Fox News' John Gibson's "interpretation" of Clinton comment: "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda"
SUMMARY: Fox News' John Gibson stated that it "appears" a comment Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made at an August 23 campaign event about the potential consequences of another terrorist attack "was sending this signal, as they say, to Al Qaeda, that it would, it would not be smart to attack the United States of America before the election." Gibson went on to assert that "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda."
On the August 24 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, John Gibson -- purporting to do "a little interpretation" of a comment Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) made at an August 23 campaign event about the potential consequences of another terrorist attack -- said: "[S]o it appears she was sending this signal, as they say, to Al Qaeda, that it would, it would not be smart to attack the United States of America before the election. Otherwise you're going to get another Bush militarist in there, and he's gonna bomb your cities, and kill your kids and your women. So lay off 'til I'm president, and I'll go easy. ... Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda. ... Did she go too far this time? I know it's a deniable quote -- 'Well, that isn't what I meant' -- but we all get her drift. And I'm sure Mr. Al Qaeda, wherever he is, got it too."
Gibson claimed that Clinton said "that it would be a terrible thing if Al Qaeda were to attack again now, because that would benefit the Republicans." According to the Associated Press, 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."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Gibson's Fox News colleague Neil Cavuto similarly ignored Clinton's criticism of Republicans' when he asked whether Clinton "knows in her heart of hearts Republicans are tougher on terror" during the August 24 edition of Fox News' Your World.
From the August 24 broadcast of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show:
GIBSON: The real subject here is Hillary Clinton. She said -- 888-788-9910 -- that it would be a terrible thing if Al Qaeda were to attack again now, because that would benefit the Republicans. Was she saying to Al Qaeda, "Don't attack the United States until after the election, because otherwise you're going to get more of George Bush"?
CLINTON [audio clip]: "It wasn't as dramatic as it sounds."
GIBSON: Well, I realize I'm doing a little interpretation here, but what she actually said was it'll be a terrible thing if there was a terror attack, a terrible thing for her campaign, uh, because a terror attack would help the Republicans. Al Qaeda hates Bush, hates the Republicans, so it appears she was sending this signal, as they say, to Al Qaeda, that it would, it would not be smart to attack the United States of America before the election. Otherwise you're going to get another Bush militarist in there, and he's gonna bomb your cities, and kill your kids and your women. So lay off 'til I'm president, and I'll go easier. 888-788-9910. Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda. 888-788-9910. Did she go too far this time? I know it's a deniable quote -- "Well, that isn't what I meant" -- but we all get her drift. And I'm sure Mr. Al Qaeda, wherever he is, got it too.
Can anyone be this dumb?
Gibson makes Hannity look like Steven Hawking.
Yes. Unfortunately, about 30% of Americans are that dumb.
And they all vote for people with Rs after their names.....
I'm sure Mr. Al Qaeda, wherever he is, got it too.-Gibson
If we could just find Mr. and Mrs. Al Quaeda. Perhaps Tim Griffin has them on one of his caging lists. Then Bushco could film them occasionally to scare U.S. citizens with...
Mary, I had a little trouble getting past the "Mr Al Qaeda" line too.I can almost picture Snidely Whiplash or a Dick Tracy villain.
This guy dumbs it down further than Rush or Hannity.I haven't heard Gibson too much, but I have to wonder if this guy really believes himself or is just playing dumb.
Nobody really thinks Al Qaeda specifically hates Republicans, do they? The party who obliged them by starting a war in a conveniently located country?
I think unfortunately that there ARE people who really believe that Mr. Al Qaida hates Republicans, despite the evidence that the Repubs are helping recruitment efforts.
I don't watch Gibson much either, but several years ago he was interviewing someone (anti-war, don't remember who) and his questions were so hostile and along the lines of "why do you hate America?" He was pretending to be a journalist at that time; don't know if he has given up that pretense.
He just doesn't seem very bright.
HB, I'm gonna take my chances when mr. OBL points a gun and says "die infadel!". I'll point and say "take him 1st, he's a bushbot.".
;-)
I'm not even concerned, as I'll be making Osama a nice cuppa tea, and sympathizing with him.Right after I insult our troops and hate Jesus for a little while.I hope Bin Laden will be "cool" with my Gay Agenda and boozing.
Sherrif, you are one unpatriotic reprobate. What kind of example is that for the townfolk? 'Specially the youngins. Helen's gonna throw you over in a Mayberry minute if you don't straighten up and fly right, ya hear?Ya already got Opie (J2) smokin'. Shame.
Dick Tracy villian? I was thinking more along the lines of a terrorist wearing a tiara and a sash.
The GOP and al qaeda Buiding a better world through war and religious extremism.
I'm glad to see people willing to point out the obvious fact that Bush and the republicans have been absolutely everything al qaeda could hope for from American leaders. You know this is the case because the right always accuses the Democrats of the same thing. Basic Rove stuff. Accuse the other side of exactly what you're doing, no matter how preposterous the claim. Then when they respond by pointing out that's exactly what you're doing the press reports it as a case of 'partisan arguing.' Historians hopefully will recognize that Bush has done everything the 9-11 hijakers could have hoped for.
Obviously Hillary made no deal with Al Qaeda, how ridiculous. Trpical Gibson inflammatory ploy to generate callers.
But why does Hillary think that a terrorist attack automatically help the Republicans?
I'd be interested to know how you can possibly think she said that.
But why does Hillary think that a terrorist attack automatically help the Republicans?...by Tommy
I'd be interested to know how you can possibly think she said that....by Deeznuts
Because Deeznuts, Hillary said this:
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
Deeznuts, how would you interpret that? To me saying that certain things particularly with respect to terrorism would automatically give the Republican the advantage is the same thing as saying it would help them.
Of course it's the fear factor, IMO, that would help them, not that they handle the threat any better. But Tommy was correct here. Unless you're parsing the words advantage & help and attempting to imply they mean something totally different.
Of course it would help Republicans. Through propaganda and myth, they have branded themselves as superior on national defense. Just look at how Bush benefitted politically from the 9/11 attacks. Does anybody think he could have achieved a 90% approval rating under normal circumstances?
Yes Nerzog, they couldn't have gotten their war in Iraq. It has absolutely been the GOP making hay politically on terrorism. I can't help wondering about their soft approach to Bin Laden before 9-11. I know, now I'm officially a conspiracy nut right? But if we as a nation would look at the actual facts (god forbid!) it's hard not to wonder just how dirty these guys are. I remember what their main foriegn policy objective was. Missle Shield. And this in spite of the fact that they'd been warned (documented) that terrorism and specifically Bin Laden was the gravest threat we faced. At worst they let it happen so they could get their war. At best they displayed a devastating lack of judgement and failed to protect the country. I'm not sure which one of those the Bushies are so proud of. It's still beyond belief to me that they have been able to score points politically on any of this. Yet more proof, I believe, of collusion between the GOP and the supposedly free press.
Jeter, I agree she said that because in the past it did help them and the Bushies certainly exploited terrorism for the political advantage of the GOP. Now I disagree with her assessment that it will continue to help them because most experts say that the Iraq has done just the opposite of what the Bushies said it would do. The flowering of Democracies that would eventually negate extremism in the region didn’t occur. The only thing flowering is extremism and the extremist philosophy that has created splinter groups many calling themselves Al Qaeda but acting completely autonomously from he original Al Qaeda network. It certainly will be much more difficult to monitor and stop these extremist groups that are popping out of the wood work worldwide and they are planning worldwide attacks. Now I’m sure we have put some safeguards in place that should have been put in place when the Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US memo was found, but terrorism has been exacerbated and this belief that military might will frighten people who see death via Martyrdom as an express ticket to Heaven is absorbed. They don’t care if you kill them or their neighbors for that fact. Furthermore when you listen to the top GOP presidential contenders they are steadfastly endorsing the policies developed by the Bushies, I don’t think most Americans want a continuance of that. Neocon policies are a dismal and bloody failure and new policies and ideas are needed. It’s a cliché now but we have to be strong and smart.
Great post Lynn :-)
I hope we never have to find out what the public would do.
I tend to agree with you that a terrorist attack, or even just a threat will not send folks flocking to Republicans this time.
Of course the public is hard to read.
I personally believe Bush & Co. have done little to make us safer here at home, and with his invasion of Iraq has only enraged those that hated us in the first place.
Here is a link to what Hillary said and it is accurate, I was watching it. Gibson thinks that another attack would scare away votes because the republicans are saying that Democrates are "cut and runners", "weak on Terrorism" and another Terrorist Attack would keep The Republicans in Power. Keep in mind that all these Right-wingers such as Hannity, Gibson, Guliani and the rest are keeping the air-waves full of garbage like this to try and keep the American Citizens distracted from the truth and good coming from the Left. The Democrats are not just campaigning on Iraq, but the other very Real problems that Americans are facing. Much of problems Americans are suffering through right now and not just the War, is directly brought on by their administration's lack of intervention to or denial that there is any real difficultiies at all. So what do the republicans do but twist, spin and out-right lie about what a candidate says. Here is the link, the boston online.
www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2...
Because US citizens, to a large degree, voted for an obviously unfit presidential candidate in 2004, based solely on fear.
Ok, until mmfa or some Hillary defender comes along to explain what Hillary "really meant"...I'll go with my own interpretation.
Despite polling data that suggests democrats are tough on terrorism...Hillary knows that many Americans don't buy that premise. She knows well that a terrorist crisis would give an advantage to republicans...as she plainly stated.
So please, please lay off until I become president.
why don't they let hillary explain what she "really meant"?, as in play her comment. instead of saying what she meant?
and as to why it would give an "advantage" to republicans, we saw it in 9-11. we get attacked and bush's ratings soar. you couldn't dare question our savior for about a year and a half after. it's win win for the gop. no attack? we've kept you safe. had an attack? you need us to keep you safe.
Scare any country they vote to the right, its a well known political axiom.
Sorry Wesley. You've lost my vote after you were outed by KrazyKevin, The kooky Kon, in the Ted Nugent thread.
Drat...my law enforcement buddy always warned me about the danger of becoming a "known associate".
Thats right, now I am confused, do I NOT trust you because you are a liberal or should all of us liberals stick together? I'll have to mull that one over.
How do you know that many Americans don't buy the premise that the Democrats are not tough on terror. As far as I can tell there were millions upon millions who voted for Kerry in 04 and the same for the 06 elections.
There once was a dirtbag named Gibby
Who needed an extra large bibby
For his slobbering lies
He wants Hillary's demise
His body is one bloated fibby
I'm really no poet, I've showed
but I've learned from JJ and growed.
And I was quite amused
to see "fibby" was used
by you as the base of your ode.
Yes, John Gibson is one big fib from his large, ugly head to his gnarled, bunioned little feet. What a twerp. I like your poems Neon and your posts.
Love the limericks! Please keep them coming. All I ask is that you work on your blasted meter! Lova ya tho.
Brian, thanks for the back handed compliment. But with limericks line 1,2 and 5 are 7-9 syllables and lines 3 and 4 are 5-7 syllables. The two limericks above staisfy that. If the cadence is clumsy to you, I'm sorry. Perhaps you can show us the error of our ways? Write one of your own that would be better. I want to learn. Or perhaps you can enjoy the gist of the limerick without it being perfect. We do it for fun.
The compliment, JJ, was kind.
I don't think our poems were maligned.
And if Brianswine
thinks our beat unrefined,
I can only justify it by saying that occasionally it's hard to be able to fit everything you need to say......in one line.
There once was a poety carper
On the metric, he did twice harper
I don't mind advice
But it need not be twice
A third time will make me scold sharper
And btw Neon, I thought your last line of that poem was exceedingly smooth :0)
"Otherwise you're going to get another Bush militarist in there, and he's gonna bomb your cities, and kill your kids and your women. So lay off 'til I'm president, and I'll go easier."
And from this I suppose we can infer that Gibson is all for killing their kids and women. I mean, of course that's obvious, but I hadn't heard it expressed this plainly before.
Well said. Inference goes both ways. Given that we attacked a nation that hadn't even attacked us, why does even the inference that Gibson draws have any sting?
The Senator from New York said something that sure would get Fox and the other parts of the RNC machine into gear, into spin mode, in a big way.
Maybe it is open to a little interpretation... when the Senator from New York said:
"...if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again"
I interpreted it (perhaps incorrectly) to possibly mean:
1. TERRORISM HAS POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES, and...
2. REPUBLICANS BENEFIT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF TERROR.
It's a scary truth. Whether or not that is any kind of interpretation you would make of the Senator's comment, I wouldn't care to argue or debate it, not at all; because I believe those two things to be true, whether or not that's what the Senator might have meant, or would even think true herself.
And if you might agree at all, that those two things I listed are maybe what the Senator said (and maybe true), then you might find it interesting how john gibson spun it into this:
"Hillary Clinton. She said... it would be a terrible thing if Al Qaeda were to attack again now, because that would benefit the Republicans"
Notice the subtle difference between what I said above, and what john gibson said: He immediately reached for the bogeyman (or Mr. Bogeyman) 'al qaeda' (they just love to say that word)... he spun it from "terrorism" into an "al qaeda attack", and then he pretended that the "terrible thing" of such an attack, would be that it would "benefit Republicans"...
...notice how subtle a deflection that is, from the idea that REPUBLICANS BENEFIT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF TERROR.
Nobody wants to say that, not out loud not in Public... The Senator came close, maybe she meant something like that, and maybe not... it's still true in either case, and hardly ever said.
To even come close to saying anything like REPUBLICANS BENEFIT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF TERROR... to say anything that might even be interpreted as that truth, is enough to get the wheels turning, and the spin machine going, and to make an inaccurate and completely false interpretation of what the Senator said...
john gibson: "Was she saying to Al Qaeda, "Don't attack the United States until after the election... Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda. ...Did she go too far this time?"
Gimme a break. Why would this guy bend so far over backwards, to misinterpret the Senator's words? Why couldn't he just quote the Senator accurately?
The AP did!
What, john gibson doesn't have access to the AP's items?
Was he (and other Republicans) afraid that we might have interpreted the Senator's words to maybe have stated these two truths:
1. TERRORISM HAS POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES, and...
2. REPUBLICANS BENEFIT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF TERROR.
We're not that stupid... we already know these things... if the attacks of September 11, 2001 have taught us anything, it has taught us those two things.
Let us be clear about this. The Republicans reap lots of benefits from another terrorist attack. They can bungle another invasion and bankrupt our country some more by their cronies ripping off even the service men and women instead of furnishing adequate meals ala Halliburton, letting their guys get huge contracts to furnish outlaw military services, reap the overrides in furnishing equipment to the military. Yep, as usual, Hillary is so correct. The Republicans could make out like bandits again. So you see, it would truly benefit Republicans if another attack happened before the next election .
Five minutes before the Senator from New York said what she said:
"...if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again"
Five minutes before she said that, I'd have thought that were there to be an attack on American soil of the nature (but not the magnitude) of the September 11, 2001 attacks... I'd have thought such an attack to benefit Republicans in general, Senator McCain most of all, and rudy giuliani somewhat a little (for reasons that defy common sense).
But now five days after what the Senator said, were there to be an attack of the nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks, this close before a 2008 presidential election that Republicans are looking more and more anxious and desperate about...
Such an attack now might seem to be, to panic and terrorize the American People politically, and drive them in their fear, to one end of the political spectrum... or the other.
Such a consciousness of terrorism, as a political weapon, can only help us all; that knowledge is the salve to our panic, as we ask ourselves:
"Who is trying to manipulate us, the American People, so close to a Presidential election?"
Without that knowledge (of terrorism as a political weapon), we panic and fear and run and are driven, to the points of the field where those dogs would drive us, as their game.
With that knowledge, we check our fear, and ask again "Where are we being driven, by whom and for what reason, by this terror attack?"
Terrorism as a political weapon, used to panic and control the People... used to "rally the crowd" and "gather the flock"... used to ask for and receive without hesitation, unparalleled powers (and a second term of Office)...
Terrorism causing so much change in American Government and Law, in defense expenditures and the intelligence budget...
And yet with just a little bit of knowledge (from experience no less), the knowledge of terrorism as a political weapon (from the experience of the attacks of September 11, 2001)... just from that, we might be smart enough to ask:
Cui Bono?
Which is to ask (as above):
"Who is trying to manipulate us, the American People, so close to a Presidential election?"
It's a good thing, this dialogue on this matter... it could save lives... it should at least salve our panic and fear, in the event of the awful thing, at least enough to investigate and find out, whose "good friends" and business partners did such a thing to us...
At least for us to ask Cui Bono?
(And didn't that slime john gibson, try as hard as he could to confuse the question, and confuse the Senator's comment; he who works for the "good friends" and business partners of terror against the American People... Fox has benefitted greatly, you know.)
John Who? This wannabe' journalist/pundit is a joke. Only at Fox could he get his own show. And he's ugly on top of it. Geez he makes Brit Hume and Ol' Smelly look handsome. LOL. What an insecure nerd. Oh and btw . . . check out the Faux news site, there's no prominent link to any story on Gonzalez. I guess its only news for the MSM (their code for more legitimate media).
To their credit -- and trust me it sticks in my throat to credit them-- they are reporting on another hypocritical Senator busted for soliciting gay sex BECAUSE IT HURTS THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN MAYBE? Geez! . . . you guyz!
http://www.foxnews.com/
Kromecom
just to provide info...(way off topic) it seems the repug's family values facade is falling apart.
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Foley (R-FL)
Coy C. Privette
Bob Allen
Tim Droogsma
Mark Olsen
Former House Speaker Denny Hastert
U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA)
A fun quote...
In 2000, Vitter was included in a Newhouse News Service story about the strain of congressional careers on families. His wife, Wendy, was asked by the Newhouse reporter: If her husband were as unfaithful as Livingston or former President Bill Clinton, would she be as forgiving as Hillary Rodham Clinton?
"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary," Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. "If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."
(There is a web site call save Vitter's penis, to ask Wendy not to cut it off)
Okay, there are a lot more, but have to take a break. Plus there are rumors about Rove and possible secrets making the rounds. Perhaps the DC Madam?
And if current con's aren't setting such a great impression...they seem to be getting trained early:
Mike Flory
Glenn Murphy, Jr.
Okay, I think that is enough for now......
I think Hillary Clinton's comments were somewhat clumsy and wrong. Another terrorist attack under Bush's watch will only hurt the GOP, and more so...himself. And it almost seems as if she is publicly saying, "Let's all hope there is no terrorist attack between now and the election, or else neither me nor any democrat will have a good chance of getting elected."
I disagree...not only another attack will help the GOP but that the administration will use it to further curtail civil rights and thus bring this country closer to being a police state.
No more clumsy than Bush's comments at this stage of the game, so many months before election. i recall Mr Bush going around telling the world the US Military was weak. If that isn't a signal, then my name is Bob.
It looks like Gibson mixed up the deal Reagan made in Iran - Contra to steal the presidency from Jimmy Carter.
Why do Republicans hate America so much?
These scum bags at FOX are far worse than Al Qaeda.
You have to give John a break. After all, his forte has been making crude statements about the paparazzi. He has very little solid reporting in his work history so he has just recently tried his hand at hard news. Hmmm, better keep looking for something that suits you better, John. Although, now that I think of it a bit more, you are getting the idea - you know, insult Democrats. That will cover a multitude of ineptness at any Fox TV ourlet.
We also have CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that Hillary tried to purchase YELLOW CAKE uranium ore from the West African country of Niger. Oh, and high-strength aluminum tubes too.
Yeah, more BS from the fake news channel. This country is in really sad shape when our best sources of accurate news are the Comedy Central channel and The Onion.
Apparently nothing stops Gibson from lying.
Don't forget, what we really need is another 9-11 to wake us up.
--ML
There is a "political truth" that was spoofed in Dan Akroyd's remake of the old "DRAGNET" show. The plot of the remake was simple: There was a power-mad rightwinger who was a crusading evangelical fundamentalist, and then there was a high-profile "pornographer" to provide EVIL to the community.
In short, a crusader always needs something to crusade AGAINST. In the movie, the evangelist and the pornographer were in cahoots, feeding each other, coordinating their actions to enable a "mutual POWER gain" ... and make a lot of money.
There ARE dangers and bad people in the world, and they need to be dealt with. But there are also power-mad individuals who are invested in exaggerating or INVENTING boogie men to do battle against. The health and image of Al Qaeda has blossomed under the Bush Administration, because Bush NEEDS an "evil" to rail against, to tell everyone that ONLY HE can fight them, to provide fear and loathing in all America so that the population looks to BUSH for safety and salvation.
Some are invested in ENDING threats, while others very much NEED to cultivate and enlarge threats in order to seek more POWER for themselves.
This guy is such a fool, such a moron, only Faux would allow it.
Funny how the Fox newsers bend over backwards to interpret what Bush "really meant" when he said something to the effect of "we can't win the war on terror". I do not remember Gibson or his colleagues saying it was a message to "Mr Al Qaeda" that Bush has no vision and is fighting a perpetual war in order to secure perpetual peace and that is a win for the terrorrists.
The right wing interprets all discussion that does not favor a prowar position as sending a improper message to the enemies of that war. Say the enemy actually prefers Republicans for their overall war effort and recruitment of more terrorists. Richard Clarke has suggested that bin Laden probably prefers a hard line invader of muslim countires like Bush to some one else. If so isn't Gibson encouraging the terrorists to attack by his own reasoning. Any public debate about the war might encourage an enemy but doesnt the Constitution leave this issue to the people through their legislature which necessarily involves some debate in society.