Obama Misspeaks on Egypt Relationship Or does he ?

[mheslep]

Fox had glen beck... need I say more?

Who doesn't belong near any microphone given he said publicly he'd like to kill Michael Moore, and I'm not interested in Beck's explanation.

Start sourcing NPR. Every time you do, an Angle gets wings.

Which would be an indication you prefer them for their viewpoint, as opposed to their objectivity and reliability as a news source?

NPR btw still has Nina Totenburg on air who is not an agitprop personality, but one of their *news* commentators. For the same reason, she also does not belong near any microphone:

Nina Totenberg, on the other hand, suffered no ill effects for saying, during the flap over General Jerry Boykin's views of Islam and the war on terrorism, "I hope he's not long for this world." When the startled host asked if she were "putting a hit out on this guy," Totenberg backtracked and said she only wanted to see him expire "in his job."

And I'm not interested in her explanation either.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you actually listened to the piece where Totenberg talks about Boykin (not on NPR, by the way), rather than trust an op-ed's recreation of it, you'd have realized the op-ed was a load of crap.

PS: I've heard Romney doesn't beat his wife anymore, but I'm not interested in his explanations.

 

[Gokul43201]

As can be seen from the CNN article, though, this one is being treated charitably by the media, a consideration not granted to Romney.

Is there any doubt that in only one of the two cases is a person trying to take a cheap shot for political gain?

 

[chemisttree]

If you actually listened to the piece where Totenberg talks about Boykin (not on NPR, by the way), rather than trust an op-ed's recreation of it, you'd have realized the op-ed was a load of crap.

I listened to it and it went down just the way it's been reported. Totenberg said she, "... hoped he was not long for this world.", and then started backpedaling. And Totenberg IS on NPR, BTW. Where she spews her nastiness is irrelevant, isn't it? And this wasn't the only time. In response to a particularly cruel and bigoted opinon of Jesse Helms she opined, "...if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will." I think the op-ed is pretty close to the mark. She's a piece of work indeed.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Obama's slip up is a big one because it opens a pandora's box of real problems in dealing with our "major non-nato ally" that he no longer considers an ally. A Major Non-Nato Ally is a designation which provides us the capability of sharing military hardware and money, and we've shared a lot of both with Egypt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally)

Last year Egypt received around $1.5 billion in foreign aid in from the US for "peace and security," (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianwi...se-of-u-s-foreign-aid-to-egypt-and-elsewhere/) all because [STRIKE]congress[/STRIKE] the government considers them a "major non-nato ally", and we've licensed a huge amount of military equipment to them as well. In fact, Egypt has vast amounts of US-developed military hardware; they are the 4th largest operator of F-16 strike fighters in the world, and have large numbers of M1A1 Abrams tanks and C-130 cargo aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Armed_Forces).

Obama's statements were also directly contradicted by his State Department, who apparently has a more educated feel for the ramifications of dropping Egypt as an ally than Obama does.

Obama on Egypt (Sept 12th?):

I don't think that we would consider [Egypt] an ally, but we do not consider them an enemy...

State Department on Egypt the next day:

September 13, 2012. During the State Department Press Briefing, the State Department reaffirms Egypt as an ally even though President Obama said that was not the case.

REPORTER: Egypt is an ally. It is a major non-NATO ally…

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Correct.

REPORTER: …and you neglected to mention that. And that major non-NATO ally status is something that you guys have celebrated ever since the 1970s, when they were among the first batch of countries, along with Israel, to get that distinction. So, is Egypt an ally or is it not an ally? And if it is not an ally, in the sense of it being a major non-NATO ally, is Israel not an ally either? Is Japan not an ally?

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Well Japan has a treaty alliance with the United States…

REPORTER: OK, they have a treaty. So other countries; Pakistan and India that don’t have mutual defense treaties with the United States - they’re major non-NATO allies - but, you guys really don’t think they’re allies, is that the message you’re trying to send? Because that’s the message the President sent last night. Unless you’ve decided that Egypt no longer qualifies as a major non-NATO ally.

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Well that was certainly, I don’t think, the intention. I’m going to refer you to the White House for further parsing on this.

REPORTER: So, forget about the President’s words. You’re saying that the Administration and the State Department still regard Egypt as a major non-NATO ally, and it is still a recipient of all the privileges that that entails?

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Yes.

If we don't consider Egypt to be an ally, why are we sending them $1.5 billion a year in "foreign aid," and allowing them to purchase our military hardware? Why did Obama support the Arab spring uprising in deposing Mubarak?

First Amendment: Just over a year ago, Obama assured Arab Spring Muslims he'd help protect their "universal right" of "free speech." Today he's trying to gag American filmmakers who offend them.

In a May 2011 State Department speech in which he boasted of planting the seeds of the Arab Spring that started in Tunis and spread to Cairo and Benghazi and beyond, Obama said he would use "all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal" to help supposed Muslim reformists transition to democracies that guarantee "free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders — whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran."

Now that Obama's heroic Muslim "freedom fighters" have used their newfound freedoms to storm our embassies, burn our flags and slaughter our diplomats allegedly to protest an offensive expression of free speech in this country, what does our president do?

Frog-march the offending Muhammad filmmaker and demand Google censor his movie trailers — all to protect the delicate feelings of the foreign Muslim troglodytes who have forsaken him.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-extorted-by-muslim-violence-into-silence.htm

 

[Evo]

If we don't consider Egypt to be an ally, why are we sending them $1.5 billion a year in "foreign aid," and allowing them to purchase our military hardware? Why did Obama support the Arab spring uprising in deposing Mubararak?

Obviously, it's because things have changed for the worse since then. Deposing Mubarak gave the Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that would be more progressive, providing more personal freedoms and tolerance. But that didn't happen. IMO.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It seems to me the new regime in Egypt isn't acting very much like our allies in some of their demands, especially asking for the release of the convicted man behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

...the Muslim Brotherhood, whose idea of peace, has been shaped, since its revolutionary movement ... by the intellectual founder of al-Qaeda, Sayyid Qutb and the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman. In fact, one of the first demands of the "democratically elected" ... Mohamed Morsi, upon taking office last June, was that [Rahman] be released from his U.S. jail cell, where he has languished for 17 years since being convicted for planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The symbiotic connections between al Qaeda and the MB are chronicled in Willful Blindness, whose author is the former federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who put Rahman behind bars. [Emphasis Added]

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-takes-first-of-12-steps-egypt-is-not-a-u-s-ally

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Obviously, it's because things have changed for the worse since then. Deposing Mubarak gave the Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that would be more progressive, providing more personal freedoms and tolerance. But that didn't happen. IMO.

It seems to me that Obama has made several mis-steps that are nearly directly parallel to Jimmy Carter's dealings with Iran in the 1970's, what do you think? From what I can tell we're well on the way to a situation where [Carter : Iran :: Obama : Egypt].

Edit- and if "things have changed for the worse" as you suggest, shouldn't Obama be immediately calling for the removal of the "major non-nato ally" designation for Egypt so we can stop giving them money and military hardware?

 

[BobG]

Obviously, it's because things have changed for the worse since then. Deposing Mubarak gave the Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that would be more progressive, providing more personal freedoms and tolerance. But that didn't happen. IMO.

Deposing Mubarak gave Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that reflects their attitudes and views. That did happen.

The other is what we wished would happen.

It seems to me that Obama has made several mis-steps that are nearly directly parallel to Jimmy Carter's dealings with Iran in the 1970's, what do you think? From what I can tell we're well on the way to a situation where [Carter : Iran :: Obama : Egypt].

Edit- and if "things have changed for the worse" as you suggest, shouldn't Obama be immediately calling for the removal of the "major non-nato ally" designation for Egypt so we can stop giving them money and military hardware?

I'd say immediately calling for the removal of "major non-Nato ally" would be a rash move, but we seem to moving that direction if things don't change (and they may not change).

There's no guarantee a democratic government will do what's best for their country. Heck, I can think of a couple incidents in our own Congress the last decade that prove that.

 

[Evo]

Deposing Mubarak gave Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that reflects their attitudes and views. That did happen.

The other is what we wished would happen.

Well, yeah.

 

[Gokul43201]

I listened to it and it went down just the way it's been reported. Totenberg said she, "... hoped he was not long for this world.", and then started backpedaling.

That was definitely not my impression when I first heard (or was it watched?) that piece some years ago. Your second quote (do you have a link for it?) lends support to your interpretation though.

And Totenberg IS on NPR, BTW. Where she spews her nastiness is irrelevant, isn't it?

It's irrelevant to an indictment of Totenberg's character. It's much less irrelevant to an indictment of NPR's quality.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there any doubt that in only one of the two cases is a person trying to take a cheap shot for political gain?

No, there's no doubt. What's your point? I didn't say Obama made a cheap-shot, I said Obama made a gaffe. An error. A mis-speak. And it is being treated charitably.

Are you saying that only cheap-shots should be attacked? If that were true, we wouldn't have the open thread on Romney's "47%" comment.

Frankly, the one and only reason I check Foxnews is that if there is a real an anti-Obama story to be told, I know that's the only place to find it. Right now, they're harping on Obama's misleading and likely factually incorrect characterization of the Libya attack. Obama is claiming the Libya attack was spontaneous, growing out of the protest, while other sources are going so far as to say there wasn't even a significant protest in progress in Benghazi at the time. Obama's downplaying of this terrorist attack (assassination) is in-line with his downplaying of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, something I take significant issue with. But you can't read about it on CNN.com. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/white-house-opens-door-explanations-libya/

 

[Gokul43201]

No, there's no doubt. What's your point? I didn't say Obama made a cheap-shot, I said Obama made a gaffe. An error. A mis-speak. And it is being treated charitably.

Are you saying that only cheap-shots should be attacked? If that were true, we wouldn't have the open thread on Romney's "47%" comment.

I'm saying that a mis-speak or an error which is also a cheap-shot is a different beast than a mis-speak or error which is not a cheap shot. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect equal treatment for both. That's not to say that there isn't a slant in the media, just that you have chosen a poor pair of events to make the comparison with.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I'd go the other way and include MSNBC along with Fox as out on the fringe. I guess one thing you can say for both is they don't falsely pretend to be neutral, so the viewer at least knows what they're getting.

One thing I will give MSNBC is their "Lean Forward" slogan is an open acknowledgment of their political slant.

Start sourcing NPR. Every time you do, an Angle gets wings.

I don't know why people think NPR is objective (is it because they think public=objective?) but I can't stand NPR for that "smugness" described earlier. No, NPR has a fanbase that they cater to, just like MSNBC and Fox.

 

[Pythagorean]

NPR has a fanbase that they cater to, just like MSNBC and Fox.

Could you substantiate that claim a bit more? This is what I found from Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR):

Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.

 

[russ_watters]

FAIR is a liberal advocacy "watchdog" so them finding no bias in NPR means NPR's agenda fits theirs!

FAIR describes itself on its website as "the national media watch group" and defines its mission as working to "invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints." FAIR refers to itself as a "progressive group that believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting

This is about NPR's audience leaning liberal, using statistics that NPR itself presented in a misleading way: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...-uses-fuzzy-math-to-fight-liberal-bias-claim/

This quantifies the bias, but of only one particular NPR show: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/

And best:

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

 

[SixNein]

FAIR is a liberal advocacy "watchdog" so them finding no bias in NPR means NPR's agenda fits theirs! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting

This is about NPR's audience leaning liberal, using statistics that NPR itself presented in a misleading way: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...-uses-fuzzy-math-to-fight-liberal-bias-claim/

This quantifies the bias, but of only one particular NPR show: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/

And best:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/pollsummary.html

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/pollsummary.html

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing, but it should not be shocking that a study commissioned by CPB finds -- or rather, states the results in a way that makes them seem like they find -- no bias.

 

[Pythagorean]

Here's how the freakonomics writer "quantifies" leanings:

An SQ of “0″ means that the outlet sounds approximately as conservative as a speech by Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) or Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). An SQ of “100″ means that the outlet sounds approximately as liberal as a speech by Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

Here's how the UCLA political scientist quantified:

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

The Freakonomcs had a "click here" for more details link but it was unlinked... anyway, how the outlet "sounds" is rather subjective to the rater, don't you think?

I can already see degeneracy in the system for the second one by UCLA. What if a policy group or lawmaker is making a good policy that solves a real problem; why does it matter whether they are liberal or conservative? If more liberals just happen to be doing more productive legislation that's relevant to real issues, then they're going to be mentioned more by a neutral outlet, and this test would rate the outlet as bias. Or what about the nature of the referral to a think tank? I don't see anywhere that it specifies whether the referral was negative, positive, or just factual.

 

[russ_watters]

I can already see degeneracy in the system for the second one by UCLA. What if a policy group or lawmaker is making a good policy that solves a real problem; why does it matter whether they are liberal or conservative?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like you grasp the concept of "bias". The entire point here is that "right" and "wrong" is a matter of bias (and this after you criticized a subjective attempt to match positions with liberal/conservative stalwarts!)! The entire reason we have differing opinions is that there is no easy way to objectively say what the "right" and "wrong" ways of doing things are, for controversial issues. And even if there were, "right" and "wrong" could still be a bias.

Saying that (paraphrasing you) 'liberals are just right more often' is a clear statement of non-recognition of your own bias... or, worse: 'yes, I know the media has a liberal bias, but it is ok because that's the correct position'. In other words, if the liberal view was objectively "correct", it still wouldn't change the fact that it was also a bias.

Don't get me wrong: I think conservative values are more right than liberal values, otherwise I would not be a conservative. But an objective scoring of the bias just measures which direction the person/organization leans. It doesn't make value judgement on which leaning is "correct". And to flip it over: judging that one is more "correct" does not change the fact that emphasizing it more than 50% is a bias.

Or what about the nature of the referral to a think tank? I don't see anywhere that it specifies whether the referral was negative, positive, or just factual.

Think tanks are purported to be experts, so their reference are pretty much always positive. That's the point of citing them. However, the citation can reference bias in order to downplay the opinion. For example: "Liberal think tank Media Matters says..." tells the reader: "here's the opinion of Media Matters, but take it with a grain of salt, because they have a liberal bias."

 

[Pythagorean]

You spent a lot of time on that post trying to discredit my grasp of "bias" and accuse me of bias and avoid actual content. Liberals were a relevant example since we're talking about npr; the statement could hold for a conservative group and fox news as well. The point is that the methodology is flawed.

When I say good policy that solves a real problem, by "real" I mean that it transcends party affiliation. It's something that we all can agree on the moral philosophy part, (which is actually a broad number of things). There's plenty of examples of either party handling problems that members of both groups agree is a problem. So they argue about method instead, but methods can be objectively shown to be better or worse (unless you open a new argument on moral philosophy about methods). Anyway, as you can see: it's more complicated that you appear to realize. Sometimes, there just isn't a moral philosophy issue, so much as matter of which methods worked or are proven to work.

Or are you claiming that every single action performed by any liberal group automatically violates conservative moral philosophy? That, my friend, would be bias.