Fox News Spreads New Obama Myths

Fox News Spreads New Obama Myths
The network spreads false rumors about the president's national security policy
By Alex Seitz-Wald


In an attempt to paint President Obama as weak or even “dangerous” on foreign policy, as Rep. Michele Bachmann said this morning at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, conservative pundits have seized on two myths about Obama’s handling of national security, which have spread like wildfire through the right-wing blogosphere and onto the airwaves at Fox News.

The first states that Obama, via his ambassador in Egypt, ordered Marine guards at the Cairo embassy to go without live ammunition. The meme started as a rumor on a Web forum for Marines, which was picked up by a defense blog and then the conservative Washington Free Beacon. From there it spread to dozens of other right-wing blogs before making it to Fox News last night.

The claim is not only false, but completely misunderstands the role of Marine guards at diplomatic posts. “The Marines on duty at Embassy Cairo had ammunition in their weapons, as they always do at all our Missions overseas when they are on duty,” a senior State Department official, speaking on background because they were not authorized to speak with the press, told Salon. Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein also obtained a memo from the Marine Corps’ congressional liaison that said the same. Later, a Pentagon spokesperson told Fox News, “The ambassador and RSO (Regional Security Officer) have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed.”

Meanwhile, despite popular conception, the primary mission of Marine Guards at the embassies is to protect classified information, not personnel. Diplomatic posts only have tiny detachments of Marines, while they may hire hundreds of private security guards. There are only 1,100 Marine Security Guards worldwide stationed at over 100 diplomatic posts, so force sizes for each may number in the single digits. For example, a book published by the American Foreign Service Association meant to provide a window in embassy operations profiled a security officer in Manila, Philippines, who oversaw 250 locally hired guards and just seven Marines.

The other meme comes from former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who has, since the demise of the Bush administration, fashioned himself as a foreign policy expert and chief antagonist of Obama anti-terror policies. Coming after a long line of other specious, nakedly partisan and easily discredited accusations comes this: Obama has skipped almost half of his presidential daily intelligence briefings. Columnist Dana Milbank, who is employed by the same Washington Post that published Thiessen’s briefing nonsense, easily dispatched with this:

In reality, Obama didn’t “attend” these meetings, because there were no meetings to attend: The oral briefings had been mostly replaced by daily exchanges in which Obama reads the materials and poses written questions and comments to intelligence officials. This is how it was done in the Clinton administration, before Bush decided he would prefer to read less. Bush’s results — Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and the failure to find Osama bin Laden — suggest this was not an obvious improvement.

This, too, got the Fox News treatment sadly, but not surprisingly.

 

I'm sure that we'll see them repeated here.

 

There's been one huge myth being spread by the left...one that claims BO is capable of running a country.

 

You know that you guys are not going to win in November right? I mean, in spite of all of your weird spins and convenient amnesia, you know that people are beginning to talk landslide for Obama right? Sucks to be you.

 

"People" are beginning to talk "landslide"? Really? "People" are talking? It's gotta be on MSNBC or those blogs you follow because out here in the real world that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact I saw a piece on NBC over the weekend that indicated just the opposite. It claimed BO held 3-5% a lead with registered voters but Romney held up to a 10% lead with likely voters. The difference in the 2 demographics being likely voters turned out to the polls something like 25:1 over registered voters.
I think it's the dwindling number of BO devotees, bless your heart, who should be getting nervous

 

"Fox News spreads myths"...isn't that an oxymoron? The fact that Fox affixes the word news to their name is itself mystifying, as what they regurgitate is anything but news.

 

Welcome to the forum, Guy! Here's to some lively discussions!

 

LOL... OK, time to come back from Wonderland. As you can see in the chart below, Obama is sliding and Romney is gaining. Both statistics are within the margin of error of + - 3 points.

From the latest Gallup Poll:

View attachment 582

 

Hey welcome to this rather small forum of Lefties vs Righies. It's all in good fun and only those that take it too seriously walk away with hurt feelings.

If this is your first post....You nailed it!!!!

 

I hope that this little chart keeps you warm the night of Nov 6th. It's pretty much all you're gonna have. Your candidate is tanking.

 

Probability of Reaching 270
Democrats 92%
Republicans 7%
Neither (Tie) < 1%

These probabilities are based on current polls for the unselected (tan color) states in the above map. Each time you click a state, the percentages will dynamically update. These numbers are not meant as a future projection of the election, but should be interpreted as: "If the election were today, and if the current polls in each state are an unbiased reflection of the voters' intentions, what is the likelihood that each candidate will reach 270 electoral votes based on the unselected (tan states) in the above map?"

 

I think the point you're missing is that there is a huge difference between people who merely express a preference and people who virtually guarantee they'll be voting. What % of the population actually goes to the polls, something like 30%? Everyone has a preference but not everyone votes, do they?

 

Yeah, I'm sure that only the polls that you agree with use this methodology while all the polls that you disagree with just yell out the window at passers-by.

Any port in a storm I guess.

 

...and reaching for straws is standard operating procedure for you...

 

I believe the person reaching for straws here is YOU. I just wanted to be the first one to rub salt into your wounds before everyone else piles on with their own salt supplies. You have always been the biggest blow-hard in the forum and I feel that you deserve some just desserts. In about 7 weeks, you will be crying in your beer and I will be dancing on your political grave. You keep buying into that "close race" nonsense all you want. It just makes it hurt more when reality smacks you right up side your ugly head. I promise to post every poll I find that agrees with your fantasy because it will add to your long, long fall and make a bigger thud sound when you hit bottom.

 

Nice diatribe. Get that from Rachel Maddow?

 

That's high praise sir! I thank you.

I don't often get lumped into the Rhodes Scholars class but it is all relative I suppose.

 

People are talking is equivalent to one that Fox uses a lot I suppose.

That would be "some people say".

 

Yeah...that little speech at the millionaire's home where he degraded just about half the population should help him immensely!!!!

LOL He's such a dumb sheet.

 

I'm sure you don't....