About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Abandoning earlier attacks, Fox now suggests Obama is "delay[ing]" Afghanistan decision to "push through health care reform"

November 11, 2009 12:43 pm ET — 8 Comments

Introducing a panel discussion about President Obama's consideration of whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan, Brian Kilmeade asked if it is "possible the president delayed making a decision in order to push through health care reform." Kilmeade's comments follow earlier Fox News attacks suggesting ulterior motives for Obama's deliberations on Afghanistan, first that he "delay[ed]" his decision in order to win the Nobel Peace Prize and later that Obama was delaying a decision until after the November 2009 elections.

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

Kilmeade suggests health care reform is setting timeline for Obama's decision

Kilmeade: "Politics playing a role?" On the November 11 edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade introduced a discussion by saying, "Seventy-four days after General [Stanley] McChrystal gave his Afghan troop recommendations, the president now reportedly on the verge of sending an additional 30,000 troops or more to Afghanistan. Is it possible the president delayed making a decision in order to push through health care reform, which is still on hold? Back with our panel to discuss it. Politics playing a role?"

Graphic: "Delay Troop Decision for Health Care?" During the ensuing discussion, on-screen text appeared that read, "Political Strategy: Delay Troop Decision for Health Care?":

foxandfriends

Fox News personalities previously accused Obama of withholding troops to secure Nobel Peace Prize

Morris: Obama "delaying the decision to commit troops to Afghanistan ... because he wanted this prize." During an appearance on the October 12 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated, "I think the reason that Obama was delaying the decision to commit troops to Afghanistan is because he wanted this prize, and he probably knew he was nominated for it, he knew roughly when the decision is being made, and I don't think he's going to send troops until after that award is safely in his pocket." [Hannity, 10/12/09]

Kilmeade: "I'm wondering, does [the Nobel Peace Prize charter] have anything to do with the delay of the deployment of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan?" Responding to initial reports that Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Kilmeade stated, "I'm looking at the charter -- and we're just getting this now -- but this guy, Alfred Nobel, stipulated the peace prize should go to the person who will have done the most or the best work of the fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses. I'm wondering, does that have anything to do with the delay of the deployment of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, because that was his big postulization over the last week or so. 'Should I put more troops in?' " Kilmeade went on to say, "If you add forces to a war, you can't win." [Fox & Friends, 10/9/09]

Krauthammer suggested Obama was delaying decision in part because of electoral calculations

Krauthammer: "I think they'd rather have a decision after the November odd-year elections." On Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer stated, "I think it's correct that they are postponing the decision till after the elections in Afghanistan, but -- perhaps it's only a coincidence, but that's also after the elections in the United States. Because it's going to be unpopular either way, and I think they'd rather have a decision after the November odd-year elections." In response, host Bret Baier asked, "But are you saying there's a political calculation domestically for liberals in New Jersey or Virginia if the decision is, 'Let's go with the full troop contingent'?" Krauthammer replied, "Suggesting that cynicism is possible in this administration. That's as far as I'll go." [Special Report with Bret Baier, 10/26/09]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Diosnomeama (November 11, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
      1  
      Do these guys honestly get paid to spout off with this crap? It's sickening how they act like drooling sycophants when we have a president who can't even speak properly, uses bad intelligence to justify going to war, screws up the planning of said war which results in more people needlessly dying while he golfs and clears weeds at his "ranch".
      Report Abuse
      • Author by egb (November 12, 2009 1:34 am ET)
          2
        A very good description of O except he has no ranch.
        Even if you want to criticize O's predecessor, it has nothing to do with not sending troops to Afghanistan.

        Obama is in over his head. He is being run by Emanuel and Axelrod. They are delaying because they don't want to alienate the far left before the election. Now O's got to make a decision and the odds are they'll send the troops. What is telling is that O won't explain why he waited 4 months to do it. That tells me and many others that he is a weak commander in chief. People are dying in Afghanistan while he plays golf, goes to Copenhagen to support the Olympics and vacations.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sloucho84 (November 11, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
        2
      I hate Fox News as much as the next guy, but it was phrased as speculation and is no more than that. It may be a somewhat sinister thing to insinuate, but perhaps a legitimate question. That's politics.
      The Peace Prize thing on the other hand...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (November 11, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
           
        The reason MMFA brought this up and posted this isn't because they didn't realize it was speculation.

        It's because they happen to choose whatever 'reason' is convenient at the moment. It's that they abandoned their earlier 'reasons' for this 'reason'. So, which is it? What's the real 'reason' he has delayed the Afghanistan decision? Is it any ONE of their speculations? How did it magically change from one reason to another?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by brutusmaximus (November 11, 2009 7:48 pm ET)
            3
          You're right, Dolly. The simple fact of the matter is that he's delaying the decision because he doesn't know what the hell he's doing!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (November 11, 2009 6:47 pm ET)
        1  
        You should only baselessly speculate against someone if they've already demonstrated the pattern. For example, it was okay to presume, without a shred of evidence, that Bush was making stuff up about Iraq intelligence because he had accumulated a vast array of examples of making stuff up about other subjects.

        Plus, Fox's previous speculation was so rock-stupid (the peace prize was completely off everybody's radar) that they aren't allowed to opine again on the subject.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (November 11, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
         
      Such a focus on politics with these folks. They've failed to impress with their mindreading skills so far. I don't expect them to do any better in the future.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by keydemo (November 12, 2009 7:46 am ET)
        1
      I was reminded of the healthcare debate as I watched the V series on ABC.

      It is about the aliens who gain acceptance by promising “Universal” Healthcare and who have a healthy relationship with the press (so long as nothing critical is expressed). It turns out that this healthcare deal is a lie and the aliens, who have been hiding in the shadows for a long time actually want to fundamentally change the planet, but not in a good way.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQoSCEMzJYE&feature=player_embedded

      Is this Sci Fi or parody of something else?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.