If you breathe and speak, that’s enough for the couch at Fox & Friends

On another matter: here are some earlier visitors (you know who they are, don't you!) to the couch sporting some 'non-Muslim beards'.

On another matter: here are some earlier visitors (you know who they are, don’t you!) to the couch sporting some ‘non-Muslim beards’.

This dude, on the other hand, is clearly sporting a gen-u-ine "Muslim beard".

This here, though, is clearly a gen-u-ine “Muslim beard” (according to Brian Kilmeade, the one who isn’t Steve Doocy).

On the couch at Fox & Friends this morning, let us hear Keith Ablow – FOX’s ‘psychiatric consultant’ – look deeply into Bergdahl’s participation in a ballet some years back:

“The fact that he was a dancer and a lifter — not a weightlifter, but I guess he would lift the ballerina — what does that mean?” Brian Kilmeade asked, with an assist from fellow host Steve Doocy.

“Supposedly he was recruited by these girls to have that role,” Ablow replied. “I think front and center on any stage is this guy’s M.O.: unless it doesn’t feed him narcissistically — you can’t give him a job unless you’re going to tell him you’re the star and we’re going to keep you at a throttle of twelve out of ten.”

And then the pinpoint turn: “I’ve been saying it before, Barack Obama does not have the will of the American people, Americanism, in his soul. This swap, somebody who may not feel very American for five people who definitely don’t, is symptomatic of that. It was bound to happen when you have a leader who doesn’t affiliate with patriotism.”

“Well, he definitely wanted out of Afghanistan and maybe it’s his way of closing GTMO regardless of the consequences,” Doocy said.

“He wants out of America, my friend,” Ablow said. “Trust me.”

Ablow prefaced the entire exchange by conceding he had not evaluated Bergdahl or his parents “formally,” which is TV-psychospeak for “at all.”

That would be this Ablow (Wikipedia):

While providing Fox News television “medical analysis*” of the October 11th, 2012 Vice Presidential debate, Ablow strongly and repeatedly suggested that some of Vice President Joe Biden‘s behaviors, such as interruptions of the opposing candidate and what he believed to be excessive laughter, might mean that he should be evaluated for dementia, alcoholism, or other conditions.[22] “I’m not diagnosing him,” he clarified. “I haven’t evaluated him. But psychological testing – It’s anyone’s guess what it would show.”

*’Medical analysis’ –  who in that god-forsaken place assigns a ‘medical analyst’ to debate commentary?

49 responses to “If you breathe and speak, that’s enough for the couch at Fox & Friends

  1. Enough dog whistling there to choke anyone. With crap like this on TV — and people watching it — no wonder our country is in trouble.

    Like

    • Seen some polls Donald that show widespread acceptance of climate change a decade or more ago. Numbers have plummeted since. Propaganda works.

      Like

  2. It was kind of strange that the father spoke in Arabic, dont you think?

    Like

    • I do think it was odd – can’t quite follow his reasoning on why he learned the language. What I find stranger is making such a big deal of the announcement, Rose Garden, Obama (why not Chuck Hagel?) and all. Doing it that way was guaranteed to create a media storm and to make the family targets. I wonder who thought it was a good idea.

      Like

  3. Funny thing about those bearded guys, they have a fair bit in common. Allahu Akbar, Jesus christ, were nuts. 😉

    Like

  4. Ummm….Huh? No, that’s about the show segment, not your post.

    As for Ablow – He’s a psychiatrist and they the pharmaceutical companies they work for make their living off of turning any and every behavior into an indicator of some form of mental issue. Read the DSM – I have – and you’ll realize that almost instantly…and then have 100s of pages of further confirmation left to go.

    Like

  5. I believe president Obama handled the Bergdahl affair badly, but with the best of intentions. Knowing his fondness for Lincoln I can’t help but think he might have been reliving a poignant paragraph in Doris Goodwin’s book in which Lincoln, at war’s end, considered and then signed a pardon for a young Union soldier who had been sentenced to be hanged for falling asleep on guard duty. His comment was something to the effect that ” . . . there have been enough deaths in this war already.” This Fox excess is symptomatic of right-wing hatred that will find an outlet, one way or the other, but the Bergdahl affair is red meat to these people.

    Like

    • Given Obama’s track record, I doubt his intention were what the majority of people would describe as good. To give him the hand-out of ascribing good intentions to him would necessitate believing that he was both utterly ignorant of the Bergdahl situation – despite military reports and conclusions going back to 2010 – and had his staff do zero research into the matter.

      Like

      • @ jonolan,

        No, it is unimaginable to me that the circumstances of Bergdahl’s AWOL were not researched and well known. I think the president got some tunnel-vision on this thing and let his humanity overrule what should have been a long-term vision of the precedent he was setting.

        As I said in a comment on my own post about this:

        I think the president erred on the matter of the prisoner exchange. The principle he violated was one of negotiating with kidnappers. If you do, you thereby encourage the practice of kidnapping. For an example, one need look no further than south of our border to Central and South America where the crime is rampant. Paying the kidnappers creates an industry, and a profitable one.

        In the case of Bergdahl, the president reaches too far in my opinion. He references the precedent in past wars of two sides exchanging POW’s at the end of a war. But that precedent was set in a time when “war” meant a conflict between nations with the expectation that laws on both sides would govern in the ensuing peace. The combat is real but the Afghan “war” is not really a war, as in war between nations, and the terrorists are not POW’s. The “war” will not be over, there is no surrender to document and no nation to enforce a treaty, even if there were one. The five Talibani are almost certain to return to their terrorist activities. Thus, as I see it, the president was confronted with two choices: save one man (of clearly questionable loyalty to his country), or set a precedent that invites significant and continuing danger to diplomats and other Americans abroad for years to come.

        Like

        • A good analysis – very good – of the nut and bolts of it, but it doesn’t address Obama’s motives or the value of judgement, Jim.

          I suppose one could right it off to the de facto condition of getting a “POW” back, but that’s hardly a solid motive is it? There’s got to more to it than that because, unless he’s a TOTAL idiot, it just doesn’t make sense.

          Like

        • Jim – a question for you. Whatever the alliances between all these Islamic groups are today, in ’01 the Taliban were not Al Qaeda AND they were the de facto government of Aghanistan. These five were taken in the first months and indeed were very senior Taliban. But they were NOT Al Qaeda and as far as I know were not – at that point – involved in any unprovoked attacks on Americans. So don’t hte traditional POW rules apply?

          This is a technical question – NOT a defense of an ugly group.

          Like

          • So don’t hte traditional POW rules apply?

            Moe, the Afghan conflict has been called a “war” by both Bush and Obama, but the principal definition of war, at least in my mind, is an armed conflict between nations. Dictionaries nowadays do also include in the definition “hostilities between different peoples or groups”, but the nation-sense of it has, I submit, pertained in all of America’s wars until this one. (That would apply to the second Iraq war too, except we stupidly destroyed the opposing government without providing a viable replacement.)

            Even the Vietnam conflict was one between nations, and this meant that, at its end there was a reasonable expectation that the diplomatic agreements that ended it would be enforced and adhered to by the two governments. That was done with Vietnam and that was when John McCain and the other POW’s were returned, cooperatively, by the Vietnamese.

            But in the case of the Afghanistan “war”, we aren’t fighting a nation, we are fighting a loose international amalgamation of religious fanatics and terrorists, including many in Pakistan and other Islamic countries. So, when the last combat soldier leaves Afghanistan and we declare the “war” over, with whom do we sign a pact, and who will enforce the other side?

            This distinction is the reason I’ve argued that we need to view terrorism not as a war but a police problem, and it’s also why I question calling either Bergdahl or the prisoners at Gitmo “POW’s”. International law on POW’s is framed to assume a nation on each side of the matter, and that’s not what we’ve got.

            As far as the Taliban Five, these were in fact very bad people and I’ve read that at least one worked closely with al Qaeda on the 9/11 project. That still doesn’t make him a “nation” of course.

            Like

            • The only things clouding your assessment is that the Taliban largely aren’t a loose international amalgamation of religious fanatics and terrorists and they were the “legitimate” government of Afghanistan until we removed them.

              Like

              • You are right of course, John, that the Taliban were a “nation” in the technical sense, although I note that during the 5-year existence of their poor excuse for a state, they gained diplomatic recognition from only three other countries: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Some nation.

                Like

                • All attempts to make Afghanistan a nation result in a poor excuse for a state, much like Yemen and some other “nations” around the world that were created by malarial, drunken Englishmen with pen, paper, and a diplomatic satchel.

                  As for recognition – most governments refuse these days to recognize any government that came to power through force…unless that government is in the best interests of the recognizing governments.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Jim — Oy, here I am agreeing with jonolan again.

                  Sure, the Taliban were not a ‘nation’ – any more than a the Democratic Party or communism are – but they were indeed the legitimate government of AFghanistan and it was the nation that they governed that we invaded, not their ‘sect’.

                  Like

              • @ Moe,

                Agreed. As I told jonolan, I realize we overthrew the Taliban government. Then we replaced it with one just as corrupt and feckless. But I still see it as a trend away from traditional national power. How about this angle: if we nuked Afghanistan and turned it into a parking lot, what would change? Not much, I’m thinking. Maybe a shortage of goats.

                Like

                • What would change? Hmmm….

                  There’d be far less problems in Asia Minor.

                  There’d be a HUGE jump in the street value of heroin, which would fatten many evildoers’ pockets, including Al’Qaeda, followed by a total collapse of the Heroin and opium trade worldwide.

                  Aside from that, not much. Nobody would really miss Afghanistan.

                  Like

      • Jonolan: I’d say seriously bad staff work – bringing the guy home was right and I even think the trade makes sense in an environment where we’re working hard to create a coalition govt over there to include the Taliban. I give them a failing grade on the roll-out. Said to Donald above that they almost invited the blow back. Rose Garden venue – wrong. Parents present – wrong. Should have been Hagel, not Obama, and a lower key announcement.

        They’re not good at PR or roll-outs.

        Like

        • Just plain stupid and insipid. Frankly, Obama could have defused half of this by saying something akin to:

          Sgt. Bergdahl is an American soldier who may or may not be a deserter and defector. Either way, we’re bringing him home – either for a homecoming or a court marshal under American military justice.

          Let me be clear. If Sgt. Bergdahl is a POW, we need to get him back. If he’s a deserter and/ or defector he needs to face American justice.

          Something like that. He’s got speechwriters and a teleprompter so they should have been able to come up with the right soundbites.

          Like

          • I”d tone it down a bit and not use the words deserter/defector but the message could still be quite clear. So I agree with you. Plus have someone else – not him – make the announcement.

            Like

            • Defector is supposition but desertion is not and it is what the 2010 military investigation into the matter concluded.

              Frankly, I think that the harder the line they took, the better they would have done to quell the outrage.

              Sort of a “no cost is too high to bring a US soldier who’s gone bad to justice is too high. We will not stop until they’re in our custody and facing military justice” kind of thing.

              Like

              • Exactly. And to send Susan Rice back to the Sunday shows (!) to praise the kids valor was a step too far.

                Like

                • I step while wearing Seven-League Boots!

                  Like

                • One thing – this is the Obama Regime’s standard methodology. Every single time they do something stupid or do something that blows up in their faces through no stupidity of their own they dig in and double down on it.

                  …Right after they claim that Obama didn’t even hear about whatever until he saw it on the news. 🙄

                  Like

    • Jim – repeating what I said to jonolan. I think getting him out was a must and even the trade makes sense to me. Like you, I fail them on the PR – almost invited the backlash (by the usual suspects). Check out what McCain said in February about this very deal when it was just a possibility. (anyway, he was okay with it)

      Like

  6. Someone should REALLY check into Alow’s credentials. Very unprofessional and kooky.

    Like

    • David – Wikipedia shows him to have a very credible history but suddenly a few years ago he started showing place like FOX and spouting this utter nonsense. I’d say either the money’s too good, or his own mind is betraying him.

      Like

  7. The President’s mission was to get a captured solider back….
    Everything is politics….
    But on this one I think it was a minimal factor….

    Ask most soldiers and they will back up getting Bergdahl back Period….
    The guy walked off his post….
    Bad move….
    No honorable discharge…
    But as they would say in the criminal justice system?
    5 Years in captivity is ‘time served’….

    On Congress?
    I’ve read that Obama has been negotiating this thru State, Defense and CIA for YEARS
    They HAD to Know some Gitmo people WHERE gonna be traded…
    They did NOT know 5…
    And Hillary wasn’t happy about the number either it’s reported
    But she wasn’t Boss Obama is….

    In the end I assume that Obama said
    ‘Fuck it’
    No Leaks….
    Do it…
    I’ll sign the same type of letter George Bush and just about every President has signed since Monroe

    Even the 6 dead thing is falling apart under examination…

    THIS POLITICAL because Barack Obama had the balls to make a move and bring the guy home…

    The noise will go away….
    NO Politician is his right mind is gonna tell a mother they won’t go and bring their kid home if the deal is available….
    And soldiers need to know that their country values THEM MORE than ANY Bad guy….

    As for the deserter/defector label…
    His country makes THAT decision…
    And we are far from that…

    …from my comments @.http://www.politicaldog101.com/2014/06/04/hillary-wasnt-happy-about-the-swap/

    Like

    • Very well said james – there should be NO argument about bringing him back and I think there is more going on re the Taliban part than we know yet.

      Like

  8. Was the President’s objective to get this soldier back because of humanitarian reason? I suspect it is something else.

    Obama has an unfulfilled promise to his hardcore base to close Gitmo. They are really really angry with him on this. He is doing a lot of things to please them. This could be the first action in a long campaign to empty out that Prison, no matter what the cost.

    Like

    • The prison IS going to be emptied Alan – Bush released 600 and Obama is determined to finish the job. Bring them here, try them just like Mullah Omar and the rest and lock ’em up – legally.

      Like

      • I think Obama will try to empty it. This last reaction to the swap makes that less likely. Obama sold a basic belief that Guantanamo creates terrorists. I believe that is bunk, but truth is not the issue here. As long as Guantanamo holds prisoners it makes what Obama said look ridiculous. If he shuts the prison down, no matter the cost, the left can claim a political victory.

        That is it. No matter what the cost.

        Like

        • Alan – can you really argue that imprisoning 20 year olds doesn’t make them more likely to turn to terrorism. They’re seriously pissed when they get out and want to get back at the ones who ‘did this’ to them. Plus they’ve been cooped up listening to the radicals among them for years.

          Just like many who, when released from civilian prison, turn to a life of crime that they learned all about in prison when in the company of so many hardened criminals.

          Like

  9. Obama brought the guy back because you bring back soldiers….

    This guy seems to have wondered off before…

    That really didn’t matter…

    The C in C brought back one of his soldiers…
    They’ll deal with his problems…

    That’s a pledge soldiers and their families NEED to know….

    Obama HAS tried to close Gitmo down…
    It isn’t gonna happen….
    GOPer’s and Some Dem’s do NOT want the people there brought to the states….
    Obama and the next President, whoever she maybe, isn’t gonna be able to get past Congress as we see right now….

    He has tried several bad guys in the US without anything happening…
    THAT doesn’t matter either…

    And yes after Iowa in 2008?
    The Progressives HAVE been mad….
    Where are they gonna go?
    And they have Hillary to look forward to , who will probably make Obama look like a picnic….

    The fact is American Democratic President are NOT REALLY liberals…
    The American political system won’t let them….

    Like

  10. Blame the founding fathers….
    They made the system to do exactly what it is doing now….

    Like

  11. The system is checks and balances. Meant to stop someone extremely ideological from taking the country too far to one side, too fast. It does not always work out.

    Like

  12. By the way, the Duck Dynasty beards look like Yaroslav style beards. Or Rurik, Igor, Svyatoslav, or Vladimir style beards.

    Like

  13. Pingback: If you breathe and speak, that’s enough for the couch at Fox & Friends | Whatever Works

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s