Fox News' Cavuto cropped Clinton quote to suggest she "knows ... Republicans are tougher on terror"
SUMMARY: On Your World, Neil Cavuto brought up Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's comment that "[i]f certain things happen between now and the elections, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again," and asked radio talk-show host Ben Ferguson, "So, Ben, your take on this is that she knows in her heart of hearts Republicans are tougher on terror?" But Cavuto did not mention that Clinton criticized Republicans' handling of national security in the very same statement.
On the August 24 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto brought up Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) August 23 comment that "[i]f certain things happen between now and the elections, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again," and asked radio talk-show host Ben Ferguson, "So, Ben, your take on this is that she knows in her heart of hearts Republicans are tougher on terror?" Ferguson replied, "Sure she does." However, Cavuto omitted the part of Clinton's quote where she criticized Republicans' handling of national security.
Clinton actually said:
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world. ... So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well."
An August 23 Associated Press article reported:
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday she is the Democratic presidential hopeful best positioned to deal with either Republican or terrorist attacks.
At a backyard gathering of supporters, Clinton was asked why she has the best chance of defeating the eventual Republican nominee. She argued that her long history of coming under Republican fire as first lady and now a New York senator makes her the most prepared for a general election fight.
"I've been through it and I understand their tactics. I have been subjected to them for 15 years and I have survived them," she said. "There's something to be said for that, because I understand what they will do."
She said the goal of Republicans will be to "drive up the negatives" of the Democratic nominee.
"It will all be fresh information. It will all be, 'Oh, you didn't know? Let us tell you. Let us create a caricature. Let us give you this picture.' Whereas I have the somewhat mixed, but rather fortunate blessing of already starting with those negatives. For me that's a plus."
Clinton said she also would be better at handling the unexpected, including a terrorist attack.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," she said. "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well."
From the August 24 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: And Hillary Clinton is campaigning in New Hampshire, says that a terror attack would be good for the GOP, saying -- and I quote -- "If certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again."
But why would that be the case? Radio talk-show host Ben Ferguson says it's because only Republicans have the guts to fight the war on terror. But Dr. Boyce Watkins disagrees. He's a professor over at Syracuse University. So, Ben, your take on this is that she knows in her heart of hearts Republicans are tougher on terror?
FERGUSON: Sure she does, because she understands that most of the people in her party have wanted to stop fighting the war on terror around the world. They look at the polls and they say, "All right, the American people don't want to be safe right now or they don't want to fight this war, so we'll come back. Whatever you tell us to do, we'll do immediately." And the Republicans have had leadership on this issue.
It is not a popular issue right now to fight the war on terrorism. If President Bush was being smart on his poll numbers, he would have pulled back a long time ago, but he understands that what we need to do to keep us safe. And if there is another terrorist attack, who are the American people going to trust? The Democrats, who said, "Cut and run," and, "Leave terrorists alone, and they'll be nice to us if we're nice to them," or the Republicans, who have been fighting them since 9-11? And there's a reason why we haven't been attacked since 9-11, because we've been fighting them overseas.
What'd ya expect?
Neil sez: "and I quote" then, true to form, goes on to not quote Senator Clinton.
Cavuto wouldn't recognize actual journalism if it jumped up and chomped off his codsack.
'chomped off his codsack' that is classic, Drafted.
"If certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again."
Tougher on terror?
Nah, just better at spreading fear.
Look for the Terror Alerts to increase next year...from August on.
I thought by now it would have happened allready.
You basing that on a "gut feeling?" =)
too bad the bush administration let osama escape at tora bora. it would have been a huge propaganda victory for us to catch or kill him. maybe bush had brush to clear that day, or a bike ride,....or a nap.
It would have been a victory, but not the kind Dubya's lookin' for. Bin Laden has no pot of black gold at the end of his blood-red rainbow.
So let me get the logic straight here...
If an attack happens, people will turn to the party who failed to protect us, to try and get them to protect us again?
And if there is no attack, that party will claim that they have protected us, thus people will vote for them again?
Gotcha. This country gets the politicians it deserve... and the journalists.
That was my reaction, Fawlty. Why would an attack give the Repubes an advantage?
All I can figure is HC thinks it would trigger some fear factor in those "just a bit sharper than the 30%ers".
Another attack would give regressives the edge because those darned Democrats gave in to their every request for funding and invasions. Darned those Democrats for, um, ... not having ideas!
And if we're not attacked, it's because regressives were keeping us safe.
C'mon, people! Keep up!
on the other hand, fawlty, look at the reaction in this country after 9-11. bush was the savior of us all because he stood on the rubble of the world trade center. there was a period of about a year and a half when you could not criticize bush. that's why they pushed the authorization to go to war vote in october 2002 just before the midterm election, because everyone who objected was accused of helping al qaeda.
authorization to use force [if necessary] is what i should have said.
FOX News should really look into current computer technology that allows the creation of realistic digital images that look just like people. They could then create a simulated Hillary and make her say and do anything they want.
Think of the possibilities!
It's not as if FOX News is doing real Journalism anyway. When you become a prostitute then you might as well go all the way.
This is a prime example of what fox does. Take a part of what they say and make it work for you. Cavuto is a sap that will do what he is told. He has no initiative to do anything on his own. Hence his employment at fox. Have the balls to air the full comment and let the viewers decide their own response.
Fair and Balanced. YEAH!