Ingraham's suggestion that Obama didn't identify Al Qaeda as "the real threat" undermined by Obama's comments
Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham claimed that "the number one thing [President Obama's] not doing" to fight terrorism "is identifying what the real threat is" and that in his last weekly radio address, Obama cited "a war against violence and hatred," strongly suggesting that Obama has not addressed the threat posed by Al Qaeda. But in the radio address Ingraham cited, Obama repeatedly referred to Al Qaeda as a target of America's efforts abroad, and Obama has repeatedly used the phrase "war on terror."
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.
Ingraham suggests Obama ignored Al Qaeda in response to failed terrorist attack
Ingraham: In his radio address, Obama "said this was a war against violence and hatred." From the January 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
INGRAHAM: The number one thing he's not doing, of course, is identifying what the real threat is. He renamed the war on terror, "overseas contingency operations." Janet Napolitano, remember, said that she didn't like calling it the war on terror. She'd prefer to call it manmade disasters, which was disastrous for her to say that. And then, in the radio address on Saturday, Bill, he said this is a war against violence and hatred. Now, first of all, what does that even mean -- a war against violence and hatred? There's a lot of violence in our own country and there's a lot of hatred in our own country. But we're not at war with that. We're at war with a particular type of enemy that frankly is goal-oriented, and their goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate.
BILL O'REILLY (host): OK, but he did say that today, he did say that, you know, we're at war with Al Qaeda.
INGRAHAM: No, not really.
O'REILLY: And we're going to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda. Now, I don't believe that for a second.
Obama repeatedly referred to Al Qaeda in radio address. In the radio address Ingraham referred to, Obama cited his inauguration and stated: "I also made it very clear -- our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred, and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations." Obama continued:
And make no mistake, that's exactly what we've been doing. It's why I refocused the fight -- bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, and dramatically increasing our resources in the region where al Qaeda is actually based, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's why I've set a clear and achievable mission -- to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent their return to either country.
Obama also stated that alleged terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab "joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group -- al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula -- trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America." [Presidential Weekly Address, 1/2/10]
Ingraham disagrees with O'Reilly that Obama said "we're at war with Al Qaeda"
Ingraham: Obama did "not really" say "we're at war with Al Qaeda." After O'Reilly stated: "OK, but he did say that today, he did say that, you know, we're at war with Al Qaeda," Ingraham falsely claimed: "No, not really."
Obama: "We are at war against al Qaeda." During his January 7 remarks about the attempted bombing, "Obama stated: "We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them." [Whitehouse.gov, 1/7/10]
Journalism is boring. They're stuck with what other people do, and their creativity is limited to, "Do I put the quote before the 'he said' or after the 'he said?'"
When I was a J-school major the boredom drove me crazy. I had more fun hanging out with the art majors where I could take life drawing classes and look at naked chicks without guilt. Art filmmaking was a lot more creative than documentaries. Ask my wife (then girl friend), who was bored stiff when I was editing an hour long doc on the Vietnam war protests at my college.
OK, so my point is that the Faux Noise people are just frustrated fiction writers. Well, to be accurate, they are lousy fiction writers. They really want to produce TV dramas, action movies, and pseudo reality shows at exotic locations. We all know that's where the big bucks are, right? That's where you get all the really good looking babes, and studly guys with bare six packs, not on some talking heads show.
Their fault is they haven't mastered the Robert McKee Screenwriting class principles of story structure. They keep pushing the inverted deus ex machina stuff, and eventually the audience goes cold. You know, the previously non-existent problem is blown completely out of proportion through a contrived event or misinterpretation. You just can't keep destroying the story's internal logic and not destroy that suspension of disbelief in your audience.
Why do they keep making up stuff about Obama? Why don't they create their own original character? The protagonist doesn't have to be a middle class mixed-race wonk who grew up in paradise and made it to Harvard on his own smarts. I mean, who would want to watch that movie? Where is the dramatic tension? Where's the famous "gap" that McKee reminds us keeps an audience ask "Then what happened?" We knew in the opening credits how the third act will turn, right? Try making that work on a 24 hour a day network and you're stuck in Palookaville.
So the Faux Noise folks are stuck. Stuck with their own inability to break format. Stuck with their own inability to be really creative where it counts. And stuck with a sense of their own personal failings for being marooned on a network which screams NEWS but yearns to be fiction.
We should take up a collection and send them to McKee. I really think he could help.
I believe that the Talkers have 10 months to reach their established goal of delivering some votes. After '06-'08 and now 2010, their usefulness will wane if they don't deliver. This may be their last chance. Here is an example of misuing the media:
Last year, KDKA Radio whose "commentators" push the Con/Rep agenda hired a guy named Miller for the afternoon 12-3 show. Although he said he was an "independent", maybe registered as they all say, but a snake in the grass for the Cons. He was so obvious to some, having on the main man at MRC calling it an independent news source and also identifying this guy as a friend. It exposed him as a Con and a paid hitman for the political season. He was anti anything Progessive or Democratic and constantly moaned about the media-bias of MSM. Once he was exposed, he was dumped just prior to the election.
He couldn't deliver so he was gone. This is the future of the Talker tribe. The advertising money requires results. The past two elections have proven the investments aren't worth it. This is the, to borrow a phrase, the WATERLOO, for the members of the Talkers..heads will roll and Ms. Ingraham knows her future is in jeapordy so the lies have to continue.
Too bad for her but her looks are not up to the Fox babe standard...She does have Annie beat on the looks end but in the hate column, she isn't close.
Good grief
And there's a lot of terror in our own country, but Laura loves her some big, hot, juicy war on terror.
Now I have criticized Obama for not firing anyone over this, namely Napolitano. But listening to his speech yesterday versus the ones that I recall Bush giving were night and day. During one press conference of Bush's that I remember when King from CNN asked him what he would have done differently Bush bobbed and weaved and mumbled that nothing came to mind. Where were the Ingrahams then slamming Bush for being arrogant and shirking responsibility over the fight against terrorism? Oops, silent.
O'Reilly also labeled Ingraham as a "persistant critic of the president" in the sense that she is more harsh/critical than he is.
Knowing that Billo the Clown touts that he is a fair guy, this is an obvious passive aggressive way of painting ingraham as unfair.
Also, if you haven't noticed by now..."conservatives" and "independents" tend to focus more on actions than they do on words. This is explicitly illustrated by Billo saying "Now, I don't believe that for a second."
On a commentating show like his, what is wrong with that? Are network news employees barred from being skeptical? Why would anyone watch primetime commentating shows if they did not expect skepticism?
I would be satisfied with a blog about Ingraham's obsession with DHS quotes from alomst a year ago... but this is missing the forest for the trees.
Ingraham is obviously not an expert on this (she's a talk show host for goodness sake) so a "grilling interview" would be inappropriate. Billo even explicitly asked "What say you?"
Ingraham responded with her opinion just like how an opinion show operates. Business as usual.
Unless you can link me to where Fox News has denied all "non-conservatives" from being a "fox news contributor," this is not an indication of "misinformation" nor is it forwarding a conservative agenda. Please try sticking to the creed MMFA.
And that makes all the difference in the world, don't you know?