Fox News' Kelly repeated false claim that Dean criticized McCain for citing his military service
SUMMARY: On America's Election HQ, Megyn Kelly repeatedly distorted comments by Howard Dean and falsely claimed that Dean charged that "McCain is out there touting his military experience and that there is something opportunistic about it." Several other Fox News hosts have similarly misrepresented Dean's comments.
On the April 3 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, co-host Megyn Kelly repeatedly distorted comments by Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean and falsely claimed that Dean charged that "McCain is out there touting his military experience and that there is something opportunistic about it." In fact, in a March 28 statement, Dean said:
The American people have been waiting for a president who understands the challenges they face, not another out of touch Bush Republican who promises four more years of the same failed leadership. John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.
Introducing a segment discussing Dean's comments, Kelly asserted, "Howard Dean came out and suggested that John McCain, on this tour that he's doing where he's talking about his background and his military history and so on, is being, and I quote, 'opportunistic.' " She went on to ask former Republican National Committee adviser Terry Holt, "But what do you think, Terry? I mean, do you think he was offended by that? Because here you've got obviously John McCain with an impressive military history being called an opportunist because he's discussing it?" Holt asserted, "Howard Dean isn't the proper spokesman for the Democratic Party to get the Republican nominee's attention." Kelly responded, "What about the underlying charge? Is it a fair one that McCain is out there touting his military experience and that there is something opportunistic about it?"
As Media Matters for America has documented, several Fox News figures -- including Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson and Live Desk host Martha MacCallum -- have similarly distorted Dean's criticism of McCain, echoing a March 29 statement from RNC chairman Robert Duncan that falsely accused Dean of "stating that Senator McCain is a 'blatant opportunist' for discussing his record of military service with the American people."
From the April 3 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ:
KELLY: In any event, let me move on to our next topic tonight, which is this dustup between Howard Dean and John McCain. Howard Dean came out and suggested that John McCain, on this tour that he's doing where he's talking about his background and his military history and so on, is being, and I quote, "opportunistic." Well, John McCain was on Fox & Friends this morning and responded. Take a listen to this.
JOHN McCAIN [video clip]: You have to consider the source of that, and you have to move on. I'm pleased with where we are. We're uniting our party. We're making progress.
And I guess you got to expect those things from someone like Mr. Dean and just move on. You can't -- you know, in other words, you don't want to get down in that level. I think it was Bob Dole that said, "You know, you don't want to get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."
KELLY: You know, Kirsten, it sounded so above-board until that last part there. Your reaction?
KIRSTEN POWERS (Fox News political analyst): Yeah, and I technically don't think Bob Dole made up that quote.
KELLY: You don't?
POWERS: I was going to say that.
KELLY: You've heard that one before?
POWERS: I have heard that one before, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think it's just a cute way of making his point that he doesn't like Howard Dean.
KELLY: But what do you think, Terry? I mean, do you think he was offended by that? Because here you've got obviously John McCain with an impressive military history being called an opportunist because --
HOLT: Yeah, I'm not sure that he --
KELLY: -- he's discussing it?
HOLT: I'm not sure that John McCain pays any more attention to Howard Dean than anybody in the Democratic Party does. This is a guy who's almost irrelevant, and if there hadn't been this side-story about Michigan and Florida and whether we're going to count their ballots, he wouldn't have even been interviewed for real in this campaign election season.
So Howard Dean isn't the proper spokesman for the Democratic Party to get the Republican nominee's attention. I'm sorry.
KELLY: What about the underlying charge? Is it a fair one that McCain is out there touting his military experience and that there is something opportunistic about it?
HOLT: Well, obviously not. McCain's background is in the military and in the Navy. And I think, obviously, on a bio tour, you're going to talk a lot about where you come from, the Vietnam War. Remember, John Kerry's entire campaign was based on the idea that he spent 11 months in Vietnam. I mean, if it's good for John Kerry, it might as well be good for John McCain.
Quite frankly, after what republicans did to John Kerry's honorable war record, they have a lot of nerve expecting that McCain's record is above reproach.
Exactly. This is ridiculous. I don't even believe Dean was referring specifically to McCain's military service, and if he was it was in very vague terms. But seeing people complain about this very mild (if any) criticism of McCain, while the very real and intentional campaign destroy Kerry BECAUSE of his military service was treated as some sort of simple disagreement where "both sides" should be equally respected is ridiculous.
Remember, John Kerry's entire campaign was based on the idea that he spent 11 months in Vietnam. I mean, if it's good for John Kerry, it might as well be good for John McCain.
The natural follow-up question to this idiot would be, "why then, if it was good to criticize Kerry's service, is it not good to criticize McCains?" Now, not only did Dean not criticize McCain's service, but it would be wrong to do so, as it was for Kerry. But, it was Fox that gave an unending forum for those disgusting Swift Boat sub-humans in 2004.
jawill11: "why then, if it was good to criticize Kerry's service, is it not good to criticize McCains?"
If you want to criticize a guy who was a P.O.W. for several years, go ahead, and see where that gets you.
In addition, Dean WAS criticizing McCain for citing his service. He called him a "blatant opportunist" immediately after "praising" his military service.
This is not an honest post by MM, IMO.
In addition, Dean WAS criticizing McCain for citing his service.
No he wasn't.
Now, not only did Dean not criticize McCain's service, but it would be wrong to do so, as it was for Kerry
Good job conveniently ignoring the above statement from my original comment. And you want to be taken seriously regarding your opinion of Dean's statements? All you've done is prove that you are an untrustworthy weasel.
, Dean WAS criticizing McCain for citing his service. He called him a "blatant opportunist" immediately after "praising" his military service.(shoes##)
So, if I tell you that you have nice shoes, then note that you're a moron,I'm making fun of your shoes?Geez, that's too stupid to even explain to you. I won't call it a dishonest post by you, shoes (IMO), because I'm afraid that's the best you can do.Please don't have children.
This may seem off the wall, but do you remember in the 2004 Kerry/Bush campaigns, that at a rally in West Virginia, a man and his several children, one of them a girl of about 4, were holding signs declaring their support for Bush... and suddenly a brawny thug wearing a Kerry hat (or shirt) confronts the All-American family, and he grabs the pro-Bush sign from one of their hands, and tears it up! Right in their faces, he tears up their political Bush sign...
And the little 4 year-old girl starts crying at the confrontational sign-tearing disturbance... she starts bawling her head off, right there in her daddy's arms, with the Kerry thug still leering threateningly at them all, having torn up the sign of their support for Bush...
And the whole thing was caught miraculously by a photographer, who just happened to be standing right there, and photographed it all, especially capturing the little girl's tears and every detail of her anguished crying face...
And much of the "media' ran with the infuriating photographs of the Kerry thug who made the little girl cry. Remember that?
And it turned out the "thug" was in reality a family member of the Bush-sign carrying supporters... he was in fact the son of the daddy, and the brother of the little girl.
The whole thing was staged. The deranged Bush-supporting family had even pulled a stunt like that before, where they staged something or other to make it look like the political opposition (Democrats) had insulted, way over the boundary, someone who didn't deserve it... like making a little girl cry, and making it look like a Kerry supporter was doing it, the whole time it being just a staged act, for a well-placed camera.
I predict something similar, in the case of Mr. McCain, and the record of his Military Service. I predict someone will insult the man, maybe to his face (maybe even spit in his direction), and call him a "baby-killer" or something as stupid as that...
And it'll be a phony, it'll be staged, but who cares, because the "media" will run with it, like it was Armageddon...
Because Democrats hate Veterans, don't they.
Rep, those Repub congressmen really support the troops. Like this one:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/04/rep-mchenry-calls-us-soldier-in-iraq-a-two-bit-security-guard/
John McCain "cast aside his principles."
That is the key charge Howard Dean makes in the paragraph.
While Howard Dean doesn't say which principles, my guess would be Dean is referring to McCain's vote for the "Military Commissions Act" which promotes torture and his rhetorical support of making the tax-cuts-for-the-rich permanent.
The notion that Howard Dean was saying that McCain shouldn't discuss his military service never occurred to me when I received this email, and I reject that interpretation.
I don't know why it's such an unfathomable thought that Howard Dean would have no problem disrespecting McCain's wartime service, after all he also floated the idea that Bush had prior knowledge about 9/11.
Inflammatory and insulting rhetoric is standardfare for the DNC chair.
No, I mean it isn't a stretch by any member of the media to see disrespect in what Dean is saying when he speaks of political opponents, especially when the meaning is open to interpretation, as this clearly is. His history of disrespectful cheap shots demands that, unfortunately for him. Had most anyone else said this exact thing, they probably would have been given the benefit of the doubt, not Dean.
He lives by the sword, he dies by the sword. Nobody should whine about his unfair treatment, including MMFA.......sorry.
It's one thing to say that Howard Dean's email is disrespectful of the idea that John McCain would be a good president.
It's another thing to interpret it as saying that John McCain shouldn't discuss his military service.
Where have I said I have a problem with the "twisting" of McCain's 100 year Iraq statement?
And you can google Dean's comments on Bush and 9/11, it's hardly a secret.
And you're a fine one to talk after you "twist" my words about McCain and the 100 year Iraq statement. Pathetic.--Tommy
Well said, Tommy: Jawill is a fine one, and McCain's 100 year statement was pathetic.
I don't understand about that "twisting your words" thing though. :-)
"The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." --- Howard Dean, Dec. 2003.
"Floating an idea," that incorrectly implicates the Saudis, but otherwise is true is considered inflammatory and insulting?
Hannity thought so. Not only that, he's willing to run with it and morph it into a theory that's allegedly pushed by numerous Democrats, including congressmen, senators and governors.
Hannity is a paid partisan commentator who lives off of inflammatory rhetoric through his talk shows and elsewhere.
Dean is the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
You may hold each to the same standard, I don't.
One utterance on NPR far outweighs an untold number of distorted utterances (MMFA mangaged to find 13) on Fox News and right-wing radio?
Alright then.
"...after all he also floated the idea that Bush had prior knowledge about 9/11."
"I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't—think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission." -- Howard Dean describing a theory held by some that President George W. Bush knew about the 9-11 attack coming to America.
He says it wasn't anything more than a theory. "The real situation" is in contrast to the theory. "They get repeated as fact" is a problem because they're not actually fact. Bush is risking highly questionable theories being repeated as fact because he's suppressing information that would address the validity of those theories. Isn't that the message there?
And if so, how is that "floating" the theory itself, exactly?
Brab,
It goes to Howard Dean's history of controversial remarks, and to use your own exact word from the other day, "inflammatory" words. When he speaks there always seems to be parsing necessary and some explanation, his history demands his words and motives are suspect, I am sorry - that is on him.
But you're using this as a rationale to judge current remarks. Remember? So theoretically someone could misinterpret posts from you on a daily basis, saying you're saying something you're not. After a while all they have to do is cite the history of "controversial" remarks that you have, even though they're the ones creating all the controversy. And it's your fault because you're always having to explain what you mean, because that person is always questioning what you mean. Would you consider it fair if other people passed judgment on you based on that person's actions?
If you have better examples, you should cite them, otherwise judging Dean based on the "9/11" comment is obviously unfair.
And Brab, if you want to make this about me while deflecting what you even admitted were infammatory remarks made by Dean in the past, just yesterday, then go ahead. I have no problem being judged by my statements now or in the past. Does that mean I am perfect?, not hardly. But I accept responsibility for my own words and you know as well as I do that we all judge each others all the time based on our posts here.
Yes, you can judge people by comments in their past. Let me say it again:"If you have better examples, you should cite them, otherwise judging Dean based on the "9/11" comment is obviously unfair". I'm saying you were using this statement as something to judge him by, and you can't. Find another comment and try again.
I didn't cite any specific inflammatory remarks. I know he's not always careful with his words, so I thought I was giving your "It's HOWARD DEAN" argument the benefit of the doubt. If this example is your best, then I probably shouldn't have done that.
How am I making this about you? I was providing a theoretical scenario to show how "controversy" in itself doesn't prove anything. We have people like Hannity and Limbaugh dishonestly manufacturing controversies all the time, so it's not Dean's fault that he has to explain things that shouldn't actually need explaining.
"And if so, how is that "floating" the theory itself, exactly?"
Thanks for tracking down the full quote, Brab.
It's NOT floating the theory, and it's not he least bit insulting or inflammatory when taken in full.
He's performing his patriotic duty by being critical of the rogue Bush Administration, or as the righties prefer to call it, "expressing his hatred for America."
... after all he also floated the idea that Bush had prior knowledge about 9/11. - Tommy
No, Dean did not "float the idea." He repeated an idea that was already out there. An idea that he stated he did not believe and, in fact, referred to as "odd" and "crazy." If you look at the transcript, it was very clear what Dean was saying. He was pointiing out that WPE Bush's administration was withholding information from the Kean Commission and that "the trouble is by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not."
What Dean stated is factually true. It probably never occurred to him at the time he said it that a bunch of unscrupulous liars would attempt to twist his words and pretend they meant something that they clearly didn't.
I like Dean and I have always liked his 50-state strategy for the party. I hope they never abandon it. It's a shame that his words can't be taken for what they plainly and clearly meant so we wouldn't have to waste time correcting a bunch of ignoramuses and liars.
Mind reading? Anytime someone views your precious Democratic or liberal politician with suspect and doesn't buy their rhetoric hook, line and sinker, you call it mind reading. No, I call it justified skepticism based on previous actions or words. Politicians live on the edge of word parsing and double meaning, and when they have a history of offensive remarks they absolutely deserved to be judged accordingly. Just because a (D) by their name automatically allows you benefit of the doubt, don't assume we all should afford them the same credibility.
As for this specific instance, I never said Dean did or didn't imply he was saying this about McCain - I very specifically said a case could be made either way. Sorry if I don't see it your way when another possibility is quite possible.
a case could be made either way
In one way, a case could be made that Dean completely true and non-controvesial by looking at what he actually said now and in the past. In another way, a case could be made that he has said terribly controversial things now and in the past by twisting parts of his statements and ignoring others for cheap political points. I'm having a hard time deciding which way to go on this one.
"Dean knew exactly the seed he was planting."
That is mind-reading. If there was no purpose for what he said, then you could make that argument. If there was a purpose, then you can't. As I keep telling people here, there has to be some genuine reason for doubt, and that's when history comes into play as to whether you give them the benefit of that doubt or not. But you can't take every perfectly understandable thing someone says and assign motives to them, no matter who it is.
Inflammatory and insulting rhetoric is standardfare for the DNC chair.
No, I mean it isn't a stretch by any member of the media to see disrespect in what Dean is saying when he speaks of political opponents ... His history of disrespectful cheap shots demands that, unfortunately for him. - both from Tommy
Here's the problem. You continually made the assertion that Dean is some kind of loose cannon bomb-thrower, but you haven't provided even one example that holds water. It's very clear that the 9/11 comment to which you refer didn't provide any tiny bit of credibility to the rumor. You still want to maintain that his words should be looked on skeptically because of a history of inflammatory statements, yet you aren't providing any such history. Brab keeps asking you for examples but you are miserably failing to do so.
In other words, you're basing your skepticism on a non-existent platform. Is it any wonder you're falling?
Naivete is not a factor here. The issue is Dean's words, what they clearly meant to a rational person, and how liars are misrepresenting them.
Dean made the point that WPE Bush's suppression of information made all kinds of rumors inevitable and cited an example. Citing an example of the kind of rumor you're referring to is not the same as giving credence to that rumor. In fact, it does just the opposite.
It's simply impossible for Dean to anticipate all the myriad ways that liars can manufacture their lies.
Considering Howard Dean and the DNC supposedly have the facts on their side, it's amazing how the truth is somehow elusive in their election propaganda. What gives?
The Dean comment about McCain "promising" to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years has been thoroughly debunked, no?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html
Who cares? We're going to beat this drum until it becomes accepted as common knowledge. I wonder why Republicans would have a problem with that?
[bang, bang, bang. . .]
That would be a gong, therick. You mean [beat, beat beat]. get it on.
Man, now you let the cat out of the bag!
Which is now a good reason to pile it on...
I forgot, McCains a regular Archie Bunker. A bigot since he was in his late 40's.
I wonder which side he fought for during the Civil War?
The "promised" part is wrong, and it's dishonest to forward it. If he has a criticism of what he really said (and I have no doubts he does), he should express that instead of twisting words. That makes himself look bad and dilutes the message.
McCain says he doesn't mind keeping a military presence for a hundred years as long as soldiers aren't harmed. He uses Germany as an example, and talks about how Al Qaeda is training and preparing every day. The problem with that is that we were fighting Germany as a country. That country lost. If we're occupying Germany and our forces get attacked, we know who's behind it and we declare war on Germany. But Al Qaeda is not a national army. It's a terrorist organization not confined to any single country. So there aren't any consequences for attacking our stationed troops in that scenario.
Maybe Dean could have pointed out that the nature of this war completely goes against the scenario McCain mentioned. It's a pipe dream, and everyone should know that. That would have been better than saying he "promised" something he didn't, in my opinion.
McCain says he doesn't mind keeping a military presence for a hundred years as long as soldiers aren't harmed. He uses Germany as an example
If he's citing Germany as an example, one can conclude he wants a long term (a hundred years) American presence in Iraq. And one can conclude from his past statements on the Iraq occupation that if violence continues forever, American troops should stay there forever.
On another note, his comment was extremely stupid. A long term American presence in the heart of Middle East puts America in more danger (there's going to be blowback). It seems like he doesn't know much about foreign policy.
"If he's citing Germany as an example, one can conclude he wants a long term (a hundred years) American presence in Iraq. And one can conclude from his past statements on the Iraq occupation that if violence continues forever, American troops should stay there forever."
Probably so, and that would be a good point for Dean to make. The condition of "as long as troops are safe" in and of itself negates it as a promise. Previous comments that indicate that condition is phony or (as both of us have said) unrealistic put the ball back in McCain's court.
"On another note, his comment was extremely stupid. A long term American presence in the heart of Middle East puts America in more danger (there's going to be blowback). It seems like he doesn't know much about foreign policy."
Exactly. Someone who doesn't realize that, and can't tell the difference between the nature of conventional war and this war is clearly in over his head.
The condition of "as long as troops are safe" in and of itself negates it as a promise.
McCain wants a long term American presence in Iraq irrespective of American troops being safe or being in harm's way. What he's saying in that comment is Americans will be more willing to accept his position on Iraq if the "troops are safe".
"Make it a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."
That's not "irrespective", that's conditional on them not being harmed. It's stupid, yes, but then that should be Dean's argument. I'm not seeing the basis for your interpretation that he's talking just about public opinion of his position.
I was using this quote:
"The point is it’s American casualties. We’ve go to get American’s off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years."
Yes, but that's consistent with the "as long as troops are not harmed" clause. The people don't care so much as long as there aren't casualties, as long as they're off the frontlines. That's still conditional.
I don't know what he would do, but nothing would surprise me. Again, if it can be pointed out that what he said is inconsistent, he should be questioned on that. The same goes for the intelligence of the comment. Put him on the spot about how our troops wouldn't get harmed and then ask if we should still stay a hundred years. Any of that would be very much welcomed by me.
I'm going by the past five years. Whether violence is increased or decreased, both circumstances are used as a justification to stay. I don't see a scenario where we don't have a long term American presence in Iraq if McCain is elected.
You're probably right, so McCain should get questioned about the honesty of his position. I have no problem with that. I just don't think it's fair to extrapolate in this manner. I'd rather see "can we believe McCain would pull out of Iraq because of casualties when he's said..." or "does McCain really believe we can avoid casualties..." etc etc. Let people draw their conclusions instead of making an argument of assumption. I think that's much more reasonable.
I actually checked that link.
Their excuse for McCain having 59 lobbyists serving as campaign fundraisers is:
The Democrats do it to!! Hillary has 20 such lobbyists working for her campaign.. Oh, and Obama? He has 10 lobbyists working for his campaign! Well, actually, they aren't lobbyists anymore, none of them are registered as lobbyists. So, actually he has zero. But... OMG I HEAR HE IS A MUZLIM!!!!
My stepson's girlfriend said Obama was a Muslim and asked "what are we going to do if he's elected?" She told me someone told her that, and I said "They're wrong, he's not a Muslim". Then she told me someone else told her the same thing, as if I was that was going to make a difference. I told her "Well, they're also wrong then. And we wouldn't have to do anything even if he was Muslim, because that would actually be allowed."
It truly is impossible to underestimate the electorate.
John McCain's ideal would be that American soldiers stop getting killed, and that the US stays in Iraq for a hundred years.
You can look on the bright side and say that McCain doesn't want US troops to stay in Iraq for a hundred years no matter what.
But in practice he'd be deciding about 8 years. His ideal suggests that he would keep similar troop levels to what we have now for those 8 years. If he hasn't been convinced by now that stability isn't around the corner, then I doubt he would be in less than 8 years of his being president.
Disgusting!
The sad part is, John Kerry completed his military service successfully while McCain failed.
The power of the mass electronic media is total.