Hannity claimed it was "not true" that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" in Afghanistan
SUMMARY: Fox News' Sean Hannity asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) statement that "our troops
are killing civilians, air raiding
villages" is "not true." However, U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian
casualties -- have
been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and others.
On the August 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, during a discussion with former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis, co-host Sean Hannity asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) statement that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" is "not true." As co-host Alan Colmes suggested later in the program, Hannity was apparently referring to Obama's August 13 remark that "[w]e've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Hannity provided no evidence to support his assertion that Obama's comments are "not true." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted in response to Hannity's earlier mischaracterization of Obama's comments, U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, as the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama, "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents." Further, in a July 7 article on NATO and U.S. air strikes reported to have killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power."
Also during the segment, Hannity mischaracterized two of Obama's earlier statements on foreign policy, claiming that Obama "says he takes nukes off the table," and that Obama said he "is going bomb an ally in the war on terror, [Pakistan President] General [Pervez] Musharraf, and possibly invade them." From this, Hannity concluded that Obama is "finished" as a presidential contender. As Media Matters noted, Hannity made similar claims on the August 14 edition of Hannity & Colmes by asserting that Obama has stated his "willingness to invade an ally against their will," referring to Pakistan, and asserting that Obama has said "he would take away the nuclear deterrent that we've had in this country."
However, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Obama never said he would "bomb an ally in the war on terror, General Musharraf," nor has he claimed that he would "invade Pakistan." Rather, Obama stated in an August 1 speech: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Further, Obama never stated that he would "take[] nukes off the table" entirely, nor did he claim that he would "take away the nuclear deterrent that we've had in this country." Rather, Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, specifically.
From the August 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: One of the things, I would have preferred that Barack Obama had turned out to be a stronger candidate. For some reason, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY], when she called him naive and irresponsible when he said he would meet with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il and no preconditions. Then he says he takes nukes off the table. You know, the idea that he is going bomb an ally in the war on terror, General Musharraf, or possibly invade them, you know. Now this, he said, you know, our troops are air raiding villages and killing civilians. He's finished. He's done. She's got the nomination. I wish he were a stronger candidate, because now Hillary will just be after the Republicans.
DAVIS: Well, first of all, I have a great deal of admiration for Senator Obama's theme which is the theme of my book, that gotcha politics is destroying America and that both parties have to learn to have civil debate the solve people's problem. I think Hillary has the experience to make change happen as opposed to Senator Obama, who is a future great candidate but not right now.
HANNITY: You know something, I'm listening to Lanny Davis, Michael, and I believe he's sincere. But it's kind of hard to believe the Democrats are capable of it: The president is a liar, Barack Obama saying our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages, not true. [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] made some other statements, [Rep. John P.] Murtha [D-PA] has made them. The most vitriol is coming from the left and from high-ranking Democrats today.
STEELE: Well, that's always the case. And, you know, I quite frankly took Hillary Clinton's flip- flop, if you will, to heart. I think as Republicans we should be lauding her, you know, coming around to common sense and waiting to see the surge unfold and in fact acknowledging, begrudgingly, but acknowledging, that there has been progress made. So I'm less concerned about that part of it.
[...]
COLMES: Michael, you know, the Republicans -- I should say Democrats keep getting blamed for accusing the troops of doing these horrible things. Barack Obama said we have to get the job done in Afghanistan. And that requires us to have enough troops so we are not air raiding villages and killing civilians. That was what Barack Obama said. What John Kerry said was backed up by the Red Cross, that there were civilians who were being terrorized.
But, you know, Hillary Clinton was quite clear and she said that it's working in Anbar Province. She said, "But we have to make sure that the Iraqi government is involved doing the right thing or there is no point, and we have to start getting our troops out of a civil war." And that is no different than what she said in January when she said pursuing a strategy that under present circumstances cannot be successful, those circumstances being the Iraqi government. There was no flip-flopping here, Michael.
Hannity never met a fact that he couldn't ignore.
That's why he does his show from behind a desk - makes it harder to see him pulling his facts outta his ass.
Nerzog,
Hannity et al. are inflicted with Lieabetes and will never be cured unless the finally get their daily dose of truthilin. As stated before, lying is the drug these poor souls need to continue their addictive pattern. And it is even sadder that people follow the words and lies of these addicts. Maybe someday we can discuss facts...not delusions.
Hannity suffers from delusion and metaphore. Pretty much like all Neocons...
Hannity is unwilling to fight fair.
People who won't fight fair know that they'll lose the battle if they fight fair.
I was listening to Hannity on the radio driving back from work some long while ago, and he brought a couple of teenage girls who were protesting I don't remember what into the studio. Hannity I believe brought them in as easy targets. Unfortunately for Hannity, one of those girls was extremely articulate, smart and not impressed or intimidated with his slanty head. Normally the only liberal callers let onto his radio program were not that articulate or smart. When it was clear she was handing him his arse and Hannity could not respond effectivley the segment was over.
So apparently he is unwilling to fight a fair fight since deep down he knows in a fair debate his manly man conservative shtick couldn't even win going against a teen age girl.
That episode probably produced flashbacks of Hannity's high school days, when he was regularly beaten up by the girls in the Chemistry Club.....
:-)
I wish nukes were taken off the table.
why round is there no room to eat your dinner?
The problem with Obama's comment is the word "just". As in, the only thing we are doing is killing civilians. I'm an Obama fan personally, but that was a serious gaffe. ""[w]e've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians"
Good point. The word just implies that is the only thing we are accomplishing.......he would do well to correct his statement and remove that word.
I see your point, and it was a poor choice of words. To give Obama the benefit of the doubt, maybe the word "just" is meant to refer only to the phrase "air raiding villages" and not "killing civilians". In other words, he may have meant that if you limit your tactics to air power, you're more likely to kill civilians.
Again, I agree that he should have chosen his words more carefully. He's just provided more fodder for liars like Hannity to exaggerate.
Yeah. The part that really sucks is that he should have immediately clarified his statement. I don't think he did that, but I may be wrong. It just seems stupid to provide guys like Hannity with this material to use against him. Although, I am one who thinks that Hillary Clinton has a lot of support at mediamatters and they are not really too concerned with defending Obama. Someone will probably get really upset at me for writing that, but that's just what I think. This column especially only puts Obama's gaffe back in discussion amongs hard core Democrats who post comments on this site and it may sway some of them to support Hillary instead of Obama.
God, it is so frustrating that Democrats are so stupid as to think such a thing even matters.
Who gives a flying fig what Hannity thinks? Do you really think Hannity is concerned that the Democrats choose the "best" candidate? Lol. You would have to be a complete idiot.
Is this a serious gaffe? No. Not by a longshot. You are going to twiddle over one stinking word? You are welcome to it of course, but it has nothing to do with anything.
Do you realize what trouble you just brought upon yourself with comments like who cares what Hannity thinks? Who cares??
I am not saying it about MMFA's article - of course they should highlight Hannity's idiocy. Obviously Hannity has a pretty big effect on public opinion - much to my own consternation. I am just asking why any Democrat (or really anyone at all) would ever take him seriously - outside of his effect. Hannity's agenda seems pretty clear here. He would like to knock the Democratic frontrunners down a peg or two, and probably Obama moreso than the others.
Don't get me wrong. I don't care what Hannity thinks! I care that I think MMFA has a pro-Hillary tilt and that they give Obama short shrift. This post by MMFA only serves to bring up Obama's gaffe again and put Hillary in a better light by comparison. Regardless, they don't devote enough resources to fighting off attacks on Obama. There are 3 TIMES as many articles on MMFA defending Hillary as there are defending Obama
Well, since Hillary is the frontrunner (and been demonized since 1992), of course there's more misinformation out there. And if MMfA really didn't care about Obama, I'm curious why they would cover all the things Tucker Carlson has said about him.
Besides, surely some of the things that have been fodder for MMfA artcles about Hillary have been about comments she's made. What about the recent one where she supposedly said the surge was working? If this item makes Obama look bad, aren't many items about Hillary making her look bad as well?
I am not so convinced that MMFA plays favorites either, between Clinton or Obama. It's like you can't live off of ice cream, you need a little cake too.
They're working all the front-runners....all the pro-war ones, of course. Dems are good at setting up front orgs that claim to be objective but work for the DLC. MoveOn is a prime example. Claims to be anti-war, but shills for all the pro-war Democrats, has marginalzed the real peace movement. You know how this site will lie about Hillary, trying to paint her as anti-war. Obama's the back-up, apparently, with John Edwards as the understudy waiting in the wings, just in case. It's all War Party propaganda.
the british commander in afghanistan asked the us to stop air raiding villages because too many civilians were dieing and they couldnt win the hearts and minds obama was right
I get your point on removing the "just". Not a trivial point, but I hardly think it would prevent the right wing screech machine from attacking Obama if he had left out the "just".
True, I agree. Taking out the "just" prolly wouldn't stop anybody from getting upset over the statement. But, I think that people are very sensitive to any comment that kind of asserts that U.S. soldiers are killing indiscriminantly. Though we all know that civilians die during war, I think we also know that our military takes the utmost precaution to make sure that civilian casualties are as low as possible.
No it doesn't. It bombs indiscriminately. We've blown up LOTS of civilians and then lied and called them "insurgents". US soldiers and airmen have wiped out entire families, women and kids included, worse with the soldiers because they've done so at riflepoint, at close quarters, firing on CHILDREN under 5 years old!!!. They fire-bombed Falluja and cooked entire families in their homes with WP, shot at families as they tried to flee. Our generals and lots of soldiers act like the freekin' Waffen SS when it comes to civilian casualties....they just don't care. I've read story after story of US atrocity that has NOT been reported, like the Marines picking off unarmed civilians in Fallujah with snipers. Stories of Spec Forces engaged in massacres in mosques and helping plant car bombs to encourage sectarian violence. What the hell is wrong with our military? Some of them are religio-racist screwballs that just want to wipe out all Moslems. They certainly show little respect for them as human beings. Just "collateral damage". They even come up with words to hide the truth....they KILL civilians in LARGE numbers in poorly-planned and senseless attacks. Yes, our military DOES intentionally target civilians, to TERRORIZE the occupied population into violence or submission. All just following orders, too.
And I've read all these stories about the woman who was abducted by aliens and gave birth to an alien baby...hey we must read the same type of magazines, huh.
Ya, and I bet Redking would certainly get a cool reception at any speech he gave in front of the VFW?
Nah, US troops are perfect angels in camouflage....who run torture prisons, shoot civilians, journalists and wounded prisoners, rape teen-age girls, blow up family homes, hospitals and weddings and burn out cities with illegal weapons. I don't know what beach o' sand you got your head buried in but, ALL THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED!!!
Reality. Hard cold reality. Our troops target civilians and commit war crimes. The evidence is overwhelming. If you can't deal with reality, tough. This IS happening.
Who is really to blame here? A no surprise, expected partisan swipe from Hannity, or letting it all slip by so he could reframe it to help his chosen candidate Hillary, from Lanny Davis.
Your post suggests that because the behavior by Hannity is no surprise, then he's not to blame. I'm thinking that was probably unintentional.
How about blaming both, instead of either/or?
I agree with Monk below, Hannity's is expected. But Davis is obviously a Clinton supporter, so any possible misreprensentation of anything Obama says is OK with him.
Hannity is expected, but a lie is a lie. It needs to be called out as such.
It just makes more sense to me that at this stage of the game, the primaries - that it would serve Democrats, and Republicans, better to concentrate more on the gaffes and misinformation coming out of their own, than the opposition.
Hold your own supporters and pundits accountable for what they say and defend first, or in this case don't say or defend, for that strenghtens your nominee more with accurate information.
I would rather both sides start talking about the issues and worry about how they are going to take this country in a new direction after the disaster that is George Bush.
Don't think that asking a Clinton supporter (in the guise of being a Democratic opposition to Hannity) on to help bash Obama wasn't planned either. Hannity and Davis have the same goal of knocking out Obama.
The expectation is that Davis would defend Obama as a Democrat, but his allegiance toward Hillary would make it a prime opportunity to really gang up on Obama.
Having the black Republican, Michael Steele on to further bash Obama seems like the perfect storm.
This was a setup by Fox from the start. I wonder how many Democrats will fall for it.
I expect more of this on Fox. They have been going after Obama pretty hard.
Very perceptive analysis, I agree completely.
Thank you. I forgot to mention that Lanny Davis is really running a false-flag operation here - as viewers would expect him to support Obama as a Democrat. Those viewers would be lured into thinking such criticism was valid when Lanny didn't stick up for Obama and agreed with Hannity.
It was actually dishonest of Hannity to run an interview like that, IMO.
So blame both. It seems hard to defend the idea that Hannity shouldn't be blamed because we expect it of him, or because it makes more sense to focus "on our own" than the opponents.
What one expects from people does not change the value of that expected behavior. If that was the case, then the firefighters of 9/11 would deserve no recognition whatsoever, because they did what was expected of them.
If it makes you feel better, they are both to blame.
It does, since it's quite obvious that someone who is lying should be responsible for their behavior. It does make me feel better to see people acknowledge such simple concepts.
Colmes just got a couple of point if you ask me. I expect Hannity to lie at every oppurtunity.
Not that I saw the whole interview, but I agree, Colmes got a little defensive there for a second. Has he been doing that more often?
I wonder how long it'll be before he's replaced. Furthermore, I wonder who will replace him.
Truthiness!
Hannity always does this. Doesn't say Obama is wrong, just keeps repeating what he said. It doesn't sound good, but, hey, maybe it's true. Watching Hannity's show with an iota of respect for critical thinking, you certainly couldn't conclude that Sean DISAGREES, only that he doesn't think it sounds good. He's FEELING the news.
I always say this, but why do they let college dropouts analyze police on TV? Who thought that would be a good idea?
Hannity says:
"The most vitriol is coming from the left."
Welcome to Hannity's America which bear no resemblance to reality.
You're right. Here he is, compounding vitriol against democratic candidates, and topping it off by saying the most is coming AGAINST the right. Truly amazing.
The troops are not intentionally killing civilians, but that's a part of war. Our "smart bombs" aren't really that smart. And even if we try to avoid killing civilians, they will still die--it's the fog of war.
That is why going to war should always be an unavoidable last resort.
And even if you agreed with the U.S. going into Afghanistan, you should always question the tactics being used. As unavoidable as civilian deaths are, we should always try to limit them as much as possible.
Hannity is just a political panderer...feeding red meat to his viewers.
Having said that...the political pundits...left and right...are mostly in Hannity's class. Spouting predictable talking points to misrepresent the facts in order to pump up the non-thinking portion of their viewers.
I rarely watch any of the political shows or network news for the opinion of the host...I'll watch if I'm interested in a particular guest. I prefer to get my news via the internet.
That's why...even as a conservative...I frequent mmfa. I'll decide what I think is important and then research the subject and make up my own mind. In this particular case...Hannity and Lanny Davis are impotent simpletons.
While I believe that Obama is wrong on his stance on the Iraq War...he certainly was not defaming our military and was not suggesting My Lai type tactics led by a bunch of Lt. Calley clones.
Well stated. And the term impotent simpletons is a good one indeed, although I am not sure I would put Lanny Davis in that same category as Hannity. Davis, although decidedly partisan, isn't near the inflammatorical buffoon that Hannity is.......who does exactly what you describe - throw out tired talking points, raises his voice and his hand, repeats it again, and goes to commercial.
The only ones who take him seriously are his rabid fans, whoever they are.
Wesley, well said. I agree with your take on what the viewing public is being fed here. I think on the right and left we have to stop nitpicking everyword and start critically discussing the substance of the entire position. For example agree or not with Obama's view wouldn't it benefit and educate everyone in making a more informed decision if we actually got into a real and critical discussion of the substance--what are the best tactics to use, what is the best strategy, and what are the pros and cons of these. Take McCain's position versus Obama's with respect to the I raq war strategy. I want to hear the pros and cons of each, I want to hear about the long term effects of each, I want to hear a full and critical analysis of each. Instead we get Obama wants to cut & run and McCain wants our soldiers to die. How can the public form an informed decision on that type of information.
Lost,
A very insightful post, well done. My earlier post about the word "just" looks a little silly when compared to your summary of what the real issues and focus should be on.
I stand corrected, you nailed it.
You're exactly right. They can't come up with an informed position if all they watch and listen to are the bobbing heads and the shoutfests.
Nobody listening...all shouting senseless talking points. It might make for good entertainment...but does nothing to serve the purpose of reporting the news and informing the public.
I would suggest that most of the political shows reach a critical mass in viewership and cannot rise above that level...there are only a limited number of stupid audience members.
Hell, if Hannity is so worried about us attacking an ally on the war on terror, then why do we continue to help Saudia Arabia with money, munitions and weapons? That country spawned the majority of the 9/11 hijackers and its banks were used to funnel money to the terrorists. Not to mention Saudia Arabia has refused to help our law enforcement agencies by giving us access to those terrorists banking records.
And there still is a lot of money flowing from SA to terrorist organizations from the people who reside in said country. Remember who propped up the Taliban a lot over the years? Yes, SA and Pakistan, and yet they are our "friends"? Well, as the old saying goes, "With friends like these..."
Fill in the blank.
The Bushes and the arms and oil industry love the Saudis. Lots of money to buy stuff, like guns and limos. The Bushes are particularly close to the Sauds, they even hold hands in public. Daddy Bush and Carlyle Group are making a fat chunkof money in this deal, you can bet. And they can use it to hide giving Israel a huge fat subsidy to start the next war (rumour has it Bush is hard for attacking Syria right now and is trying to fund Israel for an attack). This is what happens when our government is run by the death merchants.
Wow..."rumor has it" What tittering gossip mongers do you get your facts from...and do you have to wear a tin foil hat to get in...or just know the secret handshake?
I read political analysis from liberal Israeli reporters commenting on the intricacies of regional politics on Counterpunch. Been heavy US involvement in Lebanon lately and many wonder why this huge infusion of cash for the Israeli military. Many in Isreal itself speculate another attack on Lebanon or an outright assault on Syria. Perhaps you should try reading sometime, you'll learn things.
When then polled and found out FoxNews viewers read less, is it because they don't know how to read? Of course. They resort to watching Fox for information because the other networks confuse them. FoxNews is their Romper Room network.
Here's the truth.
Sean's a media hack protecting his own interests with the Bush Administration. Fraud Sean has to be nice to this administration in order to receive special invites to the White House to meet Bush, and trips (with Donald Rumsfeld) to Iraq. Have you noticed that Seanny was the ONLY media representative traveling with Rumsfeld to Iraq to visit the troops?
Ignorant Sean says it was "not true" that troops are killing civilians. If that's the case, why is the military charging some of these troops will killing civilians?
Camp Pendleton officials have charged eight military personnels with murdering an Iraqi man. Obviously, little ole Sean has not talked with military officials regarding these charges.
To read more about the murder charges, Google "Camp Pendleton eight" and you will see a list of articles on the case.
Sean, you are an embarrassment to Patrick.
Kinda ironic our military trying 8 men for the murder of one, when it has killed so many more. Trying a soldier in an illegal war for murder....it's like the Nazis trying a common criminal, while building the death camps.
You sir have no decency, period. You constantly attack our troops in harms way. You compare them to Nazi's. You talk of them purposely targeting civilians. You point to isolated incidents to make your point that all of our troops are murderers. Pitiful. Our armed forces are the most well trained and well disciplined force on earth. For you to indiscriminatly label them as Nazi's and murderers is beyond the pail. Does anyone else at this site have the intellectual honesty to call this ignoramus on his vile words? Come on folks, I have seen where many of you have indicated your support for our troops and not the mission. To me that is patriotic and fair, but to sit idly by and let this REDKING refer to our troops the way he does without rebuttal stinks of veiled agreement.
Well said. However the part where you say noone here speaks out against his ravings is not true. Periodically, someone will post a response to his crap but frankly after a certain point you become so disgusted that you just ignore him. I haven't responded to his posts in a long time myself but I broke my rule of not responding yesterday and I commented in the fashion I thought his ranting deserved...and in a way I usually try to avoid. After responding to the other two posts when I read this one I was just done giving him any time. I am glad you posted a serious rebuke but frankly with this guy it will have no effect.
This is a little off the subject but; in Part IV-A, Line 17 of the Freedom Alliance/ Wounded Veterans Tax Form 990, to the IRS 2006, Hannity reports in the whole of '06:
"Gross Receipts of Admissions,merchandise sold,or services performed, or furnishing of facilities in any activity that is related to the organizations charitable purpose, etc......" = $6,525
A grand total of $6,525!!! That's all folks, that Hannity reported for ticket sales, parking, book sales, concessions etc....! All the big names and talking heads, the filled stadiums, Hannity only brought in $6,525!!! That means he only sold 171 tickets at $38, or 87 tickets for $75! Something doesn't smell right here, look at the next 2 expenses!
Also reported was $1,703,816, for stamps and shipping, also $1,414,215 was reported for, shipping and publications, as found in Lines 35 and 38, Part II !
When is someone going to talk about Hannity's and North's, ripping off, and using the Wounded Veterans, to line their own pckets?
,
" Gross receipts from Admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or furnishing of facilities in any activity that is related to the organozations charitble,etc, putpose....
I have only seen the original Obama comment/clip here at Media Matters but it is obvious, by that short clip alone its tone and meaning there-in, that only a dishonet idealogue could come up with the spin that Fox Operatives have put on this issue. Also, with all due respect, Senator Santorum was, previously, just mistaken in his analysis of the issue/comments.
In my opinion the original MM headline, that indicated the start of this issue, might just have easily read: Hannity deliberately lied when suggesting that Obama "attack[ed] our troops as murderers. (I suppose Legal Counsel might disagree)...
Anyways....When is Mr. Hannity going to apologize for his deliberate misrepresentations?