Hannity, Rove again mischaracterized Obama's Pakistan comments
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, discussing issues that purportedly "have totally changed the narrative on Senator [Barack] Obama," Sean Hannity repeated a falsehood that he has promoted numerous times before, that Obama would advocate "possibly invading an ally, Pakistan."
On the May 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, discussing "issues that have totally changed the narrative on Senator [Barack] Obama," co-host Sean Hannity said to Fox News political analyst Karl Rove: "And also, I think, it's this issue of, you know, negotiating without preconditions with dictators in the world like Iran and Syria, and possibly invading an ally, Pakistan." Rove responded, "Yeah." However, contrary to Hannity's assertion, as Media Matters for America has noted repeatedly in rebutting Hannity's falsehoods on this issue, Obama did not say in the comments to which Hannity was apparently referring that he would "invad[e]" 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."
As Media Matters documented, Hannity and Rove similarly mischaracterized Obama's Pakistan comments on the May 12 edition of Hannity & Colmes.
From the May 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: All right. I think there are five issues that have totally changed the narrative on Senator Obama, and we've talked a lot about them: Reverend Wright; the association, the friendship with Bill Ayers; his comments in San Francisco; his wife's comments about America being mean and not being proud of her country. And also, I think, it's this issue of, you know, negotiating without preconditions with dictators in the world --
ROVE: Right.
HANNITY: -- like Iran and Syria --
ROVE: Right.
HANNITY: -- and possibly invading an ally, Pakistan.
ROVE: Yeah.
HANNITY: How does he overcome those five difficulties?
ROVE: Well -- and I'd add a couple more to it. I think this sort of callous attitude that he had being dismissive of people wearing a flag lapel pin by saying that was not true patriotism, and then, as he begins to prepare for the general election, showing up frequently with a flag lapel pin on, is a problem for him.
So -- look, his problem is, is that he is increasingly seen as an elitist who is out of touch with the values of middle America, and dismissive of them.
A snippet from the article for which you provided a link:
The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with America's war on Afghanistan, it emerged yesterday.
In an interview to be aired on CBS television this weekend Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, said the threat was delivered by the assistant secretary of state, Richard Armitage, in conversations with Pakistan's intelligence director.
"The intelligence director told me that (Mr Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Gen Musharraf was quoted as saying. The revelation that the US used extreme pressure to secure Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror arrived at a time of renewed unease in the US about its frontline ally.
Gen Musharraf told CBS he was stunned at the bluntness of the US approach in the aftermath of the attacks. "I think it was a very rude remark," he said. But he yielded to the request.
Mr Armitage disputes the language used, CBS said, but he did not deny that Pakistan was put on notice to help America's war effort.
Seeing as KKKark Rove was WORKING IN THE WHITE HOUSE at that time and was "Bush's Brain", then it stands to reason that he KNEW ABOUT THIS.
Therefore, KKKarl Rove is a sniveling liar. And Sean Hannity is a useless scumbag.
my sentiments exactly ;)
Two questions:
1 - Why isn't KKKarl Rove in prison yet?
2 - Why isn't Sean Hannity standing on an unemployment line somewhere?
1- Because Dumya is still in the whitehouse.
2- Because Dumya is still in the whitehouse.
;)
WZ,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/karl-rove-subpoenaed-by-h_n_103119.html
It may happen soon...
But I have to say, if Rove perjures himself and is sent to prison before Bush is out of office, he will pardon him. This can not happen.
It was a Bush back in 92 who issued pardons for people not yet sentanced, my guess is it will be another bush who will do the same.
Since Faux News is so 'fair and balanced', I am sure our good old Sean Hannity will focus as much on Hagee's recent comments on Hitler the 'hunter' of Jews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErC1IJeHnyc&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/mccain-backer-hagee-said_n_102892.html), as he has ad nauseam on Reverend Wright's comments.
Don't hold your breath.....
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Hannity's interpretation is reasonable. Obama's remarks easily could be construed as speaking of possibly invading Pakistan. Has Obama since clarified his remarks? If he had, the team at the fair and balanced network certainly would have reported it, especially Hannity, when he speaks to his fellow Americans on Hannity's America.
They could just as easily be construed as speaking of possibly dropping Hershey Bars from Air Force One. Sean is full of sh*t, as usual.
This talking point went stale months ago.... don't you guys have anything better?
They could just as easily be construed as speaking of possibly dropping Hershey Bars from Air Force One.
Point taken. I never thought of that obvious alternative
First of all Pakistan has a democratic elected government now in an election declared as most transparent in history by Jo Biden and others.
Pakistan has handed thousands of Terrorists to USA including third in command of AQ Libby.
There are more Pakistani soldiers dead than all the allied soldiers combined in Afganistan.
However you can make judgement on Obama's hate propaganda against Pakistan. He once said clearly that pull troops from Iraq and put thm in Afgan and Pakistan which sounds like an invasion to me.
But Hate always wins and Obama will get elected.
Maybe because he knows the left can't stomach deaths in Iraq
You are a sick man. As if the alternative is being able to stomach the death of a young man who is sent home in a metal coffin.
Where all you need is a tin flag pin and the inability to form a coherent sentence.
No need to serve your country, you only need to serve yourself.
He's had many "Great Americans" on Hannity's America who have served their country. Not too long ago, the Maverick brought his straight talk express to the show
And Ed Sullivan's show used to feature dancing monkeys, plate spinners, and Topo Gigio. Your point?
I might be old fashioned but I was a bit pissed when he was making plans for a shadow government and suspension of the constitution back during the reign of Saint Ronald.
Sean brings his Freedom Concert to Great Adventure every year. If I'm not mistaken, you're not too far from there, right?
You're absolutely correct WK. I've never attended, but I'm sure they're apt to inspire all patriotic Americans. The song introducing Hannity's America, every Sunday night, is enough to bring tears to my eyes. I think it's called "Let Freedom Ring". Next time the freedom tour comes to my neck of the woods, I'll be sure to attend. Hopefully the Great American, Oliver North, will make a cameo.
Hannity's "freedom concerts" are enough to make normal people puke. It's funny that the song Hannity uses as his theme - "Let Freedom Ring" - is really about a woman escaping the clutches of her abusive husband. Hopefully, Hannity and North will both be in prison before the next concert/scam is scheduled.
I'm sure Innsanity will thank you heartily for throwing your money his way so he can finance his decadent lifestyle even more.
You Righties... gullible... what a bunch of suckers.
Steve,
I agree with your earlier contention that it can be reasonably inferred that Obama's action could be the invasion of Iraq.
It only shows Obama's inexperience and naivety when he uttered those words in order to sound more hawkish than he really is.
The U.S. may have a policy to do just what Obama supporters here have suggested, that being a surgical air strike or missle or something. However to publically state it and offend an ally that is already on shaky ground and has nukes, was, to put it bluntly, dipomatically stupid.
Would that be as 'diplomatically stupid' as, say, announcing you're going to invade a country several weeks before you actually invade, giving the enemy time to prepare a defense?
And then having organizations like CNN and Faux News broadcast the invasion LIVE????
Kyle,
The difference, which seems lost here, is Obama said he would take unilateral action with our military, (which could include an invasion), in the country of an ally.
Regardless of what you think about Iraq, it was a stupid thing to say as it offended and alarmed our ally, Pakistan and other allies in the Middle East. It only showed Obama's inexperience and/or naivety.
If it were a Republican who said what Obama said, many here would be outraged and calling Obama a war-monger and saber-rattler. Funny how that works. :-)
Iraq...Iran...who can really tell the difference anymore?
I'm guessing you missed my first post?
And did you see, a couple of threads up, that every ex-secretary of state agrees that we should talk, without preconditions, to Iran?
And that as late as 2006 we had bombed selected spots in Northern Pakistan?
The song introducing Hannity's America, every Sunday night, is enough to bring tears to my eyes. I think it's called "Let Freedom Ring".
Me too.It is an assault on real music. As a halfway competent musician and a lover of music, the tears usually come right before the nausea and violent flailing and flag-burning episodes.
Why do Republicans hate music so much?
Here's a rather interesting article from Daily Kos that exposes the scam that Hannity's "Freedom Concerts" truly are:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/6/6165/93743
Yeah, well, to the morons who attend them the opportunity to see Sean and his horrid sidekick M. Rotten Levin and hear Lee Greenwood or perhaps Ted Nugent perform is worth the price of being scammed.
Another possible benefit - money that goes to Ollie North's scam charity is money that will NOT go to Gramps McCain's campaign....
Months ago I twisted my ankle running on Lombard Street. It's sidewalk is a travesty.
"Has Obama since clarified his remarks?"
Maybe.
Aug. 2007:
Regardless, Obama says he is comfortable with his tough line, and he tried to clarify his position by saying that the United States must not allow Osama bin Laden a safe haven in western Pakistan, where he can prepare for another terrorist attack on our country.
"If we have the capacity to take out these terrorist cells and our ally Pakistan is not able to do so ... it makes sense" for America to step in, he said in a speech on foreign policy.
He said this should be done with conventional weapons, not nuclear arms.
Later, in a news conference at another campaign stop, Obama said he would work diplomatically with Pakistan "to make sure they take the al-Qaida threat seriously." He added that any military aid to Pakistan should be contingent on its ability to quash terrorism.
His tough talk, he insists, is necessary.
"We're not going to fix our failed foreign policy if we can't talk straight about [it] during the campaign," he explained.
Aug. 2007:
"I made a simple proposition that I'd like anybody here to challenge me on," Obama said of his Wednesday speech in which he said that he would use military force in Pakistan, a U.S. ally, if necessary to root out terrorists.
Obama also sought to clarify his assertion, prompted by a reporter's question, that nuclear weapons would be "off the table" in such an attack. His top rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, pounced on the comment, saying leaders should not discuss hypotheticals involving nuclear weapons.
Obama portrayed the question and Clinton's critique as absurd.
"Everybody knows that you'd use conventional weapons in those circumstances," he said. "Every military expert knows that you'd never use nuclear weapons in that situation."
May. 2008:
Obama said there was "misreporting" of his comments, that "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." He said rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a "diplomatic surge," and U.S. troops should be withdrawn within a year.
Further, the U.S. senator from Illinois said, if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.
I think there are five issues that have totally changed the narrative on Senator Obama, and we've talked a lot about them.
No sh!t, sherlock. You all manufactured those five issues and then banged them like a drum. Now your idiot base repeats them verbatim like they are the truth. Goebbles couldn't have been happier.
From my POV the worst part of this disgusting, disgrace smear against Obama (who's biggest crime was having a tougher, smarter and more effective foreign policy than the Republicans) is that if McCain had said it, and the Dem's made the same criticism, the Pub's would all be applauding how tough of terror McCain was being, and criticising the Dem's for defending a muslim country that harbors terrorists. (Which is exactly what this vaunted ally of the Bussh admin IS! Makes you wonder why we invade dIraq and not the hinterlands of Pakistan where the terrorists are all holed up.)
(Well, not really... it's because Bush'43 is an idiot who wanted to avenge a percieved blemish in his father's legacy. One which, on the contrary, was one of the smartest moves Bush'41 could have made at the time. Bush'41 KNEW something like [the current Iraq War] would result. The lesser son of the greater sire should have taken his father's advice.
Indeed. My guess is that Iraq has more oil, maybe? Let's be totally honest. We now know that the Toadies who shoehorned President Numbnuts into the White House had plans for colonizing Iraq long before 9/11. They thought we could just waltz in there, set up a puppet government and waltz back out.
Of course, there's the more cynical theory is that they just did it to jack up the price of oil, at which they have succeeded marvelously.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'll admit, my knowledge of Pakistan is limited... I can read a newspaper alright (although that doesn't seem to be much of a help), and I can consult the encyclopedia, and the atlas (and they help a little bit), but the fact of the matter is, I've never been to Pakistan, or even close to it... I don't speak their language, and don't know much about their culture or their Government (and what little I do know comes from sources of information such as books, and even the newspapers a little).
Now, if I knew someone from Pakistan, and I knew that they knew a lot about Pakistan, and I thought their opinion and knowledge in these things to be objective and wise enough, then I'd listen to them, and form my own opinion, and augment my own knowledge, based upon what I could learn from them... but I don't know anybody like that... and so I'm left to the information (and even opinionss) found in newspapers and other fact-based sources, like books, even encyclopedias...
...and the U.S. State Department, and whatever information is cleared for release, that is gathered from and interpreted by the various Intelligence Agencies of the Federal Government, and then maybe makes it's way into the Public Forum, and maybe doesn't (and maybe has me straining to read between the lines, to know the truth).
My point is this: That the various Official sources of information regarding Pakistan, that are available to the American People (sources like the State Dept., Intelligence Estimates cleared for release, etc.), these sources right now are all under the control and influence and administration, of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their gang, collectively known to us (and history) as "The Bush Administration"...
And I consider the Bush administration to be as reliable and objective and truthful a source of information in these matters, as I consider "military analysts" on Fox and CNN and NBC to be (in what is nearly the same subject matter)...
Which is to say, that I consider any and all things the Bush administration and their many spokespersons and operatives (those "military analysts" and everyone elese on Fox included) to say about Pakistan, to be unbelievable...
The same is true of Iran, and Iraq, and most other things too: The Bush administration has ZERO credibility.
And I wish that Sen. Obama would make that argument to the American People, and tell them that they (the American People) require their Federal Government to be wrested from the influence and control of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney et al (which includes Fox and their "military analysts", and even saudis too)...
That we require our Federal Government and State Dept. to be first wrested from the control and influence of the Bush administration, before we can make any honest sensible objective and true appraisal, of Pakistan or Iran or Iraq, or a lot of other things... this is what Sen. Obama should be saying, insteading of strategizing in public about things I guess he must know a lot more about than me, although I wish I knew what his source of information was, so that I could make use of it too... because if it should turn out to be the Bush administration, and their State Dept. and the various Intelligence Agencies under their control, then I'd rather just wait and reserve judgement about Pakistan (and Iran too), until there was a new administration of the U.S. Government.
Hey Dem, for a good historical background, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_to_Pakistan
The book is written from a local angle, but you get a sense of the strife that has plagued Pakistan since right after WWII.
Thanks, it does look like an interesting read... border disputes, Religious intolerance, festering wounds left over from being subjected to colonial powers: there's no end it seems, to the insane reasons for Wars... and among those many insane reasons, is sometimes lost the only real reason, and good reason, to go to War with another nation: National Security (or Defense), and JUSTICE for something done that requires War as a response, as Justice... like U.S. National Security (Defense) was the reason for going to War with Japan in December of 1941, and also as JUSTICE for the attack on Pearl Harbor... and when the U.S. at the same time Declared War on Germany, that also involved a truth about War: that a nation may use War against another nation, in response to what it perceives as simply a threat (as opposed to the overt action of an attack)... and when a nation Declares War in response to simply a threat, then that can be controversial, and might be considered an unjust thing, in the eyes of all other nations, and might require an explanation to the world, of the threat that is perceived... which in the case of nazi Germany, was no controversy at all, with them invading and occupying most of Europe (France especially), and bombing Great Britain... if anything, the controversy wasn't in why the U.S. goes to War with Germany based merely on a threat to U.S. National Security (again as opposed to an actual attack), but in why we waited so long...
And I digress here into these legitimate reasons for War, as evidenced by the U.S. in WWII, in contrast to the insane reasons for War, such as Religious intolerance... and the question of our National Security (or of JUSTICE for some act) should always be asked, before we plunge ourselves into War, perhaps for no good reason of National Security (Defense) or JUSTICE...
Like in Vietnam, and now Iraq too...
Pakistan? I'd rather know the reasons why, first, and know how it is that Pakistan threatens U.S. National Security, or for what action we would be getting JUSTICE for, in going to War with Pakistan...
...rather than just blindly assume the Bush administration knew these reasons for me, and therefore thought it a good thing, that we should make War with a country on the other side of the world, somewhere between Iraq and Vietnam.
Rove is a criminal. Who cares what Rove thinks?
Looks like Sean Hannity cares.....
Here's an article that showcases Sean Hannity's pattern of lies and deception - it's called "The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b91585.html
And here's an article that documents how Hannity doctored a clip to support his lies:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/08/b138711.html