Fox News is continuing their campaign to rehabilitate the legacy of former President George W. Bush by falsely claiming that he predicted the rise of the Islamic State in 2007 speech. But Bush's speech was merely to garner support for the 2007 surge against al Qaeda in Iraq.
During an October 2 interview on Fox Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade spoke with Bush about the pull out of American forces in Iraq and the subsequent rise of the Islamic State. Kilmeade suggested that Bush predicted the rise of the Islamic State and asked the former president "How did you know" that "we needed a surge" in order to prevent an occurrence like this?
Kilmeade also asked Bush whether he agreed with Gen. Martin Dempsey's assessment that Obama should have left a residual military force in Iraq. And though Bush acknowledged that having a former president "second guessing" is not "good for the presidency or the country," he said that he agreed with Dempsey's assessment.
Later that day, on The Real Story, host Gretchen Carlson parroted the idea that Bush predicted the rise of the Islamic State claiming that "some of what he says has happened," adding that Bush was "exactly right":
From the October 1 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
Military veterans are taking a stand against a Fox News host's labeling of a female pilot from the United Arab Emirates who bombed Islamic State militants as "boobs on the ground." On September 27, Truman National Security Project veterans published an open letter addressing Fox's sexism toward Maj. Mariam al-Mansouri, stating that the remarks aired on the conservative TV network "were unwarranted, offensive, and fundamentally opposed to what the military taught us to stand for."
The letter serves as a reminder that many women face sexism in the military on a regular basis, a situation that is only worsened by right-wing media programs that air on U.S. bases around the world.
And herein lie the real consequences of misogyny in right-wing media for the U.S. military.
During my time in the Air Force in the early 2000s, I remember regularly seeing Fox on the TV at work and hearing Limbaugh's angry rants blasting from the radio. Now imagine being a woman in this atmosphere in the last few years, when Limbaugh repeatedly labeled Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" and Fox hosts referred to a female pilot as "boobs on the ground" and suggested she "couldn't park" her jet. Add that to the fact that many of these shows are aired on bases around the world using taxpayer money, and the situation quickly becomes too much to stomach.
From my experiences as a woman who served in Air Force combat units both overseas and in the United States, I can say that sexist rhetoric from Fox host Eric Bolling and other conservative media figures makes the challenges that women already face while serving even more difficult.
My first major wake-up call to how women were perceived in the armed forces took place shortly after I enlisted, while I was training for my position as an intelligence apprentice. I was introduced to terms like "M&Ms," which stood for "Marine mattresses," used to describe the female airmen who got involved with the male Marines on our base. When I was deployed to Kuwait, I learned of other labels reserved solely for women who were perceived to be getting a lot of attention from men or being "slutty," like "Desert Queen" and "Desert Fox." Any quick online search for military slang reveals numerous variations of the "military women are promiscuous objects that men use" theme.
Military veterans are speaking out against Fox News host Eric Bolling's reference to the first female UAE fighter pilot as "boobs on the ground."
Bolling provoked widespread outrage after he responded to news that United Arab Emirates' first female air force pilot was participating in air strikes against Islamic State militants by asking: "Would that be considered boobs on the ground, or no?" His remarks came during the September 24 edition of Fox News' The Five, in response to co-host Greg Gutfeld's joke, "The problem is, after she bombed it, she couldn't park it." Bolling has since apologized twice for his offensive comment.
U.S. military veterans from the Truman National Security Project have released an open letter condemning Bolling and Gutfeld for their "immensely inappropriate" remarks, which the veterans called "unwarranted, offensive, and fundamentally opposed to what the military taught us to stand for." More from the letter, via Talking Points Memo:
First, foremost, and most obvious to everyone other than yourselves, your remarks were immensely inappropriate. Your co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle was so right to call attention to an inspiring story of a woman shattering glass ceilings in a society where doing so is immeasurably difficult. We never heard an answer to her question: why did you feel so compelled to "ruin her thing?"
As it turns out, women have been flying combat aircraft since before either of you were born.Over 1,000 Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) flew during World War II. Seeing as U.S. Army Air Forces Commander "Hap" Arnold said "Now in 1944, it is on the record that women can fly as well as men," we can probably guess he thought their parking was adequate. The WASP legacy reaches into the present day; on 9/11, then Lt. Heather "Lucky" Penney scrambled her F-16. Completely unarmed, she was ready to lay down her own life to prevent further devastating attacks on American soil.
Thus the skill of women as fighter pilots is well established. And before you jump to the standby excuse that you were "just making a joke" or "having a laugh," let the men amongst our number preemptively respond: You are not funny. You are not clever. And you are not excused. Perhaps the phrase "boys will be boys"--inevitably uttered wherever misogyny is present--is relevant. Men would never insult and demean a fellow servicemember; boys think saying the word 'boobs' is funny.
The less obvious implication of your remarks, however, is that by offending an ally and cheapening her contribution, you are actively hurting the mission. We need to send a clear message that anyone, male or female, who will stand up to ISIS and get the job done is worthy of our respect and gratitude.
We issue an apology on your behalf to Major Al Mansouri knowing that anything your producers force you to say will be contrived and insincere. Major, we're sincerely sorry for the rudeness; clearly, these boys don't take your service seriously, but we and the rest of the American public do.
From the September 26 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 25 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 24 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
Conservative media's lengthy campaign to demonize government programs by accusing low-income Americans of using benefits to buy marijuana has culminated in legislation being passed by Republicans in the House of Representatives this week.
Two bills linking government assistance for impoverished families to the legal purchase of marijuana are making their way through the Republican-controlled House. The Preserving Welfare For Needs Not Weed Act, proposed by Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) and passed by the House yesterday, aims to prohibit the use of electronic benefits transfer (EBT) cards containing cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in stores selling marijuana (At this time, only two states, Colorado and Washington, have legalized the sale of the drug for recreational use). A second bill, the No Welfare For Weed Act, introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), extends even further -- it aims to ban the purchase of marijuana with SNAP benefits, commonly known as food stamps.
These bills come on the heels of a concerted effort by Fox News and conservative blogs like National Review Online (NRO) to accuse low-income Americans of using government assistance to purchase recreational marijuana. One month after Colorado legalized the sale of pot, NRO alleged "welfare beneficiaries withdrew thousands of dollars in public-assistance cash from ATMs at weed shops" in the state, a report echoed by Fox & Friends co-host Eric Bolling, who asked, "Are food stamps now going to pot?":
BOLLING: Forty-seven million people are on food stamps nationwide. In Colorado, more than 500,000 are getting food stamps every month. Meanwhile, 348 shops are set up in Colorado to sell pot in the state. And food stamp cards have reportedly been used at pot shops, ATMs, at least 64 times in the short time weed has been legal in Colorado. So are food stamps now going to pot?
In 64 specific times, people used an EBT card to take out cash, presumably to buy pot.
Conservative media's accusation that impoverished families use food stamps and government benefits to buy marijuana, one they've continued to push for months, was echoed by House Republicans justifying their current proposals.
Presenting his bill on September 16, Reichert declared, "We are seeing new abuses of these benefits. In these states, a person can walk into one of the newly opened pot shops and use their welfare benefit card to pay for pot ... This isn't an idle concern. Report examining welfare transactions in Colorado revealed over $5,000 in welfare benefits were accessed in stores selling marijuana in the first month such stores were open."
The link between TANF benefits and pot purchases has yet to be established. In NRO's original report, the blog admitted it could not conclude that any TANF money has been used specifically for the purchase of marijuana, stating, "Some of these establishments sell groceries as well as pot, so there is no way to know exactly how much welfare money was spent on marijuana."
Notably, despite the House bill suggesting otherwise, food stamp recipients are only allowed to use benefits to purchase approved food items and are barred from purchasing alcohol, tobacco, and non-food items. The USDA makes clear that SNAP benefits can't be used to withdraw cash from ATMs (emphasis original):
SNAP benefits can never be withdrawn as cash. Many States allow clients to use a single EBT card to access SNAP as well as cash benefit programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In most States, cash benefits from other programs can be accessed through ATMs.
Right-wing media are using President Obama's plan to fight the Ebola outbreak in West Africa as another opportunity to attack him. Conservatives are calling the president a "hypocrite" because he's sending "more soldiers to fight Ebola than we are sending to fight ISIS"; labeling the plan "arrogant" because of problems with HealthCare.gov; and accusing him of trying to "change the subject" by "fighting a really bad flu bug."
The White House announced on September 16 that the United States would send 3,000 troops to Africa to help combat the Ebola threat. The U.S. military and broader uniformed services effort will "entail command and control, logistics expertise, training, and engineering support."
President Obama said in a speech that "[m]ore than 2,400 men, women and children are known to have died -- and we strongly suspect that the actual death toll is higher than that ... In West Africa, Ebola is now an epidemic of the likes that we have not seen before. It's spiraling out of control. It is getting worse. It's spreading faster and exponentially. Today, thousands of people in West Africa are infected. That number could rapidly grow to tens of thousands. And if the outbreak is not stopped now, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people infected, with profound political and economic."
Conservatives responded to the plan by mocking the president and his policies:
Fox News host Eric Bolling speculated that House Democrats' letter to the NFL commissioner demanding transparency on the League's knowledge of Ray Rice's domestic assault was simply part of a political effort to prop up a "war on women" narrative.
Following NFL running back Ray Rice's suspension and subsequent dismissal from the Baltimore Ravens for a domestic assault incident that was caught on camera, questions are now swirling as to whether the NFL had seen the full, graphic tape of the assault when it initially decided to suspend Rice only for two games. While NFL commissioner Roger Goodell claimed the league had not seen the full footage prior to the suspension, the Associated Press reported on September 10th that law enforcement may have given the Rice tape to the NFL several months earlier, in April.
In response, twelve Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Goodell demanding "greater transparency" on what access the NFL had to the tape and urging the commissioner to address the epidemic of domestic violence among professional athletes.
News of the letter from House Democrats didn't sit well with Outnumbered co-host Eric Bolling, who called the letter "convenient," adding, "They love to perpetrate this war on women so the Democrats feel like they're taking the side of women when they do this":
Bolling didn't mention another congressional letter to Goodell, one signed by both Democratic and Republican female senators and calling for a "zero-tolerance" policy on domestic violence in the NFL. The senators wrote that they were "shocked and disgusted" at reports that the NFL may have had the tape for months prior to Rice's two-game suspension.
With the nation's attention turned toward the growing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, media figures have called on President Obama to speak out more forcefully on the situation and race relations in America. But Obama's past statements on race have been met with attacks from conservative commentators, blasting Obama for "promoting racial division" and "exacerbating racial tensions."
Voices currently urging the nation's first black president to say more on race ignore the marked history of conservative media figures' accusations of race-baiting in response to Obama's previous remarks:
From the August 19 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
In The Wall Street Journal, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) disavowed the offensive narrative pushed by conservative media which labels needy Americans as "takers" versus more economically-prosperous "makers." However, Ryan's proposed anti-poverty policies still rely on the right-wing media myth that blames poverty on poor individuals' personal life choices.
From the August 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
Yes or no? Up or down?
It's been a confusing week for professional Obama critics. Suddenly confronted with the topic of impeachment and busy issuing not-quite-believable denials that trying to drive the Democratic president from office has ever been a serious pursuit of the Republican Party or its most aggressive boosters, many members of the far-right press seemed caught off guard by recent developments.
Angered by the fact the White House is highlighting the GOP's ongoing embrace of impeachment and suggesting Republicans might act on the idea if they win control of the U.S. Senate, conservatives have tried to quiet their own crowd, apparently concerned about optics.
But the fever swamp has never been about optics. It's about whipping as many people as possible into a state of narrow-minded outrage on a daily basis. And if that means dipping into the impeachment pool, then so be it.
Now press partisans are caught in no-man's land. Seeing the fundraising success Democrats have had off impeachment, conservative critics angrily deny that Republicans have any interest in impeachment. Yet at the same time they're part of a media movement that thinks Obama should be impeached. (He's a lawless tyrant, in case you hadn't heard.) The contradiction has led to a week of confusion and missteps as the conservative media struggle with how transparent they should be in their loathing of the president, especially if there are indications Democrats are using that rage to their advantage, both politically and financially.
So almost overnight there's been a movement to hush the most strident critics; to urge everyone to take it down a notch because it just doesn't look good.
On Fox News, The Five co-host Greg Gutfeld dismissed impeachment as a "stunt" that's "tossed out by people addicted to [the] splash those stunts make." What kind of people? "Bloggers" and "talking heads," he said. Co-host Andrea Tantaros agreed, bemoaning the fact "There's a movement in talk radio and on the right to profiteer from these wild ideas." (Note that Tantaros still thinks Obama might do something "worthy of impeachment" just to bait Republicans into it.") And colleague Eric Bolling insisted even talk radio hosts had "backed off" the topic because they realized it "sounded a little bit crazy."
But nobody puts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin in the corner, so the angry talkers haven't backed down from the impeachment charge. (Levin: "Here's the dead truth -- Obama should be impeached.") And that leaves damage control agents like Tantaros looking a bit foolish: How can impeachment deniers claim the topic's not being treated seriously when two of the most popular radio hosts in right-wing America are doing just that, and demanding their millions of listeners do the same? (For a cheat sheet of Republican politicians who also have also pushed impeachment, see here.)
And that's been the confusing part: The claim nobody on the right's been promoting impeachment (it's all a liberal conspiracy), vs. the acknowledgement that okay, some people have but they're really misguided and irresponsible.