About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

MSNBC's Hall falsely suggested that Obama did not "visit[] wounded American troops" on overseas trip

July 28, 2008 3:04 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: MSNBC's Tamron Hall noted that Sen. John McCain was "ripping" Sen. Barack Obama "for not visiting wounded American troops" on his "global tour," then aired a clip from an ad released by McCain's campaign which asserts that Obama "made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops." Hall did not note that, as NBC's Andrea Mitchell previously reported, Obama did in fact visit wounded troops on his trip while in Iraq, going to "a casualty unit in the Green Zone without photographers as part of the congressional delegation."

48 Comments

On the July 28 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Tamron Hall stated, "Conventional wisdom would argue John McCain benefits by moving on and not talking about Obama's global tour, viewed by many as a success," but added that "McCain is now taking aim at Obama's character and patriotism, also ripping him for not visiting wounded American troops." Hall then aired a clip from an ad released by McCain's campaign that asserts that Obama "made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops." But contrary to Hall's assertion, while Obama did not go to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, he did visit wounded troops on his trip while in Iraq, according to colleague MSNBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who reported during the July 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe that Obama "visited a casualty unit in the Green Zone without photographers as part of the congressional delegation." Indeed, later on July 28, Mitchell confirmed her previous reporting, saying, "I can attest to the fact that he did visit troops in Iraq only four or five days earlier, that there was no notice of it, that I confirmed that it happened, but they had no video of any type and no reporters. And that he's been to Walter Reed. So let's at least get that off the table."

Obama also reportedly made phone calls to wounded soldiers at Landstuhl, according to NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.

Further, Hall did not note that Obama reportedly has previously visited wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Nor did Hall note that the footage accompanying the charge that Obama "made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops" shows Obama playing basketball with U.S. troops during his July 19 visit to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.

Hall also aired a clip of the McCain ad accusing Obama of not holding hearings on Afghanistan, without noting that McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has reportedly not attended a single Armed Services Committee hearing related to Afghanistan in 2007-08. Nor did Hall note, in uncritically airing the McCain ad's claim that Obama "voted against funding our troops," that McCain himself voted against legislation funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or that, as Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, that "Obama has frequently voted to finance the war but was one of 14 Senate Democrats to oppose a war-funding bill last year -- after Republicans removed troop withdrawal deadlines -- saying he did not want to be 'validating the same failed policy in Iraq.' "

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the July 28 edition of MSNBC Live:

HALL: Well, conventional wisdom would argue John McCain would benefit by moving on and not talking about Obama's global tour, viewed by many as a success. But not so fast. McCain is now taking aim at Obama's character and patriotism, also ripping him for not visiting wounded American troops.

NARRATOR [video clip]: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hadn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops. And now, he made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops.

HALL: So the Obama campaign has responded to this ad by saying the trip was canceled out of concern it would be viewed as a political event.

From the July 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

MITCHELL: The background on the military flap is that they had clearly planned a trip to Rammstein, they were planning to visit the injured troops, and then the Pentagon explained they couldn't go as part of a political trip. The Obama campaign thought that they could go, leave the press corps on the tarmac, and then take off with military escort and make this one last visit, as he did, by the way, in Iraq. He visited a casualty unit in the Green Zone without photographers as part of the congressional delegation. But the military said that the rules are that he could only go as part of a previously arranged congressional delegation to Rammstein.

Clearly, people in the campaign are really angry. They had wanted this to be the final stop on the trip here in Germany, and to do it without the press corps, just to do it on his own. But the objections of the military were that he is now being staffed by campaign aides, not by his Senate staff, which -- who were the people who, of course, were with him when he went with [Sen. Chuck] Hagel [R-NE] and [Sen.] Jack Reed [D-RI] in Iraq. So, you know, the anger here is pretty intense at the Pentagon: They feel that the military are, you know, drawing some lines -- they're not saying this publicly, of course -- but drawing lines that they might not have drawn for other people. He was planning to just go by himself, not with cameras, not with any entourage, as he had done in Walter Reed in the past in Washington, as he did in Iraq, Joe.

JOE SCARBOROUGH (host): It's -- it's curious, if that's the case, why the campaign didn't make that announcement yesterday and allowed stories go like this. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of "he said, she said" in the days to come about this.

MITCHELL: Well, but they felt that they couldn't win. Yeah, they felt that they -- that they were in a, you know, no-win situation, that the Pentagon, perhaps, the military with cooperation from some Republican operatives -- I mean, that's the -- the sort of scuttlebutt, that there have been some foreign policy advisers of John McCain with connections in the Pentagon who've had something to do with this, but that is perhaps just the normal political paranoia of the season.

From the July 28 edition of MSNBC Live:

MITCHELL: Should you have guts-ed it out and gone anyway, given the fact that you were damned if you did and damned if you didn't?

GREG CRAIG (Obama senior foreign policy adviser): Well that's the -- there's -- obviously, Senator McCain had two press releases prepared, one -- if we had gone and seen the troops, he would've criticized us for politicizing and exploiting the troops in a political advantage. But we decided that that was something that we did not want to be criticized for, and so we didn't go, and now he's criticizing us for not going. There are about three or four factual misstatements --

MITCHELL: I can attest to the fact that he did visit troops in Iraq only four or five days earlier, that there was no notice of it, that I confirmed that it happened, but they had no video of any type and no reporters. And that he's been to Walter Reed. So let's at least get that off the table.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by snoopy (July 28, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
         
      Day 2 and counting. What's the Obama loving media record of repeating anti Obama statements again?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (July 28, 2008 3:14 pm ET)
           
        The lies are getting out of control, and it is not just FOX that lies about Obama its MSNBC, CNN . Telflon John has the backing of the media.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 28, 2008 3:22 pm ET)
             
          I thought it was Jukebox John? He changes his tune every 3 minutes...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by shoes89 (July 29, 2008 12:17 am ET)
               

            Did anyone actually watch the video? Andrea Mitchell goes on a never-ending defense of Obama for ditching the troops in Germany.

            This post is nothing but silly parsing by MM, IMHO. Anyone watching Hill's story can see that she's talking about Obama's visit to Germany, not Iraq.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by BottleBlonde (July 29, 2008 1:06 am ET)
                 

              How much money did you make by selling your integrity? I hope it was worth it.

              HALL: Well, conventional wisdom would argue John McCain would benefit by moving on and not talking about Obama's global tour, viewed by many as a success. But not so fast. McCain is now taking aim at Obama's character and patriotism, also ripping him for not visiting wounded American troops.

              In the same statement, she talks about his global tour and not visiting wounded soldiers. Without stopping or being interrupted, she talks about the global part of the trip and then she forwards the conservative agenda which wants to portray Obama as a coward and a liar and says he didn't visit any wounded troops.

              And you want to try to claim that it was clear that she was talking only about the part of the trip in Germany? Like I've told several of your friends, if that's what you call thinking, you need to get a new 'thinker'.

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by shoes89 (July 29, 2008 7:10 pm ET)
                   

                I know personal attacks on me go unpunished here, so I won't even comment on that any further.

                As far as the substance of your challenge, you might want to view this ... and offer me an apology.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Max Dharma (July 29, 2008 8:07 pm ET)
                   

                I don’t believe the conservative agenda wants to portray Obama as a coward and a liar as you say, it would seem more like they want to call attention to his not visiting the troops in Germany when he was told that he could not take his campaign personal.

                 

                The “conservative agenda” says: If you cared about the troops Mr. Obama, you would see them regardless if you can take your campaign personal along with you.

                Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (July 28, 2008 3:50 pm ET)
             

          but canceled a visit with wounded troops

          Missed opportunity here. If she had said "with the wounded troops", it could have been parsed in the same way as they tried with Obama visiting the war zones.He didn't visit with every single wounded military person.

          And there could have been 200-300 comments here arguing about common usage of the English language.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (July 28, 2008 5:05 pm ET)
               
            However, if she had said, "the phony soldiers" we'd have a draw.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (July 28, 2008 3:15 pm ET)
         

      Hall did not note that, as NBC's Andrea Mitchell previously reported, Obama did in fact visit wounded troops on his trip while in Iraq...

      There you go with your facts and your actual reality again.  How dare you interrupt McCain's and the media's already decided upon fictional narrative?

      I'll also point out that a more accurate sentence would be "as EVEN NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported..."

      Mitchell's near the top of the list for enabling McCain, factless content, smearing Democrats and unquestiongly repeating GOP talking points.  If she managed to say something about Obama that was true, it's probably by accident.  Even if it was intentional, her reporting on this point was accurate for once, and so ought to be characterized as out of the ordinary.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (July 28, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
           

        Obama did in fact visit wounded troops on his trip while in Iraq...

         

        Of course he did, yet the media does not want to tell you that  , they want you to believe that he hates the troops. That is what Rush tells us also , so it must be true. The GOP tactics are everywhere .

        Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (July 28, 2008 3:37 pm ET)
         

      Hey Tommy,

      What do you think of MMFA's characterization of McCain above? Is it accurate or does it falsely lead one to certain conclusions?  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (July 28, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
           
        Just in case Tommy doesn't come around to help you out, why don't you point out the spin by MMFA that would mislead people. I'm assuming that's what you're implying.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (July 28, 2008 4:10 pm ET)
           

        Hey, AA -

        Why are you asking what Tommy thinks?  Are you incapable of thinking for yourself, or just out of practice??

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Taz (July 28, 2008 4:27 pm ET)
             

          "Why are you asking what Tommy thinks?  Are you incapable of thinking for yourself, or just out of practice?"- wzwriter

          Could be he would like an honest intelligent opinion, something he could never receive from someone like you.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (July 28, 2008 4:35 pm ET)
               

            Could be he would like an honest intelligent opinion, something he could never receive from someone like you.

            Oh - look who slithered out from under his rock.  It's Taz, or a banned poster's sockpuppet.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (July 28, 2008 5:20 pm ET)
               
            Are you going to contribute anything tangible to this discussion, Taz?  Or are you just gonna hit me with more of your lame attacks?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (July 28, 2008 4:25 pm ET)
           
        AA, I am not entirely sure exactly what you are referring too? 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (July 28, 2008 4:36 pm ET)
             
          I don't think he's exactly sure either Tommy. Hence the cry for help. Good luck.  ;0)
          Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (July 28, 2008 4:38 pm ET)
             

          I am referring to the part above where MMFA discusses McCain.

          To save lots more snarkiness by our friends here who seem to have nothing better to do; my point is that (imho) MMFA mischaracterizes McCain's positions with the troops as you felt McCain was doing in your criticism of McCain in the earlier thread regarding Obama and the troops.

          I am just interested in finding out if you feel there is a similarity here and if so, your thoughts. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (July 28, 2008 4:50 pm ET)
               

             MMFA mischaracterizes McCain's positions with the troops (AA)

            How so?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (July 28, 2008 4:51 pm ET)
               

            AA,

            I thought you meant something else, like Mitchell throwing out the idea that McCain and/or Republican operatives played a part in this mix-up/misunderstanding or whatever it was.

            MITCHELL: Well, but they felt that they couldn't win. Yeah, they felt that they -- that they were in a, you know, no-win situation, that the Pentagon, perhaps, the military with cooperation from some Republican operatives -- I mean, that's the -- the sort of scuttlebutt, that there have been some foreign policy advisers of John McCain with connections in the Pentagon who've had something to do with this, but that is perhaps just the normal political paranoia of the season.

            Just another example of the media being guilty of reporting "scuttlebutt" instead of facts

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Sueelldd (July 28, 2008 4:53 pm ET)
               
            AA , how exactly is MMFA mischaracterizing McBush?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (July 28, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
               

            If I may, I have to believe that you're referring to this:

            "Nor did Hall note, in uncritically airing the McCain ad's claim that Obama "voted against funding our troops," that McCain himself voted against legislation funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq..."

            If that is a genuine negative, then it's a negative for McCain.  But if the point is that such a vote doesn't really say anything about supporting the troops, then it doesn't say anything about McCain either.  So I'm not sure what "characterization" you think was made, since I'm not seeing what judgment MMfA is making regarding that vote.

            And if you're talking about something else, nobody seems to know what that would be. 

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (July 28, 2008 5:14 pm ET)
               

            AA,

            I am not sure if I am responding exactly to what you are referring too, but let me say, as I did in the earlier thread, that I draw a very clear distinction between pundits, or media watchdog websites and candidates themselves.  I hold candidates to much higher standards to leave questioning ones patriotism to more provocative, headline seeking commentators and the like.

            To reiterate, I don't need one candidate lecturing me on another's patriotic motives or anything of the sort.  It's beneath the belt, and personally speaking, that is pretty low already for politicians. 

            Report Abuse
    • Author by commonsenseliberal (July 28, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
         

      Keep it up, right-wingers...

      We will see an election which harkens back to the 90's...

      McCain will lose this election just as badly, if not worse, than Bob Dole back in '96.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (July 28, 2008 5:10 pm ET)
         
      AA, you have created a fantasy person you call Barack Obama. When the real guy does something that doesn't match your creation, you ignore it. When he does anything that you can interpret in a negative light, that's where you go. I do not respect a person who will not at least try to be fair and will not respond to any more of your posts.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BottleBlonde (July 28, 2008 5:46 pm ET)
           

        That's how I feel about John McCain. With his latest ad, he says that Barack Obama voted against funding the troops. If we were to use the same criteria, we could say that John McCain also voted against troop funding though! It makes no sense, and makes McCain a hypocrite.

        For a Republican, McCain used to be halfway-decent. He's now corrupt.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 29, 2008 9:52 am ET)
             

          we could say that John McCain also voted against troop funding though!

          We could, if McCain had actually shown up for any of the votes this year.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by neondesert (July 28, 2008 5:58 pm ET)
           

        Are you saying, In other words, that AA is a reactionary conservative without original thought?  Someone who looks toward limpaugh and hannity for life's answers?  Someone who disregards his nation's future to play political games, not because of concrete, well-reasoned ideologies, but because he already hitched his wagon to a conservative horse, and he's bound to ride it out until the end of the road?  Are you saying, in other words, that AA is a 30-something greasy-haired pot-bellied mama's boy whose very portrait would be a silhouette cast in the bluish light of a 17" monitor glowing in his parents nondescript suburban basement where the foil-covered windows creat air as stagnant as the greenish water of a fish tank with a broken circulation pump?

        Well, I think you might have made some assumptions that just aren't fair.

        Tommy, what do you think?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (July 28, 2008 6:23 pm ET)
             

          I don't think Tommy would mind me answering for him, as he often refers to me as "The Fairest Poster of Them All". I think you've gone wildly off-base with your assumptions about what Mary has assumed.

          If you'd been paying any attention to "the facts", you'd remember that AA was tricked out of going off to fight the war in VietNam, when he so desperately wanted to serve, by his liberal college professors, so he would more likely be in his 60s or 70s than his 30s.

          Statistically, his mother would have passed away, and he would have inherited the house, so he would be sitting in his own basement.

          While I can't point out where any of your other assumed assumptions are provably wrong, I can't provide any evidence of their accuracy either. Probably pretty close, though.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (July 28, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
           

        Ooooh, Mary. Thems fightin' words. You go, girl. Are you fed up with AA's 'truthiness".

        "We're not talking about truth, we're talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist" Stephen T. (sexy) Colbert

        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 29, 2008 11:59 am ET)
           

        Mary,

        You look good up there on that high horse. However there never was any requirement that you respond to any of my posts, so publicly stating you are not going to do so is of no consequence. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (July 29, 2008 12:51 pm ET)
             

          ...but I won't hold you to it. 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (July 29, 2008 1:03 pm ET)
             
          Mary looks good on any horse. As for you, quite a lot of temerity in accusing anyone else of being on a high horse. Perhaps you could take her point about the honesty factor if it's within your character to do so. But I won't hold you to it.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by eniobob2631 (July 28, 2008 7:48 pm ET)
         
      Got a sister to pile on,wow!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (July 28, 2008 9:10 pm ET)
         

      What an entertaining lot.  And to think, we all labor here for free: wits, nitwits, halfwits...and that's just me.  Anyway, I think it's important to have different opinions but if we want to really have a productive discussion, there has to be some degree of honesty about what the real facts are.

      In conclusion, If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?
      Will Rogers

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by heru (July 28, 2008 9:37 pm ET)
         

      McDevil's ad is a racist appeal to ignorant white people. He's obviously trying to stereotype Obama. The video of the gym shot has been intentionally darkened to blur the troops in the background. Thats why the narrator can pretend that Obama never saw any troops. This modification also allows McDevil to frame Obama as a kind of baller/rapper stereotype.

      McDevil is truly desperate now.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 29, 2008 9:57 am ET)
           
        As opposed to McCain, who is a fish wrapper stereotype.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jinxer (July 29, 2008 11:43 am ET)
         

      MSNBC's Tamron Hall

      I think it's fair to say that this piece by Ms Hall was just shoddy journalism on her part....no background checks, verification and/or confirmation of sources to legitimize her story.

      Beyond that, I'd like to think this info is in the hopper concerning Barack & the wounded troops....he saw them.....it's too damn bad that America can't witness that. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by PlankySmith (July 30, 2008 2:25 pm ET)
         
      Obviously, if it wasn't photographed or videotaped it didn't happen. Don't you people get that yet? ;P
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.