Media use announcement of new Afghanistan strategy to revive "Obama's war" label
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.
SUMMARY: Since President Obama's announcement of a new strategy in Afghanistan, the media have revived the label "Obama's war," despite Obama's having inherited the 7-year-old conflict.
While reporting on President Obama's announcement of a new strategy for American involvement in Afghanistan, several media outlets have revived the label "Obama's war," despite the fact that the conflict began more than seven years ago under President Bush, who was criticized for alleged mismanagement of the conflict and diversion of resources to Iraq.
The label is not new. Numerous media outlets have previously referred to the conflict in Afghanistan as "Obama's war" including USA Today and The New York Times, which used the label in their headlines. But in the last 24 hours, several media outlets have reacted to Obama's new strategy by referring to the conflict in that way. As Politico senior political writer Ben Smith noted, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) forwarded the phrase in a March 27 post on his Twitter page: "Listning Prez on FOX anounce his Afhgan stategy Now it bcomes Obama War Not Bush war any longer."
The media have also again adopted this label. For example:
- In a March 26 article headlined " 'Obama's war' -- New troops, new plan," chief political correspondent Mike Allen and reporter Alexander Burns attributed the phrase to an unnamed "official": " 'He's gone all in,' said an official briefed on the plan. 'This is Obama's war. He's pushed all the chips to the center of the table.' "
However, a later version of the article removed the quote but retained the original headline, with "Obama's war" in quotations.
- On the March 27 edition of MSNBC Live, Hardball host Chris Matthews led off his report on Obama's new strategy by stating, "Obama's war: In less than half an hour, President Barack Obama unveils his new strategy for Afghanistan." The on-screen text that aired echoed Matthews' phrase:
During NBC News chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd's response, the following graphic appeared, again titled "Afghanistan: Obama's War":
- Similarly, later in the day, MSNBC Live aired a caption that included the phrase "Afghanistan: Obama's War":
- During the March 27 edition of Fox & Friends, while reporting on Obama's new strategy announcement, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace stated, "I think it's fair to say that this afternoon, Afghanistan becomes Barack Obama's war."
From the March 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
WALLACE: Good morning. We will be talking about the war in Afghanistan, as a matter of fact -- the perfect segue. And the president is going to, after all this focus on the economy -- is going to announce major plans for Afghanistan. He's going to send more troops there. He's going to spend a lot more money, tens of billions of dollars more, and I think it's fair to say that this afternoon, Afghanistan becomes Barack Obama's war. Well, we will be talking this weekend to the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Also, an exclusive interview with the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper. Canada, of course, has sent a lot of troops over there, suffered some terrible losses. They're planning to pull all of their troops out of there by 2011, and we'll ask the prime minister about that.
From the March 27 edition of MSNBC Live:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (Morning Joe co-host): And now Chris Matthews continues our coverage. Thank you, Willie.
MATTHEWS: Obama's war: In less than half an hour, President Barack Obama unveils his new strategy for Afghanistan. More troops, more diplomats, more aid workers, and billions more dollars. Good morning, I'm Chris Matthews.
Mr. Obama taking ownership of the war in Afghanistan in what may turn out to be the biggest foreign policy gamble of his young presidency. Can he stabilize that country and take out the Taliban? And what about the crisis next door in nuclear-armed Pakistan? And what about the hunt for Osama bin Laden? Also, the implications for the president's domestic agenda. Just how much are the American people willing to sacrifice overseas while the economy's hurting here at home? Full team coverage during in this hour. That plus breaking news -- we'll go live to the banks of the Red River, where homes are being evacuated this morning as the waters rise to record levels and start to overwhelm those flood protection walls.
Let's begin with more on the president's plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Chuck Todd is NBC News political director and chief White House correspondent. Chuck, a note of great concern this morning as we begin this new policy. Those of us who grew up in the '60s and remember it wonder whether -- when John Kennedy became president and saying we weren't going to fight for Laos but we were going to fight for Vietnam, thereby beginning our long involvement in that war. Barack Obama is taking ownership of the war in Afghanistan, having said very little about the war in Iraq. Is he now becoming the war president in Afghanistan?
once again mmfa thinks the American people are stupid. It became Obama's war on January 20th, but that doesn't mean that he was responsible for it, but he is now. That is the way the smooth transition of power works. As stated before, everyone knows under whose admininstration this war began and it's history, we don't need to be reminded of that
I distinctly recall Ron Paul, on CNN's DL Hugley show, characterizing operations in Afghanistan (not intentionally, perhaps) as a new war not a new plan or strategy by Obama.
look at the tape if it is available
and that was only about a week ago.
our society's has a tendency to forget and characterize facts based mainly on
pre-disposed ideology, so I don't mind redundancy at MMFA
Wow, you agree with reports of "Obama's War" and you agree with reports of Obama as "Antiwar". Very impressive.
But, but.... "everyone knows" about anti-war Obama's war!!! =>
if you're that ignorant with the distinctions for each phrase, do you think I am going to walk you through it?
jamesB:
"Obama was and is anti war."
Posted March 23rd
Perhaps you can just tell me what the definition of the word "is" is....
are you a moron? don't answer. I don't care if Obama was or was not antiwar when he was a candidate, it is irrelevant to this, as the wars we are currently engaged in are now his responsibility, hence his wars.
So you don't know what the definition of the word "is" is. Fine.
i told you not to answer, you did anyway.
Sorry, but your authoritarianism doesn't extend to cyberspace.
"...i told you not to answer, you did anyway." Send Vic to bed without his supper!! He ain't the boss of you!? You be da man! HAhaha! Hey, can you explain how a muslim sits in a christian church for 20 yrs. while your at it?
Wow. You really are Tommy.
Say what you will about Tommy, but I've been arguing and debating him here for more than four years. In all that time, I never remember him calling anyone a moron or ignorant.
He was a as big a pain in the ass, as I was to him, but he was one hell of a lot more cordial that our friend James.
Tommy would occasionally admit when he was wrong. jimmy, I don't see that in him.
But, like his former self, he has posts removed (below) after he loses an argument.
Tell ya what, Vic: I'll give you that definition - if you can tell me the difference between "Obama's War" and "Bush's War" in Afghanistan.
Here's a couple of hints:
Obama: "And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."
Dumbya: "I repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him [bin Laden]."
Deal?
to be fair though, Obama is, now, the President, and the _I inherited this_ argument has a very short shelf life (probably not even a 100 days) ... i.e. will become irrelevant soon.
I agree with you. (And I like the way you express your opinions w/o calling people "stupid" and "ignorant".)
Wrong again.
perfect.
"Only 1 out of 535"
to digress, no disrespect intended, but it has always bothered me a bit that the lone Congresswoman could not convince even one of her colleagues to vote in opposition. I wonder if she even tried...
Who was it? And do you know what her reasons were for opposing the war in Afghanistan?
hmm, "Google it" I guess would be a more diplomatic answer/position here.
Barbara Lee
Yea I know why she did do you ? She is truly one of my heroes!
She was unable to convince her colleagues to sign up for death threats, several of which she received for that vote. She's very brave if you ask me.
yes, it says something about the other 434 Representatives as well, not to mention it should have been an even bigger story than it was.
"it should have been an even bigger story than it was" re: the threats
The vote was on 9/14/01. I believe that was the same day Bush was on the rubble in NYC. It was a tough climate at that time to be against launching strikes against country harboring Bin Laden. Barbara Lee of CA voted nay. 10 House members did not vote and in the Senate Larry Craig and Issacson (?) did not vote.
Sure, but his plan is to bring it to a close not make it his war.
I agree, but nobody, including MMFA, should try to claim it is not Obama's war when he is the commander in chief.
Exactly.
I don't think anybody's questioning whether or not Obama, as CinC, is "taking responsibilty" for either war, as he well should be . . . the contention is that the MSM {read: "librul"} media appears to be trying assign it to Obama in such a manner as to suggest that he STARTED it . . . which he most certainly did NOT.
This is just one more example of the MSM in general, and the Fox Comedy Channel in particular, appear to be trying to erase the past eight years as though they never existed . . . strange, since they're the same people who say that "only future generations can fairly judge Bush" {but are ready to pronounce judgement on Obama after two months} . . .
.
Afghanistan probably is "Obama's War". Over the past 7 years, Bush sure didn't fight that war even though this is where Al Quaida is based. Seven years ago, Bush pledged to get Bin Laden, "Dead or Alive". Today, Bin Laden is more alive and active than Bush is. This had better be "Obama's War". Bush sure didn't know how to handle it. Afghanistan was Bush's foreign policy Katrina -- even more ineptly handled by his administration than Iraq was.
Please visit my Blog: "Conservatives Are America's Real Terrorists"
http://conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.com/
Not to worry, most thinking Americans will forever remember the bumbling of the Afghanistan war which was the real war on Terror and the Bush Administration's pull of so many troups from that area to send those assets to Iraq that had nothing to do with 9-11. Amazing Republican's ability to dissemble. They have the capability to both forget and totally rearrange facts to suit themselves and "forget the factual nature of the issue". Only thing, we know the facts and it just makes them look like liars and cheats.
Anybody see Cindy Sheehan calling Pres. Obama a war-monger? How's that for a wake-up call....nothing like having the same derogatory comments for both Bush AND Obama, I thought she was still camped out in Crawford....
Please. Let it be so! "Obama's War" for the justified war after 9/11 that Bush and his regime turned its back on to fight the "war" in Iraq? Bring it on.