Accuracy in Media

President Obama has been boasting of his foreign policy prowess, in part by criticizing other world leaders. Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal cited Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent article in The Atlantic based on his interview with the President, in which Obama aimed criticism at Prime Minister David Cameron of England and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, among others:

David Cameron comes in for a scolding on U.K. military spending, as well as for getting ‘distracted’ on Libya. Nicolas Sarkozy, the former and possibly future president of France, is dismissed by Mr. Obama as a posturing braggart.

But according to several officials who served in high level national security positions under President Obama, it is the President himself who has made some major blunders and bad decisions that have damaged our national security and weakened our leadership position in the world.

The Fox News Channel recently aired a special on the state of the military and the challenges it has recently faced titled “Rising Threats—Shrinking Military.” It has received almost no coverage from the mainstream media, despite the fact that numerous former Obama administration officials used this opportunity to lambast the President’s policies toward Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and more. Their criticisms span the entire length of President Obama’s two terms in office. Perhaps it is the very fact that these people are speaking out against President Obama’s flawed leadership as commander-in-chief that has led to an almost complete media blackout. And it raises the question, why didn’t they speak out much sooner, when it might have made a difference?

“According to the report, [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates was told to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the defense budget after already having slashed it,” reports The Hill. “I guess I’d have to say I felt double-crossed,” Gates told Fox News. “After all those years in Washington, I was naïve.”

US News & World Report also briefly highlights how Gates claims that Obama chose to push for Egypt’s leader Hosni Mubarak to leave despite the advice of his national security team.

“Literally the entire national security team recommended, unanimously, handling Mubarak differently than we did,” said Gates. “And the President took the advice of three junior backbenchers, in terms of how to treat Mubarak—one of them saying, ‘Mr. President, you gotta be on the right side of history.’”

As we have repeatedly reported, both Obama and the press regularly try to bolster President Obama’s legacy at the expense of the truth. The truth is that President Obama’s signature legacies, such as his deals with Iran and Cuba, involved reaching out to totalitarian regimes, and making deals that were terrible for the U.S., but great for Cuba and Iran.

In fact, there is no signed deal with Iran, and the Iranian regime has repeatedly made clear that they have no intention of abiding by what the Obama administration claims are the terms of the deal. Iran has shown complete contempt for Obama and the U.S. since collecting more than $100 billion of previously frozen funds. In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ambassador to the U.S., Yousef al Otaiba argued that “Since the nuclear deal, however, Iran has only doubled down on its posturing and provocations. In October, November and again in early March, Iran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.” He added that “It is now clear that one year since the framework for the deal was agreed upon, Iran sees it as an opportunity to increase hostilities in the region.”

Other than a short mention given to Gates’ comments, the media coverage of this Fox News special has been superficial at best. One of the most stunning aspects of this documentary, however, is how many eminent voices spoke out against the President: former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary Gates, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn all criticized Obama’s wartime strategy during his time in office.

When President Obama was elected he did so as a candidate strongly opposed to the Iraq War.

“Even at the time, it was possible to make judgments that this [Iraq war] would not work out well,” claimed then-candidate Obama in 2007, according to Reuters. Yet after gaining office President Obama’s opposition to leaving troops in Iraq seemed both political and idealistic.

Panetta stressed how important it was to keep the American military in Iraq to maintain stability. “It was really important that we try to maintain a military presence there [in Iraq], in order to make sure that the gains that had been achieved, [through] a lot of blood, by the United States as well as Iraqis, that those gains could be maintained,” he said.

President Obama completely withdrew our troops from Iraq, announcing at the time, in December of 2011, that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” Now Iraq is overrun with brutal Islamic State jihadis and Iranian-backed militias, effectively overthrowing that “self-reliant Iraq” that President Obama spoke of in 2011.

During the Fox News special, Panetta also criticized swapping Bowe Bergdahl for the Taliban Five. “I don’t mind, obviously, the effort at negotiation, but you don’t just walk in and say, ‘Oh, yeah, we’ll give you five bad guys,’” he said. “What assurance do we have that they’re not going to wind up blowing up innocent Americans?”

Again, it seems that President Obama continues to make the world more and more dangerous by appeasing the enemy, yet calling each situation a success on his part. As we wrote when Bergdahl was charged with “misbehavior before the enemy,” swapping this deserter for Taliban leaders only encourages future kidnappings of members of our armed forces.

Although President Obama did intervene militarily in Libya alongside a coalition of forces, some critics argue that he has been loath to commit U.S. forces to necessary conflicts. Flynn told Bret Baier that it looked like President Obama was afraid of using the U.S. military. “I think that he looks at the United States military and sees it as a threatening application around the world than actually as a useful tool,” he said. When Obama capitulated on his red line against Syria using chemical weapons, Flynn says the United States “demonstrated weakness instead of strength.”

“Secretary Hagel told us the President’s decision damaged American’s credibility,” noted Baier in the report.

While the Fox News special report largely avoided discussing the Benghazi scandal, the September 11, 2012 terror attacks demonstrate how President Obama’s policy of leading from behind and refusing to commit troops has led to the death of Americans abroad.

This Fox News special report demonstrated that President Obama’s credibility has been in short supply as he continues to use the military for social engineering instead of winning wars. But don’t expect any coverage from the mainstream media, no matter how convincing, or influential, the figures are who condemn Obama’s mismanagement of our military.

You can watch the entire Fox News special, “Rising Threats—Shrinking Military” here.

 




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • Lenomde Plume

    “But according to several officials who served in high level national security positions under President Obama…”
    Wow, another unnamed Fox News “expert”… Anyone remember that named, famous Fox defense “expert”: Wayne Simmons?

    From October 2015. “Simmons was billed as an ex-CIA agent who engaged as an “outside paramilitary special operations officer” for the CIA from 1973 to 2000. He was hired as a Fox News analyst in 2002 as a terrorism expert with more than 23 years experience. Because of this claim, he gained security clearances and a lucrative job as a defense contractor advising military personnel overseas.

    But it turns out Simmons never worked for the CIA and claiming that he did while in engaging in fraud is a crime. His fake resume allowed him to make significant income through a government contract. In addition, he was also indicted in a real estate scheme and defrauded a man of $125K.

    Simmons was noted for making dire statements such as there were “at least 19 paramilitary Muslim training facilities in the United States.” In addition, he was highly critical of Obama, calling him a “novice” with no spine.

    Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti was quoted by CNN as stating that Simmons “was never a contributor for Fox News and that he appeared on the network only as a non-paid guest.”

    If convicted, Simmons faces 20 years for wire fraud, 10 years for major fraud against the US, and 5 years for false statements.”

    Wow, 13 years polluting the airwaves on Fox yet STILL not a “contributor”? Fair and Balance only when taken with a liberal dose of salt (and ipecac).

  • jaimelmanzano

    Stream of conscience thoughts…….the media provides the political narrative of competing foreign policy establishments, it being a primary actor/agitator in leading public opinion, and party politics. To serve the people, the media needs to be transparent with sources and opinion, and shun hiding behind the curtain of press freedoms to feed their speculations from unidentified secretive, politically ambitious(?) leakers…..If mistakes were likely known at the time, shouldn’t officials in the article have resigned at the time?.. Besides playing in the game of national security, those benefiting materially (individuals, groups, and organizations, public and political) need to be identified….Structural deficiencies in the mechanism, the policy and the management of the nation’s design, deserve review and reform.

  • ImpeachHim2015

    All the defense secretaries were named. They are all embarrassed at this joke of a chief executive. Did you not see they were named? Not unnamed. Do they have enough credibility for you? Try to stay on topic…

  • John Cunningham

    Watched and, yes it scared hell out of me. No for myself but, my Family. Militia anyone?

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Well, when you try and implement world government without telling anybody you are going to have conflicts. And don’t be fooled, Hagel is a part of the NWO. So militias will be rounded up for doing what is only natural: defending the sovereignty of America because the representatives who have taken an oath refuse to. LaVoy Finnicum has already been made an example.

  • John Cunningham

    Plus, the powers that be are scared to death of them.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The powers that be are a bunch of Satan worshippers. Sure, they desire to protect a lie from anyone who would bring it to the light of the day. But I believe these reprobates are well aware that there is a God, and they despise Him. They are scared to death of the One True Light, the Lord Jesus Christ. They want to silence the Word of God, especially with Sodomite marriage. The Word of God scares them to death. True Christians scare them to death.

  • John Cunningham

    Reminds me of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah. When the three Angels came to visit Lott and his Family. The town of Sodom, the people wanted to fornicate with the Angels. Lott barred the door and we all know the rest. These Devil Worshipers today, try to justify the slaughter of the innocence by getting everyone on their side. Makes them feel they can justify the atrocity. I would love to live long enough to see the second coming.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    “If man is somehow one and if the world is somehow
    one, it is not too soon to wonder what it is that unifies both man and the world. World organization will be human community or it will not be at all. And the great society…will not become the human community
    until it finds the common spirit that is man…” Aspen Institute of the future, June 27, 1949.

    The only spirit that is common to man is his sin nature.

  • John Cunningham

    Amen!

  • terry1956

    I encourage folks to watch the videos and read the works by Edwin Vieira on the Militias of the several states although I think he is wrong on some points namely I think that volunteers are better although I think a state would be justified in charging a higher tax to a county and local government that does not meet its quota in Militia, Posse and Jury volunteers.
    If just 35% of the adult US citizens volunteered that would be a force of around 80 million or over 50 times the number of full time US military under the command of the president.
    We still need the US Military and the National Guard but they are in no way, shape or form a replacement for the state militias.

  • terry1956

    We need more people in the US Military in its full time force and more spending on it by the federal government but even more congress needs to repeal the Dick Act and pretty much return to the Militia Act of 1792 and the State Militias under the command of the governor while placing the National Guard Units in the US Military Reserves under the Command of the US president.
    Do Away with all federal law enforcement officers in the states but keeping the FBI as part of the Justice department investigations.
    As pointed out in article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution Congress has the authority to provide for calling forth the Militia to enforce laws of the union and article 4 section 4 says congress is required to protect a state from domestic violence if the state legislator applies for it or the governor if the legislator can not meet.
    Still congress, the president, the state legislator and governor should work with the properly elected county sheriffs and properly elected local constables and their Posse members when using the Militia to enforce federal law in the county and local areas being actually under the final command of those local elected officials in enforcing the federal law unless those officials have attacked outside their jurisdiction, ignored such attacks, worked to end republican form of government or proper trial by jury or ignored such actions against American common law rights and due process.
    Trial on federal or state charges should be held in the local hundred court ( 100 households) with the judge being able to grant a change of venue in another part of the county or state if the defendant in the judges views would not get a fair trial in the local hundred, the judge can also declare a mistrial if they think the defendant did not get a fair trial or the defendant can appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court ( which also should have a citizen jury).
    If the government or a private plaintiff on the other hand loses to the defense in the hundred court there should be no appeal if all 12 jury members said not guilty or said not guilty on a higher charge but guilty on a lessor legal charge ask for by the proper prosecutor or private plaintiff.
    Although the judge can call a mistrial on the lessor charge but a new trial can not bring back the higher charge.

  • terry1956

    A good round number of Troops to have in the full time US military would be around 2% of the adult population or roughly for 2016 5 million and with an average of 120,000 a year in wages and benefits that would be 600 billion dollars or less than 3.4% of GDP with the vast majority station in the US including US territory.
    Extra must be spent to build up our navy, air and space ability.
    Yes waste occurs in DOD but even eliminating that we likely should spend around 1.5 trillion on DOD or almost 8.5% of GDP which should come down with higher annual real growth in the economy.
    The vast majority of everything else the federal government does that should be done including obligations to those who paid FICA and bought US treasuries should be passed to the states.
    With just an annual average increase of 6% real GDP would double in 12 years and in 40 years be over 181trillion dollars in 2016 dollars or over 10 times what it is now in 2016 dollars.
    If we still had 5 million full time troops in 2056 and paid an average of a million dollars a year in 2016 dollars that would be 5 trillion in 2016 US dollars but less than 2.8% of GDP if the GDP is 181 trillion in 2016 dollars.

  • RMThoughts

    When then president Bush declared the US’s right to act unilaterally in world affairs, the US recreated the jungle. It took mankind back to the dark ages, only this time with weapons of mass destruction.

    It removed the need to be responsible and restrained in the exercise of power. It opened the Pandora’s Box of “National Interest”. As the saying goes, “two can play that game”, and in the context of the world, many can play that game. That is exactly what we see unfolding before our very eyes. In every continent in the world – excepting Australia.

    In every “hot spot” in the world. Even within countries. We don’t have to obey rules. We make the rules. Might is right, and we will prevail. Welcome back to the Stone Age. This is the state of our world today. A place where mutual respect is as barren as the desserts of Saudi Arabia, and where the innocent blood flows as it has throughout our history.

    We never learn that power exercised without restraint is poison to us all

  • PhilByler

    Baloney. GW Bush acted in Iraq with a coalition of nations, and until Obama, the United States always reserved a right to itself of unilateral action for the national interest. What you disparage is the cornerstone of Teddy Roosevelt’s foreign policy, which as Kissinger explained in “Diplomacy,” continues as an element of a sound American foreign policy.