CNN informed viewers that Rep. Hunter "supports military"
On the January 25 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN anchor Tony Harris reported that Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) had officially announced his candidacy for president and presented "some quick facts" about Hunter, one of which, Harris claimed, was that "Hunter is a strong supporter of the military." During the report, an onscreen graphic listing three "facts" about Hunter included one reading: "Supports Military." CNN did not elaborate on the assertion that Hunter supports the military, but as Media Matters for America has noted, characterizing those who supported the Iraq war or now oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops as "pro-military" or supporters of the troops suggests that those who take contrary positions do not support the troops or are anti-military.
Similarly, in a January 25 article on Hunter's candidacy, the Associated Press asserted that Hunter "has been an ardent military supporter." The "Story Highlights" box accompanying the article on CNN.com also claimed that Hunter is an "ardent supporter of the military."
From the January 25 edition of CNN Newsroom:
HARRIS: Another candidate is getting into the 2008 presidential race, Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter. Hunter is a 14-term conservative from California. He made his presidential intentions known back in October. His formal announcement came this morning in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
HUNTER (video clip): My fellow Americans, with the support of our families, with faith in God, and with confidence in the goodness of the American people, let's begin this race for the American presidency, and let's win. Thank you.
HARRIS: Some quick facts about Hunter, now. He is a decorated veteran and has served on the House Armed Services Committee. Hunter is a strong supporter of the military. On immigration, the congressman supports a fence along the Mexican border and supports the prosecution of smugglers bringing illegal immigrants across the border.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Agree...the nonsense about supporting the invasion of Iraq = supporting the military is tired... but, apparently engrained.
Probably, the right-wing script writers over at CNN were responsible for this.
Harris is just a tele-prompter reader, and just mouths the words his masters put in his mouth. If he objected, he's probably be canned.
Let's be blunt. "Supporting the military" apparently means supporting the pre-emptive use of military force in order to secure foreign resources for our own benefit.
...well...unless your name is George W. Bush. Then it means supporting the pre-emptive use of military force in order to get "the guy who tried to kill my dad."
And he's a big fan of the Gitmo diet.
Gee, I clicked this item thinking it had something to do with the extraordinary dialogue presently underway, regarding the growing opposition to the president's scheme of lies and greed and death in Iraq...
"At Least Rep. Hunter Supports The Troops" is how I misread the item's headline.
...but as soon as I saw the screen-shot, I see under Mr. Hunter's face:
AMERICA VOTES 2008
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER ENTERS 2008 RACE
It's what we need right now, more stuff about a thing that'll have you bored silly even three months before it happens... bored silly by the time of the conventions even.
Right now, 22 months before the danged thing's scheduled to happen, we need more stuff about '08... because it's so quiet out there in National Policy land, with nothing at all going on, right now.
Yup. Just proves that both parties are not interested in legislating. All they're after is bigger titles and bigger paychecks. The press is addicted to election soap operas and focuses all it's attention on those who star in them. We got war crimes going on, the American worker is being pummeled into poverty, and our civil liberties are flying out the window...but they don't care. They just won one election, time to start on the next one. Let the fundraising begin!
Proof the US needs new leadership. Vote for your nearest minor party. They can't do it any worse....noone can.
I'm pro-military. I am in favor of the troops in Iraq having body armor. I am in favor of their transports having armor. The so-called "pro-military" Hunter voted against funding for that.
I am so much in favor of the troops that I don't want them to die needlessly. Supporting the meat grinder in Iraq is not "pro-military," especially most of the military leaders are'nt in favor of it, either.
Does that make the military itself "anti-military?"
I support the troops. Bring them home.
How is this misinformation or lies? I don't get it. I did see that Hunter supports the border fence. That's a good thing.
Well, you don't think it implies that there's an alternative? If one of the positives listed for a liberal was "against eating babies", wouldn't your reaction be "...as opposed to?..."
You could say the same thing about "Supports border fence to controll illegal immigration." I just don't get the point. Maybe MM's having a slow day?
The Point
Has anyone in the media ever described a candidate [or any politician for that matter] of NOT supporting the military? Then WHY would this [supports military] be listed on anybody's resume?
Maybe they should say[instead]-----> Supports War; Does not support War
Makes more sense.
Hunter has for years been pushing for better veteran benefits. I guess that means he really does support the military. I'm with Hunter.
And there was just NO way he could get it done...
With him being Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and all. That Republican Majority just hamstrung his efforts, didn't they? Such a low position, no party to support your efforts with you being in the minority...OH, NOW I REMEMBER! He WAS in the MAJORITY PARTY. But of course, they NEVER listen to their COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN now do they? He has NO control over what bills go to the floor, either, I'll bet. And if you detect a note of sarcasm, you'd actually be right - FOR ONCE!
Give me facts, not rhetoric...FOR ONCE.
Fact: Hunter voted against TRICARE. Do you even know what that is?
Uh, I'm not sure everyone supports a big fence. I'm talking about the headline. "pro-military". As opposed to...what?
Get it now?
Now you get it, Bra. Some people support a fence, some don't. Some people support the military, some don't. It doesn't make someone "bad" if they don't support the military or the fence. It's a difference of opinion and elections will sort everything out. You are for elections aren't you?
Some people support the military, some don't.
I would love to see your list of people who don't.
Love to.
Nice one. I don't think you'll be hearing back from him.
People that don't support the military? That's pretty absurd. How exactly would that go?
"Those punk kids think they can just bum a free education and training off the government. By doing what? Getting a tan all day in the desert. Traveling around the world at the expense of the taxpayer. Getting free medical treatment. All for doing what? Shooting some A-rabs? I've got a gun and there's an Indian family across the street, but I don't think Uncle Sam would give me a free education if I went over and blew them away. And they ain't even in any real danger over there anyway. After all they have the best body armor money can buy, right? Damn ingrates!"
Like I said, absurd.
Let's see...Cyndi Sheehan, Jane Fonda, George Soros, the faux "Indian" from Colorado, Ward Churchill, professor "fill-in-the-blank" from the University of "XYZ"...Do you want more or are you full? That's what I thought.
Oh, and I forgot "Nick307."
Please please-not the tired Jane Fonda card again.
You know what seems to be missing from your list?
Anyone in Congress. Anyone who might conceivably run for office, even.
As for Sheehan and Fonda being "anti-military", based on...what? They both wanted troops to come home (i.e. live) and opposed wars. Didn't Sheehan want more body armor for the troops, or am I misremembering? If she's "anti-military", why would she care?
It's really a meaningless phrase, isn't it? What does it suggest? People who want to disband the military, or see soldiers die, or what?
"You know what seems to be missing from your list? Anyone in Congress. Anyone who might conceivably run for office, even."
Oh, you mean like that pathetic little weasel Kucinich? That's what I thought.
You mean this Dennis Kucinich?
Again, why would he care?
He must HATE those miltary people!
Wow, you can practically feel the anti-troop sentiment dripping from his words, can't you?
What a traitor! How anti-military is it even possible to be, for God's sakes?
You're so sad, man. I guess if the media can conflate the terms "military" and "war," then it would be asking a lot of you to differentiate the two. What will it take for you to get it? Do you think it's impossible to be anti-war and also be pro-military? You said Cindy Sheehan was anti-military. Do you actually believe Cindy Sheehan didn't support her own son when he was a member of the military?
It's pretty simple to understand. "War" is one construct. "The Military" is another. The need for a military force is well-understood, whereas the need for war is often pretty muddled.
'Supporting the troops' and supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq are two entirely different things. They have nothing to do with one another.
In Republican Bizarro World, "supporting the troops" means sending them into a foolish war of choice without adequate body armor, adequate numbers, or a plan. Yep, those Republicans sure do support the troops.
The point BRABANTIO was trying to make was that it makes no sense to call a candidate "pro-military" because there is no candidate that holds an opposing viewpoint. That's like saying Hunter is "Pro-literacy" or "Pro-brushing-your-teeth." No candidate would ever come out as "Anti-brishing-your-teeth" nor would one come out as "anti-military." So why would CNN even consider "Pro-military" to be a political stance unless they plan to paint some other candidate as "anti-military?"
If CNN wanted to say that Hunter supports the war in Iraq, that's one thing, because that is a position that can be opposed. CNN usually comes out less to the right than the other media outlets, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe by labeling Hunter as "pro-military," they are implying that he doesn't really stand for anything, which, being from San Diego, I know to be a fairly accurate assessment of Rep. Hunter.
I would say it is a lie because when it comes to doing about anything for the better of the country, no one politician has the "balls". They are almost all self serving liars. I am sick of it. I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!
HARRIS: Hunter...supports the prosecution of smugglers bringing illegal immigrants across the border.
Wow. Hunter is taking the bold stance of advocating prosecuting people who commit crimes. What a brave politician. What a visionary.
arrrrrrggggggg
Reading that makes me mad! Not at you Rusty, but it is soo the oposite. No one has balls anymore. No one takes responsability for thier own actions. That is the America we live in. Fricking pathetic.
Bad day, EL?
Yeah, the more I read into headlines, the more I realize we are heading for disaster. It is the Media Lies that get to me. I mean, you could have a website like this dedicated to your local news and the BS headlines they use to real people in. Like this guy, "Tough on Immigration"..... Yeah, right.......
Think about it this way, EL: if the media is always lying, maybe we really aren't headed for disaster.
Don't worry, folks. Hunter supports the military, wants to protect our borders from the southern invasion AND he's not as handsome as Obama. Rest easy. He doesn't have a chance.
All those points above are up for debate. Because you believe them does not make them so. A general term...blanket statement means nothing. In fact, it further confuses reasoned debate. But, you can infer what you like.
The only point that's debatable is Hunter's looks vs. Obama's. It seems to be important to the fawning media crowd salivating over Obama. Maybe they can weigh in.
Again, 'says you' ... So, that makes it true. Being 'pro-military' and supporting the Iraq invasion have no connection. Now, if he supports the military for other reasons...fine. To say he 'supports the military' because he supports the Iraq invasion is a no-go. That is the point.
Also, a border fence to keep out 'evil doers' is a lovely cartoony sort of symbol of security. But, again... it is up for debate (serious debate) whether erecting a fence along the border would have any effect on ... well, anything. If you believe it. Fine. I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion instead of just taking your word for it. That's all. The burden of proof is on the supporters of any proposal. Just saying it isn't good enough.
Jealous kind of fella aren't you? Maybe that's why Rush and the wing nuts have been beside themselves since Obama announced his aspiration to be the Commander in Chief. Just look at Obama and look at their mugs. They are getting more and more ticked off at him everyday. Smart, affable, handsome; just think their wives and girlfriends could be fantasizing about being with that that cigarette smoking son of Muslim Liberal Halfrican.
Yeah, and Obama's black too, so that ought to make him a shoe-in, right?
And come on, man, the "Southern Invasion?" The only thing sadder than blatant fear-mongering is when the fear-mongerer's message sinks in to it's target (you) and morphs into this irrational crazed paranoia. How does it feel to have your puppet strings maneuvered exactly as they planned?
CNN forgot one other fact, Hunter is a good friend of Duke Cunningham, yes , the one doing time for ripping off the taxpayer. Hard to believe mainstream media or govt. watchdogs can't find anything on this presidential hopeful so he could run for office from prison and have duke as his running mate..
How ridiculous. Hunter had nothing to do with Cunningham's lawbreaking. Oppose his positions if you choose, but ad hominem attacks against him only show your weaknesses.
It is so DISGUSTING
That apparently if you support this stupid war you support the military? Give me a break.
The only reason Hunter is throwing his "Hat in the ring",is because he needs the money for attorney fees! All the crap with him and Cunningham,and who knows else,will blow blow open anyday now, he needs every dollar he can con out of anybody, to pay his attorneys fees!
He knows he won't make it past the first primary, so he's running a fools errand!
Here's the bottom line;
For those of you who may not know. The honorable Mr. Hunter represents my district and I couldn't feel more dismay about that than I care to explain. What this schmuck really supports is xenophobia( Is he serious about a fence along the border?) and jingoism(This guy makes Bush look like a diplomat when it comes to foreign policy). I mean, let's be honest about things. On the upside, he's not getting anywhere in terms of getting the GOP'S nod for the nomination of their party.
Typical baseless smear. Yes, a fence is a start. But only a start, we need to stop the flow of illegals into this country and prosecute those who hire them. There is nothing xenaphobic about it. For one wants the soverignty of our borders strictly enforced and our immigration laws upheld is not a xenaphobe, or a racist, or any other insulting and inflammatory accusation.
Discuss the issue without the name calling.
Interesting retort my good man. No substance though I must say. If you must propect your borders, come up with meaningful ideas not inane rethoric.
Inane rhetoric of mine, please explain? And then offer your solutions.
This issue is like abortion, in that it raises strong emotions on both sides and is really not amenable to a "solution." Put simply, how can we literally wall off thousands and thousands of miles of border? How can we prevent everyone everywhere from hiring "illegal" or "undocumented" (choose your favourite term) workers?
For the record, I'm for no borders anywhere and equal protection under the law for everyone everywhere. Which, IMHO, is as pie-in-the-sky as "keep the illegals out."
My two cents.
They're illegal, unless you call other lawbreakers "undocumented" as well.
You are entitled to your opinion of wide open borders and giving the whole world access to our country at their whim. However, the costs vs. benefits of that policy are mind-numbing and incomprehensible.
Well, again, my opinion is a utopian one. I'm not really interested in hijacking the discussion by taking it off into my anarcho-syndicalist vision... my main point was that there are no simple solutions.
Gosh, Tommy
30 years ago I discovered that I was having a real hard time quittin smokin weed. Most everyone I know has been behind the wheel with a blood-alcohol content a wee bit beyond legal limits. Major corporations pay fines all the time for operating out of bounds.
We're (almost) all illegals in one way or another.
We don't need your stinkin' cents here. We take pesos now!!!
Canadian dollars too. But you're not so concerned about that are you?
Canadians are like us get it!!!!
The second largest source of revenue for Mexico is money sent from ILLEGALS in America to "la familia" in Mexico. Wake up, STUPIDO!!!
Source?
Look Tommy, I could offer up some real good ideas on how to deal with illegal immigration but I honestly don't think you would agree with any of them so let's move on to other more pressing matters. Like the fact that the presiden's own party rejects his new proposals for immigration reform. It looks to me like Mr. Bush has squandered a lot of that capital he talked about after he (alledgedly) won the last presidential election.
Fine, But don't accuse me of no substance and only rhetoric when you offer nothing except, "you won't agree, so why bother?"
As for Bush, he has been a failure on this issue - as I have stated many times.
Nicaestarico,
Could you be just a little more vague?
Does he or does he not support the military? I think that is the real question here, isn't it? Without going through every vote of his long career, we can see from a quick browseing of the folks at VoteSmart, that even though he was pro-invasion, he has certainly not favored the veterans.http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H0581103&type=category&category=Military%2BIssues&go.x=6&go.y=11
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H0581103&type=category&category=Veterans%2BIssues&go.x=13&go.y=11
So from this alone, I think we can draw the conclusoin that CNN misrepresents the weasel.
"Quick 'browseing'"? This falls under the category of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You really ought to research Hunter's record on your own before throwing this stuff out.
From the site you linked to: "Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups are biased. They do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns."
Cutting and pasting, just like running with scissors, can be dangerous, Rocky. You should know that by now.
Toobed,
The Veterans groups that gave him grades of C, 50% or 0% are the IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, AND THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION. These hardly qualify as the types of groups you refer to.
Please, Chris, don't fall into the trap of cutting and pasting like Rocky. Do some research and get ALL sides instead of feeding RMJ.
GT, what is this "trap of cutting and pasting" of which you speak? Did you even bother to glance at any of the links that offer evidence that Hunter is not "pro-military?" He voted against TRICARE. Do you even know what that is?
Good grief, if we were discussing whether Hunter is pro-gun rights, wouldn't you consider the NRA's opinion on the matter?
Maybe you can help us "get all sides" of this issue by providing ratings from other groups that deal with military matters that say Hunter is the greatest. Then we could look at their methodology and decide who to believe.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Do you want me to play the "cut and paste" game too? OK, here goes:
"Congressman Hunter remains a true friend to America's veterans by fighting to protect our benefits and continuing to rebuild our nation's defenses as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee." - General Robert Cardenas, USAF (Ret.)
Now do you get the point that you can cut and paste anything from the internet to "bolster" your "point"?
Do your own thinking and don't let people running with scissors do your thinking for you. Get my point?
I agree that one should be skeptical of the rhetoric of interest groups. However, facts are facts. Hunter did vote against expanding TRICARE coverage to Reservists and Guard members - funny way of "supporting the troops."
Don't you love how those who get FREE health care courtesy of the American people keep trying to refuse the same care to us? If it weren't for Tricare, I would have inherited massive medical debts from my father and would have had to sell the family home.
And pay capital gains and inheritence (death) taxes on the house...Oh you poor, poor baby....
As far as I'm concerned, anyone in the military who puts his life on the line for this country should get "gold-plated" health care for life and a pension that means something. How to pay for it? Immediately strip the tax-payer-provided health care (gold-plated) that we give the slugs in Washington, cut their salaries in half, reduce their "staff" by half and limit them to 1 term. A citizen government, anyone?
That's exactly why I didn't cut and paste any single individual's comments, as your example suggests.
How does a quote with no context from a general about one person equate to a methodical rating by a significant veterans' organization of all members of Congress based on their votes on particular issues concerning military members? I'm sure Mr. Hunter is glad that the general thinks highly of him. So what? I prefer empirical evidence rather than personal opinion. If you think the rating methods used by IAVA and DAV are flawed, explain why. Otherwise, "Game over."
Like your links show, Joe, Hunter supports sending troops into war, getting them maimed for no good reason, then Hunter cuts their benefits when they come home. His grades of zeroes and 50s for Veterans Affairs clearly does NOT support the troops. We live in Bizarro World.
Rep Hunter is also a strong supporter of baseball, hot dogs and apple pie. (His support of Chevrolet is somewhat muted now that Toyota has built a plant is his district.)
Hunter is my local Representative. I know him well. He has not passed any Benefits for me. I’m a highly decorated War Veteran. Actually just 2 months ago the VA Hospitals tight Budget forced the closing of my Pharmacy here in Hunter’s own District. The Hunter Republican’t administration is also trying to stop Commodities food assistance to disabled Veterans and other persons in need here.
Bush just correctly called for a 100,000 troop increase to augment the War on Terror. Hunter did not have a clue. Hunter just wrongly proclaimed that troops numbers are very adequate. Bush told the truth, Hunter lied to us about troop levels. If Hunter truly supports our troops, he should be with the President on this matter. We need those troops cause the whole world hates us now.
All Hunter supports is The Stay the Course Iraq War.
Hunter is also out of sync with Bush on Immigration and Building a Useless Wall. Again Bush is correct and Hunter is lying like a bad rug. Our fence here does not stop anyone from crossing the border. Border agents and high-tech equipment will do the job. Again Bush is correct and Hunter lies.
Bush reminds me of Ronnie, when he uttered those famous words, “Tear Down That Wall”. Hunter says it’s easy to become a citizen, just come through the front door. Truth is, the front is locked and if you knock on that door, most people get turned away. Like Judy Garland, trying to get in to see the Wizard of Oz. Go away little girl!
To add insult to injury President Hunter would pardon his good Republicant pals like Cunningham, serving time in Prison.