Hannity, Rove revive false claims about Obama statement concerning Pakistan
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity asserted that Sen. Barack Obama said he would "maybe invade an ally like Pakistan." In fact, during an August 2007 speech, Obama did not say he would "invade an ally like Pakistan"; rather, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
On the May 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Fox News political analyst Karl Rove asserted that Sen. Barack Obama gave an "answer in the YouTube/CNN debate, which he's going to regret, which was, I'm going to, he said, without precondition, be willing to meet with, you know, sort of the rogue's gallery, if you will, of terror states and bad actors internationally." In response, co-host Sean Hannity asserted: "And maybe invade an ally like Pakistan and potentially create a theocracy with nuclear weapons. ... That's even more frightening, isn't it, Karl?" Rove responded, "Right," and later said to Hannity, "[Y]ou're right about Pakistan." However, contrary to Hannity's assertion, Obama never said he would "invade an ally like Pakistan." Rather, during an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
Hannity has previously mischaracterized Obama's comments on Pakistan. During the August 14, 2007, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity claimed that Obama has stated his "willingness to invade an ally against their will," referring to Pakistan.
From the May 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: Should we give honorable mention to Doug Goodyear, who is a McCain appointee, to run the GOP convention, who had to resign over the weekend when Newsweek revealed he had been a lobbyist who is advising and doing work for the government of Burma? And I don't see the same opprobrium from those on the right about McCain's very first appointee?
ROVE: Well, first of all, it's not McCain's first appointee. It's his -- somebody in the campaign appointed Doug Goodyear. But again, you're missing the point, and I appreciate your misdirection, Alan, but the question is --
COLMES: That's very nice of you, Karl. Thank you.
ROVE: Yes. The question is: Senator Obama's campaign said we're going to discharge this foreign policy adviser who's talking to Hamas, but we have a candidate who says we'll talk to the state sponsor of Hamas, Syria's Assad, and we'll talk to the state sponsor of Hezbollah --
HANNITY: Yeah.
ROVE -- Iran, without precondition. And so, my point -- you did the right thing by discharging this guy, but it highlights a weakness of Senator Obama, which is his inexperience in international affairs led him to give an answer in the YouTube/CNN debate, which he's going to regret, which was, I'm going to, he said, without precondition, be willing to meet with, you know, sort of the rogue's gallery, if you will, of terror states and bad actors internationally.
HANNITY: And maybe invade an ally like Pakistan and potentially create a theocracy with nuclear weapons.
ROVE: Right.
HANNITY: That's even more frightening, isn't it, Karl?
ROVE: Right.
HANNITY: Yeah.
ROVE: Well, look, look, and again, this goes back to the inexperience that he has. Remember, he -- you're right about Pakistan. We've talked briefly about what he said with regard to the rogue state. But you remember, also, he said he had more experience in international affairs than either Senator Clinton or Senator McCain. And he cited as this that he had grown up and he'd spent time as a child in a foreign country, and he had visited Pakistan while he was a college student.
HANNITY: There's experience for you.
ROVE: I mean -- yeah.
Meanwhile - McCain's got lobbyists (yes, multiple) with ties to the Myanmar military junta that are withholding aide from cyclone victims.
But what's 100,000 innocent lives to a bloodthirsty demon like Karl? Like Stalin said - a statistic, not a tragedy.
While I can sorta understand the political danger of investigating and impeaching Bush and/or Cheney for the democrats.....
What I can't understand is the reluctance of the dems to put Karl Rove in the slammer, right next to Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramhoff??
Rumors abound say that Rove may have stuff on key democrats and that is why they don't go after him..... thats ok...... John Edwards as Obama's AG will rectify that!
I fear that the Democrats won't do it, possibly because some of them would be implicated, as well. I don' think we'll ever know.
Eweston,
I would recommend reading "I is for Infidel" by Kathy Gannon
This book will give some very interesting insight as to where Pakistan truely stands in this war on terror!
I'll keep an eye out for it Capt.
Thanx
New internet rumor about Quotes from Obama books
TruthorFiction.com search quotes from Obama books...it tells it all
Good catch MMFA, this is real substantive conservative misinformation, even if it's the Hannity/Rove romance that strains credibility to its breaking point.
Can't wait for Rove's testimony and his forthcoming stay at the Taxpayer's expense.
What bho did say about Afghanistan and Pakistan today, was that because we have so many resources devoted to Iraq that we can't do the job in Afghanistan. In particular, he pointed out that all the arabic translators we have are in Iraq and not available for the other theatre. The media did not report this, but get a clue bho, they don't speak arabic over there.
Just like his comment about having been to 57 states, the media gives him a pass on misstatement he makes. If McCain or hrc had said stupid stuff like this, they would be all over it.
And your point of view is? Take off the partisan rose colored glasses and you will see that Grampa McBush seems to get a pass. Soon, we will be told he is wearing a hearing aid which will actually be a direct link to someone who can answer that questions for him...sort of like our President.
If you want to go round and round about mistatements, we could be here all night long.
"Just like his comment about having been to 57 states, the media gives him a pass on misstatement he makes. If McCain or hrc had said stupid stuff like this, they would be all over it."--sands
So you actually want more of that kind of coverage? Do you really believe Obama doesn't know how many states are in the US?
McCain
That's John Sidney McCain, stupid! If you get off using middle names make sure to use them all!
You just KNOW you're getting the straight dope.
You know your looking at two dopes. Whether they're really straight is anyone's guess.....
Newsweek is liberal?
Of course...if it's not foaming-at-the-mouth, hateful, hyper-conservative then it's considered liberal. The ultimate Us Against Them mindset of the right wing. You wonder why they don't just leave and form their own country somewhere... ;>)
They would have no one to exploit and lie to but themselves.
--------------------------------------------.
You wonder why they don't just leave and form their own country somewhere... ;>)
Good ole Karl, who thinks Obama will cancil aid to Isrial?
Newsweek, who won't mention that McJohn may be inviolation of campaign spending laws. Who's Baily said that Hillary's "most famous moment of trying to be like a normal human being" Describing that moment of emotion in NH. Who touted MJ for his refusal to soften his stance on immigration after he changed his position to match that of the conservative base. Who joins in the collective media silence on the pentagons psyops program against its own population. That Newsweek?
Oh I see what you mean. Pardon me for interupting your meme. Carry on.
Hannity accuses all the democratic candidates of acting with political expediency, but ironically, he is more guilty than anyone. He'll pound away, over and over, on anything negative he can come up with about the Obamas or the Clintons, or the Edwards or their close relatives, or distant relatives, or distant acquaintances. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, because he knows that continued harping makes the message take on a life of its own.
Now that the Reverent Wright thing has run out of gas, Hannity will have to find some riveting new issue for the "Stop Hillery er... Obama Express": the Obama's lazy house cat or some friend of a well-liked second cousin who is always late to church, or Mrs. Obama's bff 8th grade essay on the politics of Tasmania and Mrs. Obama's egregious failure to correct all the typos. Sigh.
I hope the new congress and President Obama will bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
The US just launched a missle attack in Pakistan. I don't see that Pakistany permision for it will ever become a public issue. But miss quoting about a possible attack has been good for at least six reruns in various parts of the"liberal" media. Those silly devils. Its good that their not doing something that would realy hurt the liberal cause.
Just kidding......really...yup ewebetcha.
No one can be this stupid. You have got to be Rove himself.
________________________________________________________
Rove is getting high marks from his liberal colleagues at newsweek, i guess it is. he works well with fact checkers, and gets his work in on time. they also say he's charming. i trust him more than any of the other pundits, except for the number one pundit.
Hey now. If you listen to Hannity, you'd know that he's a "great American" as almost everyone who calls into his show tell him so.
What a joke that guy is...
I too have the same level of revulsion for him as you do I think. Not only that, but his voice is one that is not made for radio. He sounds like an squeaky idiot and all. Same for that other guy Mark Levin. How do these guys get radio gigs? They all sound super whiney these days, especially since they see a horizon where Obama is sitting in the Oval Office running the show.
Then again, that will bring them at least 4 years of something to whine and complain about, and to launch various attacks.
How long do you think it will be before the vast right wing conspiracy kicks back into full effect after Obama is sworn in, and they start trying to find something to impeach him on?
I also heard something pretty funny the other day, if it weren't so sad. Listening to Neal Boortz (I don't know why I listen to him either) he had someone who called in, and this woman was super duper upset. Why? Well, she had not heard Obama say that he wasn't a Muslim, as in specifically denouncing that he wasn't a Muslim. So, he must be a closet Muslim. To Neal's credit, he went against what this woman was saying, and said that he had heard Obama on many occassions state that he was a Christian. Her response, well, he didn't say he wasn't a Muslim so there is a chance that he is. Again, to Neal's credit, he went on to state that, say you ask someone what their religion is. They say, Catholic. Do you have to have a checklist in front of you, and go through every other major religion, and check off the box saying that you're not a Hindu. That you're not a Buddhist. That you're not Jewish.
It's people like the caller above that really scare me.
Yes, they will attack. They are bloodsucking vampires. The more they attack Obama the more they will seal their inevitable destruction.
This is what I don't get.
Obviously, Rove and Hannity were both very much for invading an entire country who had no ties to the people and group that attacked us on 9/11, and otherthrowing what was actually the stabilizing force in the region. We invaded Iraq illegally, and against many other nation's wishes, but we said we have the authority for pre-emptive strikes against nations that we believe pose a grave threat to us, and therefore made a precedent for the rest of the countries around the world to do the same, and we'd have no leg to stand on to oppose such a thing.
Anyway, why do they have a problem with this? If we have intelligence, and or information that there are terrorists inside of Pakistan, and we know where they are, and we can get to them, they want the President (regardless of who it is) to stand by, and do nothing, and wait for Pakistan to say that it's either OK to do something, or that they'll do it for us? Anyone who knows anything about Pakistan, and that region in particular knows that essentially radicals run the country, and that region of Pakistan especially. Pakistan is one coup away from being a heavily Islamist nation that actually DOES have nuclear weapons. Pakistan openly supported the Taliban right up until the point in time that we invaded Afghanistan.
I can't believe these arsehats would have an issue with sending in a few missiles, or maybe a special ops team to take out some terrorists, because they don't want to offend Pakistan. What is it these republicans are always saying about democrats? That we're somehow not tough enough to defend the country, and that we want to "talk" to the terrorists instead of killing them? Here we have Obama saying he'd actively go and get them, and these guys don't want him to?
It makes the head spin it does.
True, true... Actually, where you placed the name "Obama" place the name of any liberal or any democrat, you'd get the same thing.
Now this is where some hyper conservative comes on here and says, "But you guys are always talking bad about Bush".
Well, as you said in a previous posting, we are mad at Bush for f'ing up everything that he has touched since he was elected, and now, we're definitely not alone in that feeling, with only what now, 28% approving of the job Bush is doing as President? Seems like there might be about 72% that disagree with what he's doing, but we'll be tarred as un-patriotic, un-supportive, for the terrorists, and things like.
Probably true. You guys ever think that while GHW Bush and Bill Clinton are off trotting around the globe doing something good, Bush the elder looks him in the eye and says something like, "You're the son I really wish I had..."
my wife and i give you two.
Please tell me you're not breeding... ;>)
The Bush Administratio has challenged the application of Habeas Corpus as well - even against an American Citizen. It wasn't just Lincoln who suspended it. Bush tried and failed. Thank God.
If Johnny-Mac or W. had said this, Hannity woould be using it as an example of their "tough talk." Unfortunately, they proably would hav said "We'll invade/attack/bomb" THE COUNTRY as opposed to th target. I mean... look at what the did in Iraq!
It amazing to watch these worms squirm when a Democrat is shown to be just as tough, but a heck of a lot smarter, than they are.