FARK.com: (6661253) Fox News runs Op-Ed piece in support of Obama's foreign policy. Seriously. Sign of the Apocalypse?

		Fox News runs Op-Ed piece in support of Obama's foreign policy. Seriously. Sign of the Apocalypse? (foxnews.com)		78
		More: Interesting, Fox News, obama, op-ed, Qaddafi, apocalypses, Gaddafi, anti-American, Pan Am

• • •

1262 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Oct 2011 at 2:33 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6661253

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

78 Comments (+0 »)

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

make me some tea

2011-10-20 10:44:23 AM

I read that Ailes is said to be tweaking the slant of Fox a bit due to the pileon of criticism over the years, but so far I'm only seeing it in regards to a few of the op-eds they publish here and there on their website.

Talk to me when these opinions work their way into the broadcast side of it.

make me some tea

2011-10-20 10:47:12 AM

"Critics on the right have flip-flopped on this issues from the beginning on whether or not America should have played a role, any role, in supporting the anti-Qaddafi forces. Today's events are another reminder of how pure political concerns can blind people to America's best."

Amen.

FlashHarry

2011-10-20 10:53:18 AM

i find this very hard to believe. were they hacked?

Vodka Zombie

2011-10-20 11:10:23 AM

FlashHarry: i find this very hard to believe. were they hacked?

It's called kissing ass, Harry. Whatever the sponsors want (in this case, to try and protect themselves from the 99%) determines the slant and content at Fox.

I_C_Weener

2011-10-20 11:24:24 AM

Well, to be honest, Obama's foreign policy does seem to be kill the brown people in charge. Very close to the old boss's policy...just a bit more selective.

DarwiOdrade

2011-10-20 11:29:12 AM

I_C_Weener: Well, to be honest, Obama's foreign policy does seem to be kill the brown people in charge. Very close to the old boss's policy...just a bit more selective.

You misspelled "effective".

BravadoGT

2011-10-20 11:41:51 AM

It's a Juan Williams piece. He's a liberal and a regular on Fox.

kingoomieiii

2011-10-20 11:43:59 AM

I wonder if that's weird for Obama, him being dead. I mean, he was a bad dude, but unlike Bin Laden or those other people we've rained down upon with great vengeance and furious anger, Obama's met Gaddafi personally.

Now, I've known people who are no longer with us, but I never financially and militarily supported their eventual killers.

kingoomieiii

2011-10-20 11:45:13 AM

BravadoGT: It's a Juan Williams piece. He's a liberal and a regular on Fox.

Well, as liberal as you can be while still being fired from NPR for claiming to be afraid of muslims in airports.

BravadoGT

2011-10-20 11:55:20 AM

kingoomieiii: BravadoGT: It's a Juan Williams piece. He's a liberal and a regular on Fox.

Well, as liberal as you can be while still being fired from NPR for claiming to be afraid of muslims in airports.

Is that the new liberal purity test? If you admit that Muslims in traditional garb make you a little nervous in airports--you've forfeited your left-wing credentials?

DarwiOdrade

2011-10-20 12:03:51 PM

kingoomieiii

2011-10-20 12:08:50 PM

BravadoGT: kingoomieiii: BravadoGT: It's a Juan Williams piece. He's a liberal and a regular on Fox.

Well, as liberal as you can be while still being fired from NPR for claiming to be afraid of muslims in airports.

Is that the new liberal purity test? If you admit that Muslims in traditional garb make you a little nervous in airports--you've forfeited your left-wing credentials?

First of all, being afraid of "traditionally-garbed" muslims in an airport isn't even a slightly-reasonable reaction. What better way for a stereotypical muslin terr'ist to avoid attention than dressing in contemporary clothes? You know, like the 9/11 hijackers did, for that reason exactly?

The only reasonable worry you might have about someone in a robe or veil of some sort is that some dumb-ass TSA agent is going to hold up the line asking them questions.

All other reasons are "Stupid, reactionary racism".

BravadoGT

2011-10-20 12:25:02 PM

kingoomieiii: BravadoGT: kingoomieiii: BravadoGT: It's a Juan Williams piece. He's a liberal and a regular on Fox.

Well, as liberal as you can be while still being fired from NPR for claiming to be afraid of muslims in airports.

Is that the new liberal purity test? If you admit that Muslims in traditional garb make you a little nervous in airports--you've forfeited your left-wing credentials?

First of all, being afraid of "traditionally-garbed" muslims in an airport isn't even a slightly-reasonable reaction. What better way for a stereotypical muslin terr'ist to avoid attention than dressing in contemporary clothes? You know, like the 9/11 hijackers did, for that reason exactly?

The only reasonable worry you might have about someone in a robe or veil of some sort is that some dumb-ass TSA agent is going to hold up the line asking them questions.

All other reasons are "Stupid, reactionary racism".

Williams acknowledged at the time it wasn't a reasonable reaction, but one of emotion, and he took no action as a result of those feelings. So is his crime that he has emotional reactions that are in sometimes at odds with his intellect--or that he admitted as much?

dudemanbro

2011-10-20 12:26:19 PM

Maybe the folks at Fox are getting a little nervous now that people are standing up to the right-wing assholes who have been running things (into the ground) for so long.

kingoomieiii

2011-10-20 12:35:55 PM

BravadoGT: So is his crime

First amendment. No crime involved.

Also, NPR isn't un-firing him.

Wendy's Chili

2011-10-20 12:44:58 PM

he has pursued a number of President Bush's policies

No, you dipshiat. This is a prime example of the difference between him and Bush. Bush policy: invade. Obama policy: don't invade.

Theaetetus

2011-10-20 01:18:48 PM

BravadoGT: kingoomieiii: BravadoGT: kingoomieiii: BravadoGT: It's a Juan Williams piece. He's a liberal and a regular on Fox.

Well, as liberal as you can be while still being fired from NPR for claiming to be afraid of muslims in airports.

Is that the new liberal purity test? If you admit that Muslims in traditional garb make you a little nervous in airports--you've forfeited your left-wing credentials?

First of all, being afraid of "traditionally-garbed" muslims in an airport isn't even a slightly-reasonable reaction. What better way for a stereotypical muslin terr'ist to avoid attention than dressing in contemporary clothes? You know, like the 9/11 hijackers did, for that reason exactly?

The only reasonable worry you might have about someone in a robe or veil of some sort is that some dumb-ass TSA agent is going to hold up the line asking them questions.

All other reasons are "Stupid, reactionary racism".

Williams acknowledged at the time it wasn't a reasonable reaction, but one of emotion, and he took no action as a result of those feelings. So is his crime that he has emotional reactions that are in sometimes at odds with his intellect--or that he admitted as much?

Or that he wanted applause for being racist, but not acting on it? It'd be like someone saying "every time I see a hispanic person, I know they're illegal immigrants. But that's an emotional reaction, so I don't call INS. Aren't I wonderful?"

No. He's a douche.

ultraholland

2011-10-20 01:46:05 PM

Fox periodically publishes left-leaning opinion pieces on their website so they can point out how fair and balanced they are. Even if they ran only left-skewed stories on all their networks for the next decade, they'd still be heavily unbalanced to the right.

Shovel Ready

2011-10-20 02:37:40 PM

Trying to inspire Fox related trolling? Well, it is getting towards the end of the week. They are usually quite entertaining. You could have at least thrown us a "Palin" or "Cheney" in there too.

whidbey

2011-10-20 02:38:53 PM

Yep, circle the wagons, target liberals who voted for him, tout war policy left over from Bush in an attempt to force buyers remorse.

That about covers it.

Rapmaster2000

2011-10-20 02:39:25 PM

There's a reason. It's identical to Romney's new policy.

coeyagi

2011-10-20 02:40:35 PM

Until (Big Pile of) Doocy or the other douchebags on the broadcast side actually say something favorable, am unconvinced that the evil emperor Ailes is softening on the derp-icity of his narrative.

Rapmaster2000

2011-10-20 02:40:57 PM

Rapmaster2000: There's a reason. It's identical to Romney's new policy.

Here: Link (new window)

watson.t.hamster

2011-10-20 02:42:13 PM

This should be interesting.

"Foxnews is always wrong. But foxnews agrees with me. Error. System reboot"

I don't think there was ever any doubt that we could take out Qaddafi.

It was more on whether we should.

I wasn't really concerned about him crossing our border and killing us all in our sleep.

I guess it's good that he's gone, but really was it worth spending the billions we didn't have? It's not like whatever regime that takes over will be particularly grateful for our help. So why did we bother?

BadJazz

2011-10-20 02:42:22 PM

Fark u!!! hahah a GO GATORS!!!

TofuTheAlmighty

2011-10-20 02:42:27 PM

Juan Williams is a Fox News liberal. Meaning he's only slightly to the right of Reagan.

12349876

2011-10-20 02:42:31 PM

Wendy's Chili: he has pursued a number of President Bush's policies

No, you dipshiat. This is a prime example of the difference between him and Bush. Bush policy: invade. Obama policy: don't invade.

It's actually the Reagan policy. Act tough, but don't put do things that will result in a lot of Americans dying.

Jackson Herring

2011-10-20 02:46:33 PM

watson.t.hamster: This should be interesting.

"Foxnews is always wrong. But foxnews agrees with me. Error. System reboot"

Is this like, a series of unfortunate typos? I can't imagine someone would post something that stupid in earnest

tgregory

2011-10-20 02:47:46 PM

Obama and Bush are almost identical. They're the same on war, they're the same on corporate welfare, they're the same on limiting civil liberties...

dogdaze

2011-10-20 02:48:39 PM

Hoarseman

2011-10-20 02:49:03 PM

coeyagi

2011-10-20 02:49:05 PM

tgregory: Obama and Bush are almost identical. They're the same on war, they're the same on corporate welfare, they're the same on limiting civil liberties...

But in the minds of the GOP, the small difference in protein expression in the skin cells of one individual makes him a big old bag of donkey poop.

King Something

2011-10-20 02:49:37 PM

tgregory: Obama and Bush are almost identical. They're the same on war, they're the same on corporate welfare, they're the same on limiting civil liberties...

So we should all vote for Republicans?

Great idea, nothing can possiblie go wrong!

Shovel Ready

2011-10-20 02:50:09 PM

coeyagi: tgregory: Obama and Bush are almost identical. They're the same on war, they're the same on corporate welfare, they're the same on limiting civil liberties...

But in the minds of the GOP, the small difference in protein expression in the skin cells of one individual makes him a big old bag of donkey poop.

Wow, pulling out the race card? Are you like 10 or something?

you are a puppet

2011-10-20 02:50:12 PM

This guy is even more liberal than dangerous far-left liberal bully leftist Alan Colmes. Just goes to show that Fox News looks at BOTH sides of the issue. Call me when the liberal dorkstream media gives a show or column to an established, outspoken and intelligent conservative, like Hank Williams Jr or Larry the Cable Guy.

NINDroog

2011-10-20 02:50:16 PM

Um...aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves. I mean, killing Saddam didn't make Iraq a nice place, nor did killing Osama fix Afghanistan. Yea, they were bad dudes, but they get to power because they have people that follow them. Those people are still there. Sure, this could turn out well, or it could turn into a failed state. I think it's a bit premature to say that this was absolutely the right thing to do, or, that it is in America's best interest. We have no interest in Libya, just like we don't in Afghanistan (save the terrorist issue), and didn't in Iraq, and the massive aid that is required to rebuild a country is not going to be forthcoming considering the economic problems in the US. Humanitarian intervention is not a great long-term motivation for the US.

/IMHO

coeyagi

2011-10-20 02:50:40 PM

watson.t.hamster: This should be interesting.

"Foxnews is always wrong. But foxnews agrees with me. Error. System reboot"

I don't think there was ever any doubt that we could take out Qaddafi.

It was more on whether we should.

I wasn't really concerned about him crossing our border and killing us all in our sleep.

I guess it's good that he's gone, but really was it worth spending the billions we didn't have? It's not like whatever regime that takes over will be particularly grateful for our help. So why did we bother?

To that I can only respond, congrats on your 1 week of continued farking here on Fark. Many happy returns!

coeyagi

2011-10-20 02:53:37 PM

Shovel Ready: coeyagi: tgregory: Obama and Bush are almost identical. They're the same on war, they're the same on corporate welfare, they're the same on limiting civil liberties...

But in the minds of the GOP, the small difference in protein expression in the skin cells of one individual makes him a big old bag of donkey poop.

Wow, pulling out the race card? Are you like 10 or something?

Exhibit A: Person X is similar politically to Person Y.
Exhibit B: Person X is black and Person Y is white.
Exhibit C: Person X is disliked compared to Person Y.
Conclusion: Racism

It really isn't tough. If you can explain to me why Obama has many of the same positions as the Republicans have had and now they disagree with said position as anything other than him being black, have at it.

King Something

2011-10-20 02:54:19 PM

NINDroog: Um...aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves. I mean, killing Saddam didn't make Iraq a nice place, nor did killing Osama fix Afghanistan. Yea, they were bad dudes, but they get to power because they have people that follow them. Those people are still there. Sure, this could turn out well, or it could turn into a failed state. I think it's a bit premature to say that this was absolutely the right thing to do, or, that it is in America's best interest. We have no interest in Libya, just like we don't in Afghanistan (save the terrorist issue), and didn't in Iraq, and the massive aid that is required to rebuild a country is not going to be forthcoming considering the economic problems in the US. Humanitarian intervention is not a great long-term motivation for the US.

/IMHO

But were they bad enough to rescue the president?

PanicMan

2011-10-20 02:54:29 PM

This article needs an editor. There's spelling and formatting errors. Plus some of the grammar is akward.

PanicMan

2011-10-20 02:55:28 PM

And I suck at spelling.

Jim_Callahan

2011-10-20 02:55:37 PM

DarwiOdrade: I_C_Weener: Well, to be honest, Obama's foreign policy does seem to be kill the brown people in charge. Very close to the old boss's policy...just a bit more selective.

You misspelled "effective".

That.

Antimatter

2011-10-20 02:59:09 PM

watson.t.hamster: This should be interesting.

"Foxnews is always wrong. But foxnews agrees with me. Error. System reboot"

I don't think there was ever any doubt that we could take out Qaddafi.

It was more on whether we should.

I wasn't really concerned about him crossing our border and killing us all in our sleep.

I guess it's good that he's gone, but really was it worth spending the billions we didn't have? It's not like whatever regime that takes over will be particularly grateful for our help. So why did we bother?

Actually, getting him was surprisingly cheap compared to what we spent under the bush WoT. Hell, it was pretty much a pentagon rounding error when you think of their total budget.

If the GOP had been in charge, we probably would have staged a land invasion, costing 20x as much. Obama pulled a Clinton, and exploited the US naval air power in the region to great effect.

Sock Ruh Tease

2011-10-20 02:59:32 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Juan Williams is a Fox News liberal. Meaning he's only slightly to the right of Reagan.

i.imgur.com

NINDroog

2011-10-20 03:02:33 PM

But were they bad enough to rescue the president?

No. Only Snake Plissken is bad enough to do that.

Spanky_McFarksalot

2011-10-20 03:02:59 PM

more like a sign subby is a retard and needs to start thinking for himself instead of just parroting the talking points.

watson.t.hamster

2011-10-20 03:04:58 PM

Jackson Herring: watson.t.hamster: This should be interesting.

"Foxnews is always wrong. But foxnews agrees with me. Error. System reboot"

Is this like, a series of unfortunate typos? I can't imagine someone would post something that stupid in earnest

I'm sorry but I'm really not getting your confusion here.

Faux news is often ridiculed (faux news and the like) for their reporting style and low standards.

But all that disappears when they say something you agree with. Seems straightforward enough.

cc_rider

2011-10-20 03:09:45 PM

OMG! Fox is moving to the left! Soros must have bought a bunch of shares in NewsCorp! The Marxists are taking over the media!*

*Based on actual comment from a Tea Party site.

AkaDad

2011-10-20 03:18:10 PM

At least the Libyans are not throwing shoes at Obama.

L82DPRT

2011-10-20 03:26:52 PM

I didn't realize what a brutal war criminal Obama was gonna be.

Awesome.

Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.