Hannity falsely claimed Obama "abandon[ed] the troop visit because the cameras weren't ... allowed"
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.
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama canceled a visit with wounded soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center "because the cameras weren't ... allowed and the campaign wasn't allowed." But in discussing an ad by Sen. John McCain's campaign that makes the same claim, NBC's Andrea Mitchell stated, "The McCain commercial on this subject is completely wrong, factually wrong." Further, ABC's Jake Tapper and Time's Karen Tumulty both noted that McCain's campaign has provided "no evidence" to support the assertion that Obama canceled the visit because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras."
On the July 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that Sen. Barack Obama canceled a visit with wounded soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because he was not allowed to bring cameras along on the visit. Hannity asserted that Obama "abandon[ed] the troop visit because the cameras weren't around -- allowed and the campaign wasn't allowed."
In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, on the July 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell stated, "There was never any intention -- let me be absolutely clear about this. The press was never going to go. The entourage was never going to go. There was never an intention to make this political." She later said, "And the McCain commercial on this subject is completely wrong, factually wrong." Further, according to Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass, "We told military officials explicitly that Senator Obama had absolutely no intention of bringing any members of the media or photographers in with him to visit the wounded warriors" at Landstuhl. ABC senior national correspondent Jake Tapper and Time national political correspondent Karen Tumulty both noted in reference to a McCain campaign ad, which similarly asserts that Obama canceled the visit because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras," that the McCain campaign has provided "no evidence" to support that assertion. Additionally, after MSNBC's Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough asked why the McCain campaign thought Obama didn't visit the troops on the July 29 edition of that show, campaign manager Rick Davis acknowledged: "I don't know what the truth is."
As Media Matters has also noted, while Obama did not go to Landstuhl, in recent weeks he did reportedly visit wounded troops -- without media present -- at a casualty unit in Iraq and at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
From the July 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: So how did Senator Barack Obama's oversea trip resonate with voters? A brand-new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that only Democrats were impressed, with 53 percent calling the trip positive. Republicans overwhelmingly reject -- overwhelmingly rejected the trip, while 41 percent of independents held no opinion at all. The poll also reveals voters are twice as likely to classify media coverage of Obama as unfairly positive rather than unfairly negative, and in the case of McCain, the opposite is the truth, with many more seeing coverage of him as negative.
Joining us now, nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mike Gallagher, former [House Minority Leader Dick] Gephardt [D-MO] campaign manager Steve Elmendorf, and Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley.
Mike, you and I talk about this often on the radio. No big surprises here, especially in light of him, you know, abandoning the troop visit because the cameras weren't around -- allowed and the campaign wasn't allowed. I think this is a net negative for him in the end. Your thoughts?
GALLAGHER: Oh, it has to be. I mean, it's -- it's stunning that he's not -- doesn't have a commanding lead right now in the polls. But even with the fawning media coverage, the kernels of truth slip out.
From the July 29 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: You say that he's stunned by the truth. What is the truth as you see it? Why -- are -- are you suggesting that Barack Obama does not value the service of our men and women in uniform?
DAVIS: No, I'm sure he does. And I'm sure that the men and women in our uniform would've valued the -- the visit that he had indicated early on that he was gonna make, you know, when he -- when he arrived in Landstuhl. I don't know what the truth is, because out of the Obama campaign themselves and Mr. Gibbs in particular, there have been probably 11 separate excuses for why they didn't visit the troops. Now, if they don't know why they didn't visit the troops, I'm sure as heck not gonna figure it out.
Anyone here need any more proof that the press (especially fox) is in the bag for McCain?
Didn't think so...
I want Sean Hannity to admit his role in inspiring Jim David Addison to shoot up a Unitarian Church:
Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault."
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
Source - http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/
It's been over half a week, and Hannity has yet to publicly denounce his fan and alleged murderer, Jim Adkisson, or to directly distance himself from the church gunman. Hannity has been a mentor and author to Adkisson for several years now, and it is beyond the realm of credibility to assume that Adkisson was not aware of Hannity's dislike of liberalism and the liberal policies associated with this particular church. Hannity was married and his children were baptized in a church based on christianity like the one patronized by infamous gunman Jim Adkisson. Hannitys silence in denouncing Adkisson leads one to conclude that Hannity advocates firearm violence in unitarian places of worship, and he should resign his position at Fox news.
It is also well known that Hannity insisted that cameras be present when he held his vigil outside Terri Schiavos hospital.
It is also well known that Hannity insisted that cameras be present when he held his vigil outside Terri Schiavos hospital.
And don't they have cameras present at his "Freedom Concerts", where people are fleeced to raise cash for Ollie North's bogus charity?
...that the McCain campaign has provided "no evidence" to support that assertion. Additionally
So, in other words, the McCain campaign made it up...and Sean Hannity is repeating made up stuff. But, wait...don't they do this every week? Why is this news...? ;>)
' McCain ... campaign manager Rick Davis acknowledged: "I don't know what the truth is." '
Was he referring to this specific issue, or was this more of a general confession?
Obama is damned if he makes the visit, and is damned if he doesn't.
If he doesn't go, he's unpatriotic and hates the troops. If does go, he's a political opportunist who hates the troops.
The "always wrong" mantra is built into the mechanism of the right-wing slime machine, and it's activated by desperation.
Sean's a little slow on the uptake.
This whole thing was debunked a couple of days ago.
It's dead. Hannity's just humping the corpse.
That is the real question , and the answer is Yes. Hannity has to have an impact he is 2nd in radio to Rush the druggie and his FAUX show is top rated at 9pm. They stupid and uneducated white racist will listen to Hannity and truly believe anything he says.
My feeling has always been Hannity is far more dangerous than even O'Reilly. Hannity reaches more and can do more damage. I do hope Obama learned from the FOX Smear machine in 04.
FOX and Friends also tends to play that smear game.
You will find out tonight or tomorrow about Hannity's rant against Obama in regard to Obama's association with (i.e. lack of disavowing in a timely manner) the rap musician Ludicris.
This coming from a man who has never distanced himself from, or disavowed the actions of, a number of his Favorite Pundit Pals:
1. One who, years ago, was caught up in a bribery for votes scandal.
2. One who deliberately, and with premeditation was an architect in the smuggling of guns and drugs, engaged in shredding Government Documents and deliberately, with malice of for-thought, lied to The Congress of the United States.
3. One who entertained himself in fetishistic sexual practices with prostitutes.
4. One who was a conspirator in revealing the name of a secret agent during wartime.
These are not paranoid delusions or meanderings but notable facts.(I leave the research verification to the posters at MMFA)
Hannity has not seen fit to disparage, or even question the actions of, _these_ characters.
He is a shameful broadcaster.
My feeling has always been Hannity is far more dangerous than even O'Reilly.
Yes...but only to the extent that Hannity has a lock on the misinformed, ignorant, racist and loony. If ever you want to be entertained, or frightened, go to Hannity's website and click on the forum...
http://www.hannity.com/
These people are nuts...and they would believe Hannity if he said that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party have been secretly funneling nuclear arms to AlQaeda. These people are truly hopeless...they are beyond help. They will NEVER vote anything other than according to the strict ideological mandates of the loony far right. The question is whether Hannity can reach any undecideds...
The former manager of the New York Yankees, the late Billy Martin, once said that on any ball club there will be a few players who hate the manager and a few who love the manager...but most players would be somewhere in the undecided middle. He said the key to being a good manager was to keep the ones who hated him away from those in the middle. ;>)
Some of his listeners are just unfortunates who work for morons and have to listen to that garbage in the shop or the warehouse or the office. Others are just the misled, who started listening because they heard it at home and haven't grown up and woken up - yet. Some are elderly people who really are patriotic and well-meaning, but they're just gullible, having grown up when the "news" was less market-driven and bore a greater resemblance to actual facts. Some are those who are just genuinely terrified of the various Rove/Murdoch-created "others" and can't see what's happening in this country because their vision is clouded by fear. Still others are actually non-believers who just want to know what this maniac is up to. I think it's a mistake to paint them all with the same broad brush - as it is a mistake to lump all of the people who post here into one group.
Yesterday I tuned in to Hannity's rant to hear about this issue and I nearly ran my car off the road when I heard some brave soul call him out for deliberately lying to his listeners when the truth was already known. How this young man got through the screeners I can't imagine, but all Hannity could do was cut him off and go on parroting the RNC line. It shook him, if only for a few minutes.
HANNITY: "So how did Senator Barack Obama's oversea trip resonate with voters? ... Republicans overwhelmingly reject -- overwhelmingly rejected the trip..."
Little help here. How do you "reject" a trip? Does that mean pretending it doesn't exist, or didn't happen? I know there are people who think the moon landings were a hoax, maybe the tinfoil hat Fox Friends think it was all staged.
Sorry, I just found that phrasing pretty funny. Hannity and others have been going pretty crazy that Obama didn't fall enthusiastically into The Surge® True believers after his Iraq trip, citing it as evidence that his mind is closed, that he's inflexible. Nothing short of complete and absolute submission to The Surge® would indicate any open-mindedness on Obama's part.
Now, those Republicans who "reject" Obama's overseas trip, on the other hand... I sense some real deep analysis going down there.
I can't decide who is Crazier/Nuttier, Savage or Hannity. If Geo Bush sticks to his decision, he is a leader and should be commended. When anyone on the Correct side of the aisle stands by their statements, they are stubborn and can't lead. The Cons are just plain CRAZY.
I think that Seannie the Sissy is the next Savage. Writing to Seannie right now to try help him. I'll ket you know his answer. :)
Why am I not surprised that someone with numbers at the end of their user name is standing up for that scumbag Hannity? These right-wing dunderheads are getting far too predictable.
Is that you, Science101? Or are you Rino Hunter?
"Who is saying it is false, just because Obama says it was for another reason doesn't make it so..."
Andrea Mitchell... WHO WAS THERE ...is saying it is false.
Also, why do you Hannity, O'really, and Savage-Weiner sycophants have such trouble constructing a simple, coherent sentence with punctuation and spelling and everything?
******************************************
Unless you meant "teleGRAPH" Col:
.- -. -.. .-. . .- -- .. - -.-. .... . .-.. .-.. .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- .-- .... --- .-- .- ... - .... . .-. . .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- .. ... ... .- -.-- .. -. --. .. - .. ... ..-. .- .-.. ... . .-.-.- .- .-.. ... --- --..-- .-- .... -.-- -.. --- -.-- --- ..- .... .- -. -. .. - -.-- --..-- --- .----. .-. . .- .-.. .-.. -.-- --..-- .- -. -.. ... .- ...- .- --. . -....- .-- . .. -. . .-. ... -.-- -.-. --- .--. .... .- -. - ... .... .- ...- . ... ..- -.-. .... - .-. --- ..- -... .-.. . -.-. --- -. ... - .-. ..- -.-. - .. -. --. .- ... .. -- .--. .-.. . --..-- -.-. --- .... . .-. . -. - ... . -. - . -. -.-. . .-- .. - .... .--. ..- -. -.-. - ..- .- - .. --- -. .- -. -.. ... .--. . .-.. .-.. .. -. --. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-. -.-- - .... .. -. --. ..--..
Love your work, Neon. I meant telegram.
BTW, I know Morse code. No thank you, I don't even own a loofah.
You'd think they'd learn.
It doesn't get them any more credibility to try to claim that "I'm usually not a Fox supporter, but in this case I am" or "I'm a Democrat, but I just can't support the Democrat Party right now" or "I used to be a Democrat, but after they started with all the lies and distortions, I had to leave". I like that last one best. Somehow your philosophical and political leanings changed because of the way people holding the same political leanings that you hold didn't act honestly? Their behavior doesn't change your political leanings!
Saying that you're not a big Fox subscriber (?) doesn't increase your credibility. Making credible comments increases your credibility. Statements like the one I copied above decrease your credibility.
Where's your proof, Nuisance? Or do you believe in ideological truths rather than objective facts?
It looks like the powers that be a MMFA believe that General Nusiance was a troll. And now he's gone....
MORE proof? You mean like there IS some already?
I'd be interested to see it, because the last real study I saw seemed to indicate the opposite.
Then again, could it be just your imagination... runnin' away with you?
Anyone ever notice that when MMfA posts a thread that is beyond refutable.... in other words.... pure and unadulterated truth.... with full context to boot that those that like to spread rightwing talking points or try to defend by attacking the messenger instead of the message stay away from these particular threads!
Oh where oh where is Science101? or AA? or DEMS_SOL?
I've noticed that as well, Capt, even this week. It's an interesting phenomenon.
They would gain credibility if they admitted the errors of the pundits on their side of the fence when they're made.
They would gain credibility if they would admit when they were wrong, or when their arguments were debunked. They'd do better if they wouldn't simply leave a discussion when it was clear that their talking points had fallen flat. Just the other day as an example, Jeter and Tommy both claimed that I was against derailing threads, but that I was derailing a thread myself. I explained that it wasn't that I was against derailing threads, but that I was against someone who said she was against derailing threads but then proceeded to really derail a thread! It was the hypocrisy I was against. Most fair Democrats here would go back and admit their error. Not Tommy or Jeter. Once that talking point was disproven, crickets.
I hope they don't figure this out for a couple of election cycles. We need to rid our country of the influence of the Republicans in power currently. They've tainted the political process to such an extent that even John McCain, a Republican that Democrats used to could stomach, has introduced Karl Rove sycophants into his campaign. It's disgusting how far away from the 'maverick' John McCain has moved, and it's because of the influence of Karl Rove and his buddies.
The Republican Party needs to rid themselves of those creeps, but somehow the failures of the party regulars to win the nomination didn't clue McCain in that it had to stop. For some reason, the lowest Presidential approval rating in history hasn't clued them in. The losses in Republican-leaning seats in Congressional special elections hasn't clued them in.
It's a clear sign that until those in power are out of power, the Republican Party can't be trusted. I hope they keep up this nonsense until there's a revolt from the real conservatives in our nation and they boot out the neocons and the Bushites and the Karl Rove's of the world. I think they need at least one more trouncing in an election to learn that lesson.
BOTTLEBLONDE, Your lastpost is 100% correct. Wwll said.
Jeter likes a fight. He's fessed up before on error.
Tommy's another case entirely.
Niether is without merit. Either can be maddening, though I give Tommy the edge here.
I remember the good old days,You know when Barack and Hilliary were going back and forth,
I couldn't wait for that to end,and when it did I think that we all took a breather,the garbage that is going on now is so immature and insulting to our intelligence that its is truley--I am looking for a word .I am quite sure someone will come up with one.
I've posted several comments on this blog or whatever youi call it and you have refused to post every single one. Therefore, I am going to unsubscribe from receiving Media Matters. Waste of time. I never agree with your opinions anyway. You are far left liberals not interested in the truth. Bye now and have a nice day!