ahead with military action, what should be our plan?" Eads said that "air strikes is a definite possibility," but noted that it is "[n]ot a good situation at all." Also, during the segment, Fox News ran a graphic that depicted the trajectory of successful missile launches from North Korea directed at Los Angeles, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Chicago.
Guest-hosting for Bill O'Reilly on the July 5 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, former Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) asked Fox News Military analyst retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark to explain "what military options are on the table" with North Korea. While Clark advocated direct negotiations with the North Koreans, Kasich asked: "How long are we going to talk while this guy [North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il] keeps advancing his program?" Later in the segment, Clark noted that if the North Korean government imploded, then "we'd be left with 23 million, mostly starving, angry, and armed North Koreans." Kasich replied: "Better that than a guy with a missile, an intercontinental missile and a nuclear warhead." During the segment, an onscreen graphic illustrated the range of three types of North Korean missiles, focusing on one medium-range and one long-range North Korean missile and their potential to reach the United States:
But while these Fox News hosts and guests on July 5 hyped a U.S. military response to North Korea's missile testing, Hannity, on the July 5 edition of Hannity & Colmes, echoed Snow, who said that North Korea's missile tests should not be viewed "in breathless World War III terms." Discussing the situation with Fox News military analyst retired Col. Oliver North, Hannity asserted that the "world is overreacting" to the missile tests. Hannity later advocated following "the Reagan model," claiming: "[A]s I watch the panic, as I watch the anxiety, the world angst, it seems like we've forgotten the lesson of Ronald Reagan," who "said peace through strength, we'll trust and verify."
From the July 5 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
ASMAN: Well, as diplomats try to head off a full-scale crisis with North Korea, what are America's military options? Should we hit the missiles on the launch pad before the next test? With us now, Van Hipp, former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, and James Carafano, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Hipp, we apparently knew there was going to be a launch. Should we, could we have hit them on the launchpad?
[...]
ASMAN: So, Mr. Hipp, Mr. Hipp, I just got to ask you straight out -- forgive me for pressing the point.
HIPP: Yeah. Yeah.
ASMAN: Should we hit the missiles before they launch?
HIPP: If we believe the Taepodong missile has the ability to reach the continental United States, absolutely. We need a pre-emptive strike to take out those fixed facilities.
[...]
ASMAN: But, Mr. Carafano, they're tests now. Some day, they may launch them for real. How do we know the difference?
CARAFANO: Well, well, you -- actually, you can know the difference. And we actually do have a missile defense system which can interdict these things in flight. And we have the enormous ability to retaliate and destroy all of North Korea, if they try.
ASMAN: Well, in fact, Mr. -- Mr. -- Mr. Hipp, we do have --
[crosstalk]
ASMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Carafano, just a second.
CARAFANO: I don't -- I don't think the lack of defending the United States is going to be an issue.
ASMAN: Mr. Hipp, we do, in fact, have interceptors. They were put on alert. Could they have taken down the missiles after they launched, if we had -- if we had attacked it?
HIPP: That's the -- that's the $64,000 question. We have missile interceptors at Fort Greely [Alaska]. And I know that we are now deploying missile interceptors to Japan.
[...]
ASMAN: Do we have the capability, the interceptor capability, to take them down after they are launched? Mr. Carafano?
CARAFANO: Yes, we do have a capability to intercept either short-range or long-range ballistic missiles for Japan and the United States.
HIPP: But the $64,000 question is, will that technology work all the time?
What I'm saying -- do we need a pre-emptive strike today? No. But I am saying it depends on our intelligence capability. If our intelligence is right -- and they got to get this one right -- if it's right, that this threat is imminent or about to be imminent, such that a Taepodong, even if it goes off course, if they extend the range, like they want to, and it can reach the continental United States --
ASMAN: OK.
HIPP: -- and they are in cahoots with the Iranians, we have got to launch a pre-emptive strike.
From the July 5 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
BANDERAS: You just heard [Fox News senior correspondent] Eric Shawn's report, sources tell him a Chapter Seven resolution is expected to be circulated to the U.N. Security Council. That would open the way for a possible military response. What's your prediction?
LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER (secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush): My prediction? Oh, boy. I know what I think they should do, whether we'll do it or not is another question. I guess my prediction is that this will go on long enough, until at some point we finally wake up to the fact that the North Koreans have a weapon that they can plop into the middle of Chicago, potentially with a nuclear weapon on its end, and we will then decide we have to do something military.
[...]
BANDERAS: And resetting our big story, the North Korean missile crisis. Today the world condemned the country's missile launches over the Sea of Japan. There's an effort right now to keep focusing on diplomacy, but what if that doesn't work? What if North Korea keeps shooting off missiles and what else can we do about it? Fox News military analyst, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Tim Eads joins us now to talk about this. All right, all these what-ifs, what what-if scares you most?
EADS: Well, I guess what-if scares us most is if, in fact, we do have to go into North Korea to stop what they're doing. It would have to be either a massive troop deployment, which frankly, we're stretched pretty thin right now, or we'd have to look at some other option, you know, nuclear, that kind of thing, something to level the playing field quickly, because they have us in a, if you just do a head count on who has the most people. So, it would be a dangerous and dicey situation. It will totally destabilize the region. It will put South Korea and its economy in great jeopardy, and the price will be very, very steep.
[...]
BANDERAS: All right, so talk about possible airstrikes. If we were to go ahead with military action. What should be our plan, how do we go about it?
EADS: Well, airstrikes is a definite possibility, probably the first thing we'd go for. It is something we could go for from the standpoint of taking out these missiles while they're on the pad, as former Secretary of Defense [William] Perry recommended a couple of weeks ago. The problem with that is, you don't know how the North Korean leadership is going to react. If we did that and they started shooting artillery into South Korea -- into Seoul, in a matter of hours, Seoul would be decimated, and there goes the South Korean economy, and you have casualties in the hundreds of thousands. Not a good situation at all.
[...]
BANDERAS: Militarily speaking, is North Korea prepared if we were to take military action?
HOLMES: Well, they clearly have a very large military. Your previous guest was talking about that, that's always been an issue. Clearly we have to be mindful of that. But I think that the -- we should not give up in the short term on trying to mobilize the international community against North Korea.
From the July 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
KASICH: In the "Impact" segment tonight, as the North Koreans thumb their nose at the world, what military options are on the table? Joining us now from Little Rock, Arkansas, Fox News analyst General Wesley Clark. General, you know, yesterday when I heard about, I just shook my head. I worry about my kids. Ballistic missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles combined with perhaps a nuclear program. I mean, I can't think of a scarier scenario, particularly when those items are in the hands of somebody like this man that's running North Korea. Your take on it?
[...]
KASICH: But General, this, this -- what bothers me about this, and I'd love to think that this is the way out of this mess, and maybe we're going to find it is. I'm always believing in talking before we don't. But in '94, that's precisely what was agreed to. We give them these non-nuclear-capable reactors, and we make a deal with them. We bring them into the community, and then they go out and cheat. And now William Perry, your old boss, the former secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, said we ought to blow this rocket off the launching pad. I mean, he's advocating a military effort here. I mean, how long are we going to talk before this guy keeps advancing his program?
CLARK: Well, we've got to both talk and act and constrain. There's no single solution that we're going to ever like with North Korea. Look, if this government imploded, we'd be left with 23 million mostly starving, angry, and armed North Koreans. Nobody --
KASICH: Better than a guy with a missile --
CLARK: -- wants that. Well --
KASICH: Better that than a guy with a missile, an intercontinental missile and a nuclear warhead. Why don't we put the heat on the Chinese and get serious with the Chinese? They're the enforcers, aren't they?
From the July 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Colonel, one of the points I'm making here is that I think the world is overreacting in this sense. I think it's a crisis. But we have got to send a loud message. There will be a major use of force if, in fact, these missiles are to get anywhere near another country. Isn't that the message we ought to be united in sending?
[...]
HANNITY: Colonel, as I watch the panic, as I watch the anxiety, the world angst, it seems like we've forgotten the lesson of Ronald Reagan. Let's not forget, when Reagan became president -- and he was calling the former Soviet Union the "Evil Empire" -- there were literally thousands of ballistic missiles pointed at American cities. But he stood up to them. He rebuilt our military, he modernized our weaponry in Europe, he said peace through strength, we'll trust and verify, and he stood tall. Isn't this a moment where the United States needs to tell the world, "We don't really care what the United Nations says. We will be the masters of our own destiny," and in that sense, follow the Reagan model?
Bush's troglodyte base salivating in front of the TV as their Doctor Strangelove fantasies, so long thwarted by those pussy liberals, finally come to fruition.
Quoth Sean Hannity vis-a-vis his Ideal Approach to the North Korean Problem:
In other words, resorting to the same rabidly xenophobic, even isolationist, "guns-before-butter" mindset North Korea is using to deal with the North Korean problem.
Aren't we already playing the rabidly xenophobic, even isolationist, card with our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan otherwise known as ur-RAHOWA, and the enforced hyperpatriotism reinforcing same (especially so in the lower element expected to trust Faux News as Holy Writ)?
Shouldn't we, as a nation, be ashamed of ourselves all the more?
And what exactly will it require?
"Enforced hyper-patriotism..." uh yea right..
Your attempt at equating the U.S. with North Korea is laughable at best. Perhaps you need to spend some time watching the leaked videos that have been smuggled out of NK before you try to draw ludicrous examples to support comparisons such as this.
Aside from all the talking heads on Fox news clamoring for pre-emptive strikes, I've been suprised at the restraint this administration has had in dealing with Kim Jung Il.
Also please point out exactly the "misadventures" in Afghanistan? The only misadventure I see there is not keeping it the *focus* of the "War" on "Terror" instead of Iraq.
No argument on Iraq. Try to tone down the rhetoric eh? It makes meaningful discussion that much harder to attain.
Has certainly turned into a misadventure, if it didn't start out that way. CIA people have reported that the special forces needed to hunt down Bin Laden were indeed diverted to Iraq; despite Tommy Franks assertions to the contrary. We're on the verge of having to start over in Afghanistan...I think calling it a misadventure is too kind.
but I don't agree with how he was framing the US actions taken in Afghanistan and using it to bolster his contention "our foriegn policy consists of xenophobia just like NK", as if we shouldn't have been there in the first place. I guess some people like to easily forget how we had UN support to go into Afghanistan after 9/11.. it's just too bad we took our eye off the ball.
building palaces for war lords, complete with swimming pools. Re-supplying the text books that taught kids how to hate non-muslims that we supplied while OBL was 'our boy' fighting the USSR. Leaveing a nice wide route open for OBL to escape through. Encouraging the bumper-crop of opium poppies. Letting the Taliban re-emerge to rule the place.
All i can think of off the top of my head.
Read my other post above..
What's with the pathological blood thirst of these people? Why does war always seem to be the first option for them, not a last resort?
Because they're psychopaths...armchair serial killers. They want to mass murder everyone that's not "one of us" from the safety of their news studios and living rooms, using our military as their murder weapon. They have absolutely no regard for human life, totally sociopathic. They're just plain mental.
Led off with North Korea trying to nuke Hawaii. Does Fox want everyone in their network to push for all out war?
What FOX NEWS wants is for their mindless morons to read what Karl Rove transmits to their teleprompters.
I wonder if Battle Hymn of The Republic is the only song playing on the mood music system at the FOX NEWS studios?
I suspect that Fox honcho Roger Ailes yearns to recreate his youthful years during the 50s, when we lived in fear under the cloud of the Soviet nuclear threat (and under school desks) and when fear-mongering diagrams outlining missile attacks (like the ones above) were commonly seen in newspapers and on the tv in the Ailes family living room.
How come they are not mentioning Bush in their conversations? Why aren't they saying: Bush, what are you going to do about this? Is it because Bush is helpless against N.Korea, except for the name calling (calling it part of the Axis of Evil)?
Karl Rove is probably telling Puddinhead what to say as we speak. Just give him a few days to memorize it...
so tight that now even they can not stop them. The students have surpassed the masters in the art of "crackpot crazy insane".
Spewing GOP talking points is a close second to attracting the lowest-common-denominator viewer. Sometimes the republican message must be sacrificed for the greater "good".
When is Dubya going to stand on the floor of the UN and tell the world, "Kim Jong Il must disarm, or we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
Funny how Chimpy isn't even hinting at invasion when we have a psychotic dictator who is actually flaunting his weapons of mass destruction.
You know why? North Korea has nothing to offer. No oil, no natural gas, no food, NOTHING.
A bully (Bush) only beats up the little guy who he knows won't fight back (Iraq), not someone his own size (N. Korea).
As discussed on yesterdays Ed Schultz show, this administration has clearly done a 180 in terms of its approach to N Korea Vs Iraq. Now, considering the left felt that the approach to Iraq was 100% wrong it stands to reason that you would think his approach to N Korea would be a whole lot better.
As Schultz posed the question, what exactly is the liberal answer to N Korea if you don't like what's currently taking place? I thought diplomacy was the thing.
---"I thought diplomacy was the thing"---
It is. Though there is no, one "liberal position" on North Korea, liberal positions don't include the bully tactics of George Bush.
My point was that, in typical bullying and cowardly manner, Bush picks on someone he knows he can beat: Iraq. It shows that he was well aware Hussein had no power to fight back (no WMD). Now, up against a real power with a real army and real weapons, Bush backs off the big, bullying talk.
A proponent might say that Bush learned from his previous mistakes while an opponent might call him a flip-flopper. Regardless, I appreciate you acknowledging that we did indeed win the Iraq war. Reading all these posts the past 18 months I could have swore we lost.
And what the meaning of "won" is. We successfully invaded Iraq and toppled its government. It's been pretty much downhill ever since. Does it qualify as a foreign policy success? I don't think so.
---"I appreciate you acknowledging that we did indeed win the Iraq war."---
That's real cute, Bruce, but I don't appreciate my words being manipulated.
I said "Bush knew" he could beat Hussein, because he knew fully well that Iraq didn't really have the WMDs advertised by the Bush administration.
Bush was wrong--dead wrong--in his simple-minded cockiness, however, about beating Iraq. Iraq is a dead-end quagmire of a mess, a la Vietnam, and unwinnable.
I'm reading some of these posts wondering the same thing myself. It's amazing what contortions some people will go through to avoid admitting that so far the Bush administration has been handling Kim Jung Il pretty well considering what we know about him. I guess they feel if they give Bush *any* credit at all, it somehow weakens their argument that his administration is inept in it's foreign policy.
I personally think it's better to be honest.. Bush has enough damaging things out there without having to contrive new ones that conflict with with your previous contentions.
He lied about Iraq; why wouldn't he lie about NK? Fool me once, shame on me...shame on....you can't get fooled again!
I think the major point of this thread is the war mongering going on at Fox News, which, we all know, is the official Media Mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. What Bush says in public is, quite frankly, irrelevant.
The North Koreans agreed not to pursue nuclear power while the United States and fellow nations assisted it in building nuclear energy plants (that are not related to nuclear proliferation, and cannot facilitate weapon production). In 2000 Bush declared they were a member of the 'axis of evil' and pulled out of Clinton's pledge to assist their economic development. It was Bush's decision to break the agreement with N Korea. In response, they returned to nuclear proliferation. The media continues to suggest that N Korea broke their vow, when in fact Bush broke the agreement and ended N Korea's duty to follow through with their commitment.
I wouldn't say Bush dealt with N Korea very well. His 'diplomatic' choices can be directly linked to their decision to arm themselves.
That's the one thing everyone forgets...North Korea is all bluster, no bite. They just pull stunts like this to get negative attention but it really harms noone. The few missiles they fire off occassionally are probably the only ones they can find feul for.
And the fearmongers in the US propaganda machines are all screaming for mushroom clouds over Pyongyang..again...just because the NK's decide to drop a few missiles into empty ocean. Worse that happens is they kill a few fish. And we're supposed to kill them in droves for it? Just show's who the real madmen are.
But Puddinhead desperately needs a new Boogeyman, now that Iraq is FUBAR, Zarqawi is dead and we can't find Osama. If they play this right, they can get Chimpy's approval rating back up to 50% by November.
1. Build small arsenal of nukes. 2. Launch them at key US targets. 3. Hope one or two reach. 4. Watch US launch twenty nukes that ALL reach. 5. No more NK.
Kim might be nuts but he isn't that crazy. He knows that NK best defense is nuclear capability, since the USA only attacks nations without nukes. Name ONE nation we have attack that has or had a nuclear arsenal. Never happened, won’t happened. It’s called mutually assured destruction. The balance of terror. Whatever you call it, having nukes puts you at the grownups’ table in world politics. That’s all Kim wants: to be on equal ground with the big boys, and security for NK.
Just watch all this NK bluster fall off the radar once the November elections are over. Bush and his junta of warmongering goons know the most effective way to get people to vote for Republican is irrational fear. That’s how they like their constituency: irrational, and dumb helps, too.
Which is the bigger threat; nuclear annihilation or gay marriage? Oh, the humanity....!
The Republicans can't run on their disasterous record of domestic and foreign policy travesties.
THEY NEED A BIG ENEMY!
THEY NEED A NEW WAR!
Odd that while the Rightwingers are rattling their sabres at point TEN on the Rickter scale, Bush has a new buzz word: DIPLOMACY.
Gee, haven't we learned that DIPLOMACY is for the weak, the cowardly, the APPEASERS?
Oh, that's right. Bush gives a little lip service to "peaceful means" up front, just to show that "compassionate conservative" thingie. He doesn't mean it; it's just another LIE.
So fox tries to scare people by saying North Korea can launch Nukes at American cities. Um many things wrong with that besides the obvious question of what that have to gain from that as they already hold the city of Seoul hostage with conventional artillary. First at best North Kora has a missile that can reach Alaska and maybe Hawaii, not the continental US. The couple of times they have tested it, it has failed. Two even if it could reach the US and they do have Nukes (something which has not been tested and with the general skill elvel of DPRK engineers not somethign I would count on working everytime) they are still no where near making it small enough to put on any sort of missile much less an ICBM. In short North Korea may be a threat to its neighbors, but the only threat it posses to the US is to the military personal station on the Peninsula and to our economic well ebing.
I really think now that this has more to do with the rabid right fulfilling biblical prophesies than anything else. Global warming? Ignore it, not because it isn't real, but because there will be massive deaths on a biblical scale. Iraq? The site of the biblical war that portends the end of times. Korea? Hype it to fulfill another prophesy. They are in such a hurry to prove the bible to the world regardless of the consequences, and regardless of whether or not that is the way it is really supposed to happen.
And Snoopy, how do the religious fundies in this country, who want to prove to everyone that the Bible is the truth, differ from Muslim fundies trying to prove that Islam is the one true religion? I see very little difference. Both sides are willing to go to the extremes to force their religious CRAP (yes, I said it!) down everyone's throats. Where does it end?
And Snoopy, how do the religious fundies in this country, who want to prove to everyone that the Bible is the truth, differ from Muslim fundies trying to prove that Islam is the one true religion? I see very little difference. Both sides are willing to go to the extremes to force their religious CRAP (yes, I said it!) down everyone's throats. Where does it end? How do we reign in these fundies (on both sides) who have begun to dictate how politics work?
Maybe we should just put all of the trouble making fundies to death?
my post above with regards to putting fudies to death was meant in PURE sarcasm. I do not advocate the death penalty for anyone.
but I do agree. Extremists are really pushing the world towards the end of time to prove a point. Why? We know that answer? How to avoid? Not sure. It reminds me of a cartoon I used to watch back in the 70's, about a boy named Oblio and his dog arrow. He was banished to the pointless forest because he didn't have a pointed head, but in the end he saw sense in the forest. The banisher ended up being the one with no point. I guess the story's point was don't wait but look for truth and then use that truth to prove you aren't wrong. Kinda sad though, truth seekers are on the outside, those who are lock step are on the inside. Go figure.
that no republican gets elected president in 2008. That is the only way to get Cheney and Rumsfeld fired for replacing the Constitution with the Patriot act and act aggressively, like a street bully.
This ain't about defense or wanting to kill people. This is a continuation of the government's policy of welfare for its Corporate sponsors. Create a phony enemy if necessary. Someone convince me that North Korea presents any real threat to anyone but themselves. The corporate masters of today's right wing media have perfected the art of scaring America into submission in order to continue their profiteering.
OK so let me get this right, N Korea has conventianal artillary in range to destroy SEOUL and has been in a position to do so for decades. N Korea has short range missiles capable of reaching Japan, or China, or Russia, and has had them for 5-10 years. N Korea is working on something called Taepo-Dong 2 which could reach Alaska and possibly Hawaii and a some point in the future they may be able to arm with a non-conventianal warhead and improve its accuracy. However so far it has been tested twice and self destructed and crashed twice.
However Fox hypes something called Taepo-Dong 3 with a considerably longer range which they have no evidence even exists and even if it does has never once been tested.
So US of A goes into national panic mode, is the a Pentagon budget debate coming up??