Tag: laura ingraham
Laura Ingraham

Fox News' United Front Supporting Trump's Iran War May Be Breaking Down

Four weeks after President Donald Trump launched a poorly conceived war of choice against Iran, the lockstep support for the conflict that has characterized coverage from Fox News’ star hosts is beginning to fray. The power struggle is significant — it is not an exaggeration to suggest the course of the war might hinge on which Fox shows the president is watching.

Trump is clearly approaching a decision point over whether to further escalate the war. U.S. and Israeli forces have done a lot of damage to Iranian military targets, but its regime is intact, still controls its stockpiles of enriched uranium, and has closed the Strait of Hormuz, threatening the global trade in oil, natural gas, and fertilizer. The Pentagon is sending thousands of troops to the region and reportedly prepping options for a “final blow” — some of which would involve deploying U.S. forces on Iranian soil.

When Trump is considering policy options, he often takes guidance from his loyal propagandists at Fox. This Fox-Trump feedback loop has in recent months played a role in the president’s decisions to send White House border czar Tom Homan to oversee immigration enforcement in Minnesota; prioritize the SAVE Act over all other legislation; order the deployment of ICE agents to airports; and start the war against Iran.

Against that backdrop, Fox News host Laura Ingraham warned on Wednesday’s show that further U.S. action could produce devastating unintended consequences and suggested that Trump should refocus his attention on the domestic economy and political situation.

“Iran knows it cannot win militarily, so it's using the leverage it has by prolonging the conflict,” she said during her monologue at the top of the show. “Now, what do they want to do? They want to inflict maximum economic pain on the region, on the U.S., [on] the global economy as much as possible until they think Trump relents. But the White House doesn't seem to be blinking.”

The host then aired a clip of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warning at her press briefing that day that “President Trump does not bluff, and he is prepared to unleash hell” against Iran.

Ingraham did not seem impressed by Leavitt’s rhetoric.

“Well, the problem is obviously unleashing hell means destroying infrastructure, which itself causes a series of cascading problems for the region, including maybe outside the region — political problems for the president in a midterm election year,” she said.

Her air of skepticism continued throughout the show.

While interviewing Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), she noted Pentagon reports of thousands of successful missions but commented, “I mean, this is a devastating blow, yet you know, we're still there.”

“It's not even a month old, obviously,” she continued, before asking, “But are you concerned about the public and people? Again, very short attention spans, very impatient for victory, as is President Trump, I might add. But in an election year, it's easy to say politics don't matter, but at some point politics do come into play.”

And in a third segment, she highlighted the disastrous polling on the Iran war, commenting, “It looks like people are pretty impatient. The American people are sending a message to President Trump that it's time to put the focus back on the home front.”

Ingraham is inching toward the type of dissent that has been virtually absent from Fox’s coverage of the war, even as the broader right-wing media has split. Her colleagues have played key roles in convincing Trump to attack in the first place and are pushing for risky escalations. Ingraham herself briefly quibbled with Trump’s handling of an apparent U.S. strike that leveled an Iranian school, killing scores of children, but had supported the war itself, which she declared three weeks ago that Trump had already won.

But if Ingraham is getting cold feet and trying to convince Trump not to escalate a war the public has soured on, she remains an outlier at the network. Indeed, if the president tuned in for the two hours following Ingraham’s program, he saw her prime-time colleagues Jesse Watters and Sean Hannity argue not only that the war is going well and that Trump will inevitably lead the U.S. to victory, but that anyone who disagrees must want America to lose the war because they hate the president.

Watters began his show with a 10-minute monologue whose thesis was that “the Iranian regime is losing leverage fast as we continue to carry out thousands of sorties over enemy airspace.” After detailing various tactical victories, he touted a potential escalation.

“[President] 47 could be eyeing a knockout — Iran's crown jewel, Kharg Island,” he said. “The Republican Guard has been preparing for battle, laying mines, booby trapping, loading up on Stingers, but retired top brass says our military is ready to shock and seize the terrain by air, by sea. We don't know if it's going to happen, but if it does happen, the Iranians won't know it's coming.”

“Iran looks like this is their last gasp, but some people would rather America lose the war because they hate Trump,” Watters concluded. “So far, this is the cleanest, most surgical and one-sided operation in American military history. Now, anything could happen, war is hell, it's unpredictable, but people in the know in Washington think we're about to close it out with a pretty big blow.”

Hannity, in his opening monologue, likewise declared: “Many on the left are now rooting for America to lose. Others seem to be hoping for another Vietnam-style quagmire. Why? Because Democrats care more about their political ambition rather than the future, safety, and security of your children and your grandchildren.”

“But tonight, President Trump is ignoring all the hysteria and pushing for peace one way or the other,” he continued. “If Iran's obliterated regime will not agree to a lasting agreement, this president has pledged he will continue to decimate their resolve through force, but that's really going to be up to them. They might unleash hell, otherwise.”

After airing a clip from Leavitt’s press briefing, Hannity added, “The message from President Trump is clear: Work with the U.S. or you will be killed.”

To which Ingraham might reply — what if killing them creates “cascading problems for the region”? As of yet, Watters and Hannity aren’t expressing any such concerns. And who the president is watching may determine the shape of things to come.

Fox News Drives Trump Bus Over 'Disloyal, Trump-Hating Leaker' Joe Kent

Fox News Drives Trump Bus Over 'Disloyal, Trump-Hating Leaker' Joe Kent

The White House responded to Joe Kent’s Tuesday resignation as director of the National Counterterrorism Center over President Donald Trump’s ill-conceived war of choice in Iran with a comically lazy smear campaign that Fox News’ MAGA propagandists vigorously channeled.

After Kent wrote in a letter to the president that he was stepping down because he could not “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran” and that it “posed no imminent threat to our nation,” Fox’s hosts and guests described him as the “liberal darling du jour” and a “Trump hater” who “was about to be fired” and “never should have been in that position of leadership.”

Notably, none of them seem to blame Trump for elevating Kent — a notorious conspiracy theorist who unsuccessfully ran for Congress with backing from the likes of Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones — to the nation’s top counterterrorism post in the first place. Nor did Kent himself blame Trump for starting the war with Iran: He argued the president had been “deceive[d]” by an “echo chamber” composed of Israelis (a revival of blood-soaked antisemitic narratives) as well as “influential members of the American media,” a possible reference to Fox’s own stars.

Fox did not have much to say in the first hours after Kent’s announcement. But after Trump denounced Kent from the Oval Office, saying he had “always thought” Kent was “very weak on security” and calling it “a good thing that he’s out because he said that Iran was not a threat,” the propaganda network geared up on the president’s behalf.

Aishah Hasnie, a Fox White House correspondent, was the vector for an anonymous “senior administration official” to attack Kent. Hasnie posted to social media that her source had said Kent was “a known leaker” who “was cut out of POTUS intelligence briefings months ago” and “has not been part of any Iran planning discussions or briefings at all.” (The source also claimed “the WH told DNI Tulsi Gabbard he should be fired for suspected leaks,” but other Hasnie sources disputed that.)

Likewise, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized Kent’s claim that Iran posed “no imminent threat to our nation,” claiming: “As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first. This evidence was compiled from many sources and factors.”

The administration’s argument is thus Trump appointed Kent as the nation’s top counterterrorism official even though the president believed he was “very weak on security,” and he subsequently didn’t see all the bulletproof evidence that Iran was an imminent threat to the United States because he had been cut out of classified meetings on the subject — but not fired — for being a “known leaker.”

Meanwhile, the administration has produced no evidence that Iran was preparing an attack to either the public or Congress. Indeed, according to Reuters, Pentagon briefers “acknowledged in closed-door briefings with congressional staff … that there was no intelligence suggesting Iran planned to attack U.S. forces first.”

Fox runs with the Kent attacks — without implicating Trump

None of this hangs together, but it was more than enough for Fox’s stable of propagandists, who ran with those talking points while ignoring their damning implications for the president.

“Respect to Joe Kent's service, he is an American veteran, but he never should have been in that position of leadership,” Hudson Institute senior fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs said on Fox’s America Reports, albeit without referencing who nominated him to the post in the first place.

“He was leading a counterterrorism unit, and Iran is the greatest source of terrorism,” she continued. “And even last year, Joe Kent even alluded to the fact that the Iranians were trying to assassinate President Trump. So clearly he should never have been in that position of leadership, and it's a good thing that he has decided to step aside.”

Fox host Laura Ingraham called Kent “the liberal darling du jour,” citing praise of his “very huffy letter” on other networks.

Ingraham then brought on Dan Bongino, the Fox contributor who sandwiched a year as deputy director of the FBI between tenures as a right-wing podcaster. Bongino downplayed Kent’s role in the administration and claimed that the “open source” evidence shows Iran was an imminent threat and that Trump “has a bevy of material that if he could do the Men in Black thing and erase your mind tomorrow, if he told you right now, you would come to the imminent threat conclusion in a snap.”

Ingraham added that “a senior U.S. official told Fox on background that Joe Kent was cut out of presidential intel briefings months ago due to allegations that he was suspected of leaking and that he hasn't been part of any Iran discussions or briefings,” though she caveated that “he's beloved” and “served his country, you know, proudly.”

Fox host and Trump shill Sean Hannity, after praising the Iran campaign, commented, “Now, a handful of very loud, oh, let's say isolationist Democrats, people that have agendas, once pretending in some cases to be part of President Trump's base, they're not happy.”

“This includes the now former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent,” he added, before suggesting Kent is a “Trump hater” pushing “conspiracy theories” and a “Democratic talking point.”

Hannity went on to claim that Trump would not “be swayed by lobbyists, politicians, countries, world leaders, the media, or anyone else on planet Earth,” and disputed Kent’s claim that Iran had not posed an “imminent threat” on the grounds that Iran was purportedly “a week away from 11 nuclear bombs potentially being built.”

On Fox News @ Night, former Republican National Committee spokesperson Elizabeth Pipko cited past Kent comments she said made “the perfect argument” for Trump’s strikes on Iran. “I fear that what he did was actually not sincere, not genuine,” she added. “And I think when American troops overseas are risking it all for us, a move like this and a statement like that is actually dangerous.”

And the co-hosts of Fox & Friends provided a perfect on-message recap for their viewers on Wednesday morning:

Lawrence Jones first brought up Kent, prompting Brian Kilmeade by saying that “some people in the administration” are “known to be leakers.”

Kilmeade, one of the biggest Iran hawks on Fox, replied that it was “just incredible,” branding Kent as part of “the podcast isolationist wing” and that his letter “said hey, Democrats, we have something for you to talk about.”

After the group talked up the case for war and aired Trump’s comments criticizing Kent, Jones commented, “That's why the administration cut him out of briefings months ago.”

“He didn’t have the intel, and obviously they didn't trust him to be in the inner circle on the decision making,” Jones added.

Kilmeade stressed that by issuing his letter, Kent had been disloyal to Trump. “You can do whatever your conscience wants you to do,” he commented. “But by doing it in this way, he's actually hurting the guy that gave him the best job of his life after he lost two straight congressional races.”

“Good point, good point,” Ainsley Earhardt commented. “And they say he was about to be fired, people had suggested that.”

None of them questioned why Trump nominated such an ignorant, disloyal, deceitful person to such an important post in the first place.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Jesse Watters

Pentagon Inspector General Report Demolishes Excuses For Hegseth's 'Signalgate'

A forthcoming report from the Defense Department’s watchdog dismantles the excuses that Pete Hegseth’s former Fox News colleagues offered in March after The Atlantic reported that the secretary of defense had shared plans for an imminent U.S. strike against Houthi targets in Yemen on a Signal chain with other top Trump administration officials — and, inadvertently, Atlantic editor-in-dhief Jeffrey Goldberg.

The Atlantic and CNN reported Wednesday that the DOD inspector general concluded after a monthslong probe into Hegseth’s conduct that the information Hegseth shared had been classified at the time he received it, and that sending the attack plans through unsecured networks had endangered U.S. national security and the lives of the military service members tasked to the mission. An unclassified version of the report is scheduled for release Thursday.

Fox’s right-wing stars scrambled to downplay Hegseth’s actions in the days after The Atlantic first reported on his text messages, denying that the information had been classified or that its transmission through unsecured channels carried risks and generally mocking the notion that anything untoward had occurred beyond Goldberg’s addition to the chain.

“It's abundantly clear that none of this put national security at risk,” Fox host Laura Ingraham claimed of the texts. “And there was no risk to our troops, and the entire world is safer because of the actions that our troops took. Now, some of us are actually happier about that, others are rooting for the United States to fail.”

Sean Hannity insisted to his prime-time viewers that “there was no classified material revealed in those texts,” later adding, “I would spend more time on this Signal issue, but it's such a nonissue, I don't even think it's worth talking about at this point.” On his radio show, Hannity expanded on his argument: “The distinction between sensitive and top secret classification information is very critical because we're dealing with sensitive information. The administration has reiterated no classified material was discussed, and, more importantly, the mission was operationally a complete success.”

Jesse Watters initially treated the story as a joke, asking his viewers: “Did you ever try to start a group text? You’re adding people and you accidentally add the wrong person? All of a sudden your Aunt Mary knows all your raunchy plans for the bachelor party? Well, that kind of happened today with the Trump administration.” After Goldberg released the texts, Watters declared the scandal “dead in 48 hours,” saying that all they showed was that officials “accidentally leaked to a reporter. It was a mistake. Hopefully it doesn’t happen again.”

Will Cain, Hegseth’s former co-host on Fox & Friends’ weekend edition, claimed on his eponymous show that while “it is incredibly concerning that sensitive information would be sent with a journalist included in the thread.” With that out of the way, he explained why this was actually good: “But the bigger takeaway from me is it is an insight, a transparent insight, into the thought process and dialog of our national leaders.”

And for Greg Gutfeld, texting battle plans over unsecured channels is simply “how winners live their lives.”

While Hegseth’s old buddies at Fox News were bloviating on his behalf, legal and military experts were explaining to journalists — including Fox’s own Jennifer Griffin — the grave risks of Hegseth’s actions. As more evidence arose of Hegseth’s malfeasance, including reports that Hegseth’s messages were derived from a classified email labeled “SECRET/NOFORN” and that he had also shared attack plans in a second text chain that included members of his family, they went quiet rather than either admit fault or double down on their support for the defense secretary’s actions.

The IG report’s release comes as Hegseth faces media and congressional scrutiny for reportedly ordering extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean that legal experts argue would constitute “at best, a war crime under federal law.”

It turns out there are downsides to promoting a second-tier Fox pundit best known for his defenses of alleged war criminals to lead the most powerful military in the history of the world and a sprawling bureaucracy with millions of employees.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World