Flashback, 2008: When A Russian Invasion Made Fox News Shrug

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fox News commentators have been rushing in to blame President Obama for the Russian military's excursion into Ukraine. It's because of Obama's "weakness" that Vladamir Putin has seized the military initiative, announcedSarah Palin.

The crisis proves Obama's guilty of misunderstanding the Russians and not being "interested in American national security affairs," according to John Bolton. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Fox viewers Obama "left a vacuum that Putin is filling," and Steve Doocy complained the president hasn't done "much" to solve the situation.

Also, Obama needs to get a "backbone" and he's "lost moral authority." All this while Fox has marveled over Putin's prowess as a true "leader," and swooned his supposed physical superiority over Obama.

Please note that in August 2008, during President Bush's final months in office, a strikingly similar scenario played out when Russian forces invaded the former Soviet state of Georgia. At the time, the Bush White House sounded an awful lot like today's Obama White House. From Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, now a Fox host:

"The United States supports Georgia's territorial integrity. We call for an immediate ceasefire. We urge all parties Georgians, south Ossetians, Russians to deescalate the tensions and to avoid conflict. We are work on mediation efforts and to secure a ceasefire, and we are urging the parties to restart their dialogue."

Yet unlike today, the Putin-led excursion in 2008 completely failed to spark the panicked rhetoric that's become Fox News' trademark since Russian troops crossed over into Ukraine last week. Notably absent from the 2008 Georgia coverage was relentless finger pointing and blaming the White House for the extreme actions of a foreign leader thousands of miles away. There was also none of the Putin cheerleading that we hear on Fox News today.

In fact, some of the Fox commentators currently stoking the flames of "crisis" were rather non-judgmental when Russian tanks moved into Georgia. "I don't think the Russians are reckless," Charles Krauthammer announced on August 8, 2008, as Russian fleets advanced into the Black Sea and Russian jets launched raids targeting government buildings in Georgia. "What they are doing here is reasserting control of this province. And when it's done, which will probably happen in a couple days, the firing will crease."

Three days later, Krauthammer insisted there was nothing for the United States to do as the crisis escalated: "Well, obviously it's beyond our control. The Russians are advancing. There is nothing that will stop them. We are not going to go to war over Georgia." Krauthammer's Fox colleague Jeff Birnbaum, agreed: "Because Georgia is not part of NATO, there's really no danger the United States or Europe will get in involved in what is really a civil war almost between--within this small part of Georgia."

Fox News' message to America then? Just relax. There's nothing the U.S. can do about Russia invading its sovereign neighbor and it will all be over soon.

Bill O'Reilly agreed with the laissez-faire analysis. "Even if President Bush wanted to help Georgia we simply don't have the ground forces to do it," said O'Reilly on August 11.
"And confronting the Russians in the air would lead to major hostilities that the USA cannot afford right now."

Even Fox's usually bellicose, right-wing think tank commentators demurred. "There's no easy answer; there's only tough choices," said the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes on August 12, 2008. "Russia is a tough nut to crack."

Indeed.

Recall that early in his presidency Bush famously announced he had peered into Putin's soul and spotted goodness in the Russian leader. The Georgia invasion belayed Bush's gut instincts, but few Fox commentators mocked the president's for his misreading of Putin. (Nor was there discussion that Bush's failed war with Iraq had created an opportunity for Russia's military expansion.)

"I don't think that Putin spit in the eye of the president," insisted Karl Rove in 2008. And John Bolton, who this week accused Obama of not "paying attention" to Ukraine? Back in 2008, he gave Bush a pass when Russian troops poured into Georgia. "I think a lot of people missed it, not just the administration." Bolton said on Fox.

Whereas the current Ukraine conflict is all about Obama on Fox News (i.e. Putin: leader; Obama: weak), Bush was portrayed as a minor figure when Russia waged war in Georgia six years ago.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2014/03/04/flashback-2008-when-a-russian-invasion-made-fox/198322

Edited March 5, 2014 by Porterhouse

[mota bhai 2,675]

Kenyans are marathon runners, not pugilists. What this country needs today is a Jedi warrior. The Kenyan is no Jedi warrior.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ah yes, the joys of Faux News.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I can't say that I agree or am happy to see Putin placing troops in the Ukraine but just as with Georgia under Bush I don't see America entering total war to stop him. The Faux News dichotomy on then vs now is priceless however.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Bush did not do anything at the time because he was weaker than Obama and scared of Putin.

Fox News commentators have been rushing in to blame President Obama for the Russian military's excursion into Ukraine. It's because of Obama's "weakness" that Vladamir Putin has seized the military initiative, announcedSarah Palin.

The crisis proves Obama's guilty of misunderstanding the Russians and not being "interested in American national security affairs," according to John Bolton. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Fox viewers Obama "left a vacuum that Putin is filling," and Steve Doocy complained the president hasn't done "much" to solve the situation.

Also, Obama needs to get a "backbone" and he's "lost moral authority." All this while Fox has marveled over Putin's prowess as a true "leader," and swooned his supposed physical superiority over Obama.

Please note that in August 2008, during President Bush's final months in office, a strikingly similar scenario played out when Russian forces invaded the former Soviet state of Georgia. At the time, the Bush White House sounded an awful lot like today's Obama White House. From Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, now a Fox host:

"The United States supports Georgia's territorial integrity. We call for an immediate ceasefire. We urge all parties Georgians, south Ossetians, Russians to deescalate the tensions and to avoid conflict. We are work on mediation efforts and to secure a ceasefire, and we are urging the parties to restart their dialogue."

Yet unlike today, the Putin-led excursion in 2008 completely failed to spark the panicked rhetoric that's become Fox News' trademark since Russian troops crossed over into Ukraine last week. Notably absent from the 2008 Georgia coverage was relentless finger pointing and blaming the White House for the extreme actions of a foreign leader thousands of miles away. There was also none of the Putin cheerleading that we hear on Fox News today.

In fact, some of the Fox commentators currently stoking the flames of "crisis" were rather non-judgmental when Russian tanks moved into Georgia. "I don't think the Russians are reckless," Charles Krauthammer announced on August 8, 2008, as Russian fleets advanced into the Black Sea and Russian jets launched raids targeting government buildings in Georgia. "What they are doing here is reasserting control of this province. And when it's done, which will probably happen in a couple days, the firing will crease."

Three days later, Krauthammer insisted there was nothing for the United States to do as the crisis escalated: "Well, obviously it's beyond our control. The Russians are advancing. There is nothing that will stop them. We are not going to go to war over Georgia." Krauthammer's Fox colleague Jeff Birnbaum, agreed: "Because Georgia is not part of NATO, there's really no danger the United States or Europe will get in involved in what is really a civil war almost between--within this small part of Georgia."

Fox News' message to America then? Just relax. There's nothing the U.S. can do about Russia invading its sovereign neighbor and it will all be over soon.

Bill O'Reilly agreed with the laissez-faire analysis. "Even if President Bush wanted to help Georgia we simply don't have the ground forces to do it," said O'Reilly on August 11.
"And confronting the Russians in the air would lead to major hostilities that the USA cannot afford right now."

Even Fox's usually bellicose, right-wing think tank commentators demurred. "There's no easy answer; there's only tough choices," said the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes on August 12, 2008. "Russia is a tough nut to crack."

Indeed.

Recall that early in his presidency Bush famously announced he had peered into Putin's soul and spotted goodness in the Russian leader. The Georgia invasion belayed Bush's gut instincts, but few Fox commentators mocked the president's for his misreading of Putin. (Nor was there discussion that Bush's failed war with Iraq had created an opportunity for Russia's military expansion.)

"I don't think that Putin spit in the eye of the president," insisted Karl Rove in 2008. And John Bolton, who this week accused Obama of not "paying attention" to Ukraine? Back in 2008, he gave Bush a pass when Russian troops poured into Georgia. "I think a lot of people missed it, not just the administration." Bolton said on Fox.

Whereas the current Ukraine conflict is all about Obama on Fox News (i.e. Putin: leader; Obama: weak), Bush was portrayed as a minor figure when Russia waged war in Georgia six years ago.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2014/03/04/flashback-2008-when-a-russian-invasion-made-fox/198322

[Penny Lane 8,159]

But this would make them hypocrites and that can't be true!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hypocrites? Fox? Are you kidding me?

As Russian troops entered neighboring territory the president of the United States, in an address to the nation, expressed his deep concern at reports that Russian troops have “invaded a sovereign neighboring state.” “Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century,” the President said.

Referring to how Russia’s actions have raised serious questions about its intentions in the region, the President said, “These actions have substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world. And these actions jeopardize Russians’ relations — Russia’s relations with the United States and Europe. It is time for Russia to be true to its word and to act to end this crisis.”

NBC News reported that, while waiting for the results of a European Union initiative, the administration and its allies are debating ways to punish Russia for its invasion, including expelling Moscow from an exclusive club of wealthy nations and canceling an upcoming joint NATO-Russia military exercise and that the President “and his top aides are engaged in urgent consultations with European and other nations over how best to demonstrate their fierce condemnation of the Russian operation.”

NBC also reported that “In the medium term, the United States and its partners in the Group of Seven, or G-7, the club of the world’s leading industrialized nations that also includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, are debating whether to effectively disband what is known as the G-8, which incorporates Russia, by throwing Moscow out, the officials said.” Officials also said, “Russia’s pending membership in the World Trade Organization might also be affected.” However, “[t]he officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have yet been made and consultations with other countries involved were still under way.”

On Special Report, Charles Krauthammer explains that when the president says that the United States will stand with the international community he really means that “we are going to negotiate with a dozen other countries who will water down the statement” and that when the president affirms that there will be costs: “meaning in making a statement not even imposing a cost, but in making a statement about imposing a cost — for any military intervention” — whatever that means.

“What [the president is] saying is we’re not really going to do anything and we’re telling the world,” Krauthammer says.

At this point I have to disclose that the president making the remarks, above, about the Russian invasion is not President Obama but rather President Bush in August 2008, during the Russian invasion of Georgia.

However, Krauthammer’s remarks are indeed Krauthammer’s and are directed not at his ideological idol, President Bush, but rather at his favorite punching bag, President Obama, and the comments are in reference to the present Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

I really don’t know what Krauthammer had to say about President Bush’s “deep concern,” “fierce condemnation” and his desire to consult, confer and negotiate “with a dozen other countries” while Russian tanks were rumbling into the city of Gori and thrusting deep into Georgian territory and while, according to Georgian officials, “Gori was looted and bombed by the Russians.”

I don’t know what Krauthammer had to say about Bush debating with allies on “ways to punish Russia for its invasion of Georgia, including expelling Moscow from an exclusive club of wealthy nations and canceling an upcoming joint NATO-Russia military exercise” while “waiting for the results of a European Union initiative led by French President Nicholas Sarkozy” and while Georgia was being trampled by Russian tanks and soldiers.

Today, nearly six years later, Russian troops remain in Georgia.

Mind you, all the presidential “deep concern” and cautionary statements were after “five days of fierce fighting that may have [already] killed 2,000 people” in Georgia. Not — as we are now — at the beginning of a Russian military intervention, where the Obama administration has already discussed a broad range of costs to the Russians — costs and measures that Krauthammer and his colleagues are berating in advance.

Read more at http://themoderatevoice.com/192167/ukraine-what-a-difference-partisanship-makes/#M8w6uSXY53LyYFVc.99

Edited March 6, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[JohnR! 5,495]

But this would make them hypocrites and that can't be true!!

Only if you were to take them seriously, which very few people do. Looking at Fox as an entertainment outlet, they could someday be on a par with SNL!

[Penny Lane 8,159]

There are quite a few people on this forum who take Fox News very seriously. It's all the OTHER news sources that are propaganda, you see!

[Pooky 3,784]

There are quite a few people on this forum who take Fox News very seriously. It's all the OTHER news sources that are propaganda, you see!

And the smart people regard every American news source as unreliable.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

And the smart people regard every American news source as unreliable.

Exactly.