Carlson: "Obama the weak has become Obama the fierce. Does he mean it?"
On the August 1 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) August 1 speech proposing a strategy to fight terrorism, host Tucker Carlson asserted: "Like the kid who's had sand kicked in his face one too many times, Barack Obama announced to the world he is no weakling when it comes to foreign policy." Later in the segment, Carlson asserted: "In the space of a day, Obama the weak has become Obama the fierce," and went on to ask, "Does he mean it?" Later, during an interview with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Carlson paraphrased Obama as having said during the speech that he "want[s] to leave a country [Iraq] where Al Qaeda is strong." Carlson also said that this purported position "seems a big deal to me." What Obama said, in fact, was that Al Qaeda "is not the primary source of violence in Iraq" and has "little support." Obama also said that "al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence" and that "ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out."
From the August 1 speech:
In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.
Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.
Carlson's assertion during that show that "Obama the weak has become Obama the fierce" echoes his frequent attacks on Obama. As Media Matters for America has documented, in the month of July alone, Carlson said Obama "seems like kind of a wuss," "sounds like a pothead," and gave a speech that was "kind of wimpy." Further, on the July 12 edition of Tucker, Carlson teased an upcoming segment on the New Hampshire book clubs recently established by Obama's presidential campaign, saying: "Well, everybody knows that a book club is no place for a man. So why has Barack Obama suddenly turned into Oprah? [Producer] Willie Geist rounds up the girls, brings the chardonnay, and heads to the Oprah book club -- or the Obama book club -- when we come back." Despite these repeated attacks, Carlson said of Obama on the July 18 edition of his show: "I don't spend my time trashing the guy."
From the August 1 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Welcome to the show. Like the kid who's had sand kicked in his face one too many times, Barack Obama announced to the world today that he is no weakling when it comes to foreign policy. Obama laid out his vision for a new and more effective war on terror during a speech this morning in Washington.
For more than a week, the [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] campaign has derided Obama as soft on foreign affairs. Well, it's going to be a lot harder to make that claim now. If anything, Obama's speech erred on the side of hawkishness, most notably in his call to send American troops, if necessary, into Pakistan, a sovereign nation that he referred to more than once as, quote, "a battlefield."
The senator went on to explain that as president, he would push for free elections in Pakistan, send additional forces to Afghanistan, and station American troops in the vicinity of Iraq to fight the Al Qaeda factions he now acknowledges exist within that country. In short, he sounded a lot like a neocon, at times coming off as more bellicose than the president he hopes to replace.
In the space of a day, Obama the weak has become Obama the fierce. Does he mean it? Do his ideas make more sense now than when the Bush administration first proposed a lot of them, and is it really a good idea to invade Pakistan?
[...]
SMITH: But the important thing about Senator Obama's speech today -- two things, one, he said, "Let's focus on Al Qaeda. Let's focus on the group that hit us and threatens us first and foremost, and change our policy accordingly."
CARLSON: Which he acknowledges is in Iraq.
SMITH: Yes.
CARLSON: Is in Iraq.
SMITH: Yes.
CARLSON: So, he says -- he acknowledges that, which seems a big deal to me. You want to leave a country where Al Qaeda is strong. And then he says we're going to move to the region so we can go attack Al Qaeda in Iraq. What other country are we going in to from which we will launch these attacks into Iraq?
SMITH: Well, we have a number of allies in the region. Kuwait is perhaps the biggest one. But Senator Obama said that he would leave enough forces there to deal with Al Qaeda. What he --
CARLSON: Does the base know this? It's not really a pullout. I mean we're -- does the Democratic base, "get them all out" caucus know that he wants to leave guys in Iraq?
SMITH: That's what we voted on in the House. Congressman [Rep. Jim] McGovern [D-MA] who had --
CARLSON: Right.
SMITH: -- what was sort of the gold-standard bill for what the "out of Iraq" caucus wanted had a provision in there that said we'll pull out the forces but we will leave enough forces to be able to counter terrorists.
CARLSON: Someone should tell the Daily Kos this. I think they're going to be upset when they find out.
Yeah Tucker, he's a changed man
He's coming over to your house tonight to kick your ass. You nitwit.
Don't get Tucker's hopes up. He probably LOVES to get the snot kicked out of himself.....
I would rather see Obama and Hillary duel in a cat fight!~
That would be entertaining....
I'd like to see Giuliani and Fred Thompson do some mud wrestling.
...As long as Rudy wears that dress he likes so much.
I'd like to see tucker back in his bowtie.
More homophobia? Can't you guys stop insulting homosexual and transgender oriented people?
Between Rudy and Fred, which one is homosexual and which one is transgender?
ewwwwwwwwwwww
Tucker, the preppie Manly Man, asks,"Does he mean it?"
Multiple Choice
What Tucker's really asking is
Obama just activated and reinforced the conservative mindset of U.S. militarism with that foreign policy speech. He just did the Republicans a big favor, he legitimized the neo-con war frame as the way to neutralize terrorism.
Yes he did. This was handled badly by him and his people. I can see what he's getting at in his message, but he is sending mixed messages and his latest statement lack a more nuanced approach that I think many voters would look forward to.
So you prefer the less aggresive, more nuanced Obama with regard to foreign policy? Meaning what exactly?
Don't say you will invade Pakistan without clearly stating how you would exhaust all diplomatic efforts or in some way try to involve the Pakistani government wo is supposedly an ally. Don't sa you'd invade without explaining whether or not you would consult with your other allies. He's giving the impression that he'd take the same approach as Bush even though I don't think that is what he has in mind at all. I'm considered a lib, but I can understand a rational case for military action, his comments come off like more cowboy BS that got us in trouble to begin with.
Don't say you'd never use nukes, without explaining your alternatives. People don't like to hear that nukes are off ot the table if especially when the bad guys are trying to get them.
Wow...Obama da bomma...that scares me to death...a person with NO military background at all talking off the cuff about strategic military action on an international scale.....Holly Crap...thats just plane "nuts". Then having a conversation out loud with himself on the campaign trail about nukes???????? Yikes!
Umm, since when is military experience required to make sane, rational decisions about foreign policy? We've had plenty examples of presidents with no experience making great wartime decisions, and plenty examples of presidents with military experience making poor wartime decisions. And then there's Bush...
Commander-in-Chief is what it is. We give far too much military might to unstudied amateurs. A good general/statesman who bides by the principles of the sages could ask for UN factional talks on the future of Iraq without US involvement and have US forces out of Iraq in one month. A good general/statesman would secure the last Taliban strongholds with minimal forces and use engineers for intensive reconstruction projects.
A psychopathic general *Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld* and sociopathic generals *Obama, Clinton* will just kill our troops for money and destroy the military with their total ineptitude.
The good prince studies the Art of War while cultivating his nation's peace. The bad prince abuses the army and makes war on the neighbours, to the nation's ruin.
"a person with NO military background at all talking off the cuff about strategic military action on an international scale..."
You guys and your double standards for people who disagree with you politically never ceases to amaze me. What about George Bush and Cheney? (and GW's partying days in the National guard does not constitute a military background, it was a sham) I wish they had only been talking off the cuff.
Bush/Cheney
Nuff Said.
I believe they're referring to Obama's coment on a strike in Pakistan. The nuance might be an international agreement to strike a certain type of target. He seemed to say that cooperation from Pakistan was not necessary pior to our taking out an AlQiada convention in Pakistan.
Personally, that's fine by me. Pakistan hasn't done didly squat in bringing us the head of alfredo garcia. If Bin Laden is there like we think he is I think a small delta force incursion would be in order.
Solon's post on another thread, made the point that these are the people that we went to war against. So I'm inclined to agree with you SNOOPY. This falls outside of the preemptive catagory. Which is the type of action I prefer only with international backing.
agreed, but how do you get international backing without tipping your hat? Tell Russia? Israel? International must have some limits, is it still NATO vs the communist block?
U.N., Nato, Seato, Whatnoto, who indeed would we work with. Start with the U.N. and expand the conversation as needed. I appreciate there are a number of situations where fast action is required for any sucess. Lets define these situations ahead of their occurrence, and have viable plans for their occurrence. You know a typical liberal position, talk, talk, talk.
I don't see alot of use for keeping plans such as these under a hat. I don't see much potential for alot of violent action. Diplomacy, aid in the lines of the Marschall Plan is where I'd like to see the majority of time and energy.
I don't see a cold war dielectic. What I do see I can't really describe. A fragment of it is how can Mexico be turned into a nation that isn't someplace to be from, or desired to be from.
"he legitimized the neo-con war frame as the way to neutralize terrorism."
As I replied to Debunked below, I can't find the part of Obama's speech where he advocates an all-out invasion against Musharraf and Pakistan's military.
There is this passage, where he specifically targets terrorists:
""The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Again, I haven't read the full speech yet, so I'll gladly eat my words if someone can find the part where he said he wants to stage an Iraq-style invasion.
Don't get me wrong, Barrack makes more sense in a fevered dream than any Republican out there makes on their most coherent day. He believe in diplomacy, that's huge.
But what I'm getting at is a little different from invading another country.
It's the overall emphasis by Obama that war is an effective way to neutralize terrorism. He talks about battlefields, that's a war metaphor. He also says this in his speech:
"Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real."
He validates the entire Republican, and some Democratic, justification for the Iraq debacle by thinking in terms of war. I don't think war can be waged on a tactic. That's all.
There is a role for the military to play, I just happen to agree with the plans that say terrorists are criminals, that they should be tracked down, caught and brought to justice. I also agree with those who call for massive humanitarian missions as a way to win peace of mind.
I'm not convinced I'm right or that Barrack is wrong. I just haven't seen any reduction in terrorism in six years of full scale war. Writing a new chapter in Iraq, as Obama puts it, will hard to write if the same ole plot is tired out.
Obama speaks of taking the fight to the correct battlefield, and against the correct enemy. How does that validate the neo-con strategy of invading a country that was not a threat to us, and had nothing to do with islamic terrorists?
Thanks for asking. I must not have been clear.
It comes down to framing. Frames are cognitive structures, they are metaphors that give meaning to information. As such, if we are not aware of them, frames can control how we think and reason about events.
As a simple exercise think of your actual gut reaction when you hear the phrase death tax. Then think about how you react to the term estate tax.
Same concept different perceptions.
A death tax is punitive, it's designed to make us think in terms of punished success.
Estate tax, while it does not communicate as viscerally the idea of unearned, inherited wealth, it is more accurate.
When you think of battlefields what comes to mind? Gettysburg? Normandy Beach? Generals and soldiers? That's what war makes us think of; battlefields, standing armies, invasions, territory to capture and surrender or total destruction to be had.
But terrorism is a means to an end. It's a secret network of violent extremists, plotters and suicidal ideologues. More similar to mafia than military.
Are terror cells the same or similar to army battallions? Are radical Imams the same or similar to generals?
Does military invasion of a country make sense as a means to defeat an enemy that is not even sponsored by or connected to that counry?
Immediately after 9/11 the administration applied the war frame to terrorism and shouted down those of us who saw terrorism as a criminal act. The administration then leveraged the war frame as justification to invade Iraq.
Now we are stuck with the war frame and when we talk in terms of war on terror we undermine the possibility of actually writing a new chapter on fight against terrorism.
Sorry for the lengthy post. This issue is of the greatest possible importance and I didn't want summarize.
Thanks again for asking, JScott.
Finally, a topic Tucker understands, weakness.
Tucker: "Do his ideas make more sense now than when the Bush administration first proposed a lot of them, and is it really a good idea to invade Pakistan?"
Did the Bush administration propose drawing down troops in Iraq and bolstering our forces in Afghanistan? Did I miss something?
Sometimes, I'm just dumbstruck by the vast fungus that is Tucker Carlson,
That passage from Tucker really threw me for a curve as well. I really don't see Obama stealing much in the way of foreign policy ideas from Bush. He would be a fool to do so.
Invade Pakistan?? I haven't read the full speech, but I'm looking for where Obama eluded to an all-out invasion and I can't find it. I did, however, find this passage:
"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
He is distinct. Take the fight to the terrorists, not Pakistan's President or its military.
I've been up in the air about Tucker all these years. I really don't know for sure if he's a liar or he's just plain stupid.
I've been up in the air about Tucker all these years. I really don't know for sure if he's a liar or he's just plain stupid.
Like many "so called" journalists he simply makes up the facts as he goes along. Whatever it takes to keep the camera turned on. Not stupid, or a liar he is presenting a story, a show, a schtick. Is it working?
Not all that well apparently.
He is where he is due to nepotism, his father was a well known person in the MSM.
Funny that I see this exactly opposite; i.e., Obama struck me as strong with his opposition to the Iraq war. However, after his Pakistan comments, I see him as another weak politician caving to political pressure.
Of course, it's also possible that Obama never changed his views. Perhaps I just had misplaced hope that he truly had a different approach to foreign policy.
How sad this is. There's a hole in the bottom of the boat and water is pouring in. Yet the politicians argue that the solution is simply to put someone else at the helm.
No ChristianD...
He's just making his point that he is willing to use the armed forces if needed. We have to trust that he'll use them with more wisdom than the current blockhead.
He still clearly stated that we need to draw down troops in Iraq.
Agreed. At least he is looking forward and not putting up blinders to the obvious. America will spend the future battling Terrorism, that is a fact of life.
Obama's on of those that Israel is cultivating for an attack on Iran. Partial withdrawal from Iraq is partial occupation. A war party candidate = 4 more years of death.
As I noted in another post, the use of military force "if needed" is an easy strategy. Charting a path that avoids that result is far more difficult. Without more focus on the latter, the former is inevitable.
Uh, it was TUCKER who was calling Obama "weak" in a variety of terms.
Now, Carlson admits that overnight, Obama has become "STRONG".
Such a reversal must mean a dramatic flip-flop on other previously stated positions, of stark contradictions, of a reversal of stated plans and policies.
Now's your chance, Tucker. Trot out that EVIDENCE you used to show how weak and wimpy Obama WAS, and now contrast that with his new STRONG stance. Show him up for a hypocrite and a flip-flopper... uh, what?
What's that you say, Tucker? That his current STRONG stance does not contradict anything said before, because you didn't really have any factual basis to make those "wimp" charges in the first place?
What a revoltin' development. Tucker has a golden chance to expose that hypocritical flip-floppin' Obama for the two-faced unprincipled person Carlson knows him to be, but all he lacks is the PROOF that his earlier characterizations were apt, instead of just pulled out of the rectal database.
You nailed it Tex...
Great Post.
He really seems to get you worked up Tex. Not worth it!
Tex,
maybe this will calm you down. Off topic, but Ann Coulters' voter fraud case is still active!
And if that don't work, here's bill kristol picking his nose!
Sounds to me like he is essentially just formulating a strategy that's similar to the one Bill Clinton used in the 90's, which actually worked pretty well for the most part. Reduced use of the military, targeted strikes, reliance on intelligence, special forces and air strikes.
Works for me. And in no way is this some sort of affirmation of the neo-con "strategy" in dealing with this. It's almost exactly the opposite as far as I can tell.
Yes, Obama promises more war on a soundbite. He has NO peace solutions, just more war. The war is already 5 years old. He'll keep it going. War Party candidate. Owned by Israel and the makers of heavy ordnance. Bad horse, no pay-off.
This is the most accurate headline I've seen.
It is clear one of Obama's people said something to him after the feud with Hillary.
They realized he can't seem like a passifist and win the primary.
In US Fascist DoubleSpeak, "tough on foreign policy" = too damn eager to bomb something. Obama is a warmonger. Bad choice.
And Carlson the Idiot is still Carlson the Idiot and we know he means it.
His mother is an heir to the Swanson frozen food fortune.
Tucker is a plain racist and guess who his new favorite target is? Gee what a surprise. If this guy can go one week without a story that sreams racist I'll be shocked.
Carlson is now the "official" Bill O'Reilley of MSNBC. Talk about a wuss! He spins so fast his shorts are cutting off his brain.
Carlson sure has a big ego. Somehow he has deluded himself into thinking that Barack Obama is reacting to his frequent "weakling" taunts. Carlson actually believe that he personally has a direct effect on Obama's campaign. I can't even prove that Obama knows who Calrson is, let alone have his campaign try to sound tough because of what he says.
If Carlson had done any research on Obama, these comments would have been recognized as being completely consitant with all of his public statements relating to National Security. This is NOTHING NEW!!!
Carlson asks "Does he mean it?" He is finally getting a clue as to what Obama's supporters have known for months, or years for some.
Also, if he pays attention, he will also notice that Obama (as well as the other main stream Democratic Candidates) are advocating not a complete withdrawal, but instead a targeted withdrawal to the perimeters of Iraq to secure the borders with remaining forces targeting the Al-Quida forces that are NOW in Iraq.
More like “Obama, the Idiot!”.
Pakistan is THE essential Muslim ally in the current state of the war.
We need Pakistan to continue the fight against the Taliban in Waziristan
We need for them to continue to make peace with India
We need to run the Afghan campaign using Pakistani air space
And we need to attempt to stay on good terms with them
The reaction of the Pakistani foreign minister, not unexpectedly, was consternation and outrage that a U.S. presidential candidate would say what Obama just said.
Way to go, kid! You just gave Hillary a few more percentage points of lead with the adults in the Democrat party.