Fox News' Ham falsely claimed Obama "need[ed] changing political winds" to support designating Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group
SUMMARY: On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Mary Katharine Ham falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "need[ed] changing political winds" to support designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. In fact, Obama has consistently supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, having co-sponsored a bill in 2007 to do so.
On the September 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News analyst Mary Katharine Ham falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "need[ed] changing political winds" to support designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Ham stated of Gov. Sarah Palin: "She's not a woman who needs 300 foreign policy advisers to tell her that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist group. She doesn't need changing political winds to tell her that, as Obama did." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Obama has consistently supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, having co-sponsored a bill in 2007 expressing the sense of the Congress that "[t]he Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization" and "the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
From the September 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY (host): Hold it. I'll get -- you can have the last word, Mary Katharine, uninterrupted. I'll try, desperately. Juan --
HAM: All right.
O'REILLY: -- there's no evidence that Barack Obama has any special insight into complicated foreign problems. There's no evidence at all. So, I'm telling you, Palin -- I'm agreeing. I don't know what she knows. She's doing the company line.
JUAN WILLIAMS (Fox News political analyst): Right.
O'REILLY: That's what VPs do, OK?
WILLIAMS: That's all she's doing. She's never met a foreign leader.
O'REILLY: She's doing the company line.
WILLIAMS: She's done no travel. Oh, my gosh. Come on.
O'REILLY: All right.
WILLIAMS: And you're going to put her in as president of the United States?
HAM: But, listen.
O'REILLY: Go ahead. Let Mary Katharine have the last word.
HAM: Well, first of all, she ain't running for president of the United States. She's the VP. Barack Obama is at the top of his ticket with little experience.
And I think this speech -- in this speech, you see a speech of clarity, of moral clarity, on international issues. She's not a woman who needs 300 foreign policy advisers to tell her that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist group. She doesn't need changing political winds to tell her that, as Obama did. And she's a straight thinker, and a straight talker --
O'REILLY: Well -- well, you know, when she comes in here to chat with me --
HAM: -- and she's somebody who's bringing a great message to the UN.
O'REILLY: -- we'll see, right?
Ham: [Palin]'s somebody who's bringing a great message to the UN.
Ok, I have a sincere question: does any conservative here know what that message is?
I think it's something with plenty of moral clarity. Or fan mail from some flounder.
Now that's what I really call a message...
Thanks, but no thanks on the bridge to nowhere?
Her message is republicans can do no wrong and should be given power because they are just human, like Barracuda...
Republican official seen failing sobriety test in police video
Says Palin nomination helps him by showing "everybody who's running for political office is as human as those sitting back home"
A Republican councilman in Columbia, SC was arrested for drunken driving in July, the third DUI arrest for Paul Lindemann, who is currently running for reelection.
His local paper, the Rock Hill Herald, has now obtained a police video of the arrest through a Freedom of Information Act request and has made it public. According to the police report, Lindemann was "highly intoxicated" and "significantly impaired" and had nearly run into two motorcyclists several times.
In the video, Lindemann agrees to take a sobriety test but repeatedly fails to get through the alphabet, attempting instead to segue from "W" back to "H." He has even more trouble counting backwards from 32 to 18, stammering, "32-31-32-30 -- 31-32-31-32-33-33 -- 31-32-30-29 -- 19-18-17-16-18 -- 20-21-22."
He is then arrested.
A month following his arrest, Lindemann was seen driving to a City Council meeting, even though his license had been suspended. He offered the reporter who approached him a flurry of conflicting explanations for why he was allowed to drive, all of them apparently false.
"I'm going to get everything resolved with the charge, and we're going to win in November as well," Lindemann insisted after the video was released. He also suggested that vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's current problems may help him, because "people have started to recognize that everybody who's running for political office is as human as those sitting back home."
Yeah! You're worthless!
Wait. Palin is going to tell the U.N. that they (the UN) are worthless, or that Governor is worthless? Am I missing a joke, or are you just implying that Palin is as insane as she seems?
Regardless, Col., the truth is that nobody knows what Palin's message for the UN is. McCain says it's none of our business.
Regardless, Col., the truth is that nobody knows what Palin's message for the UN is.
Her message is probably: "Brace yourselves - if we win in November, we're bringing John Bolton back as the US Ambassador to straighten you losers out!!!"
CNN just pulled the plug on Palin. She told the press that most wouldn't be allowed in and only for photo ops, so CNN packed their bags and went home. Looks like the McCain plan of limited access is backfiring...
Wow, even Fox News is reporting on the Palin Media Blackout:
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/palin-media-blackout-continues/
Worst. Campaign. Ever.
THIS interview. Sorry, I just think it's not polite to post links like that. And I'm pretty fvcking polite.
...does any conservative here know what that message is?
Uhhh...I can see Russia from Alaska?
Governor, I'm no conservative, but clearly Palin's "great message" is that Alaska is going to secede from the U.N.
She will explain that's the case because "The U.N cannot be seen from Alaska."
She may be what passes for a straight talker, but she sure as hell is no straight thinker. Neither is Gramps McHoover.
Being a thinker would kill any Republicans chance at running for national office. A thinking person is an elitist.
Well, they all saw what happened to Springfield when the Council of The Learned was in charge. They had to make litter out of those literati!
Shaggles - I have to agree with you. We need more diplomacy and less labeling of nations that we do not like. Hopefully Obama will talk to Iran and engage them.
Agreed. American military attacks on Iraq led to 100,000 civilian deaths. Who are we to define part of a country's military as "terrorist".
Gov,
Lets be clear. Are you saying the American Military are terrorists?
No.
If you would be so kind, please then explain your comment about our military, 100,000 civilian deaths and why we shouldn't define the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists?
AA
I can not speak for Governor, but American military action in Iraq where 100K plus civilians are dead would be considered "terrorist" activity by Bush and his administration if Russia or Iran were engaged in a war that we disagreed with.
I would say the people who ordered an unprovoked attack on a defenseless nation are war criminals (Are the terms terrorists and war criminal synonymous?).
If the US can deem a branch of the Iranian military to be a terrorist group, I would be interested in seeing the specific definition. It seems to me that the US attack on Iraq could or would be potentially terrorist by that very definition.
Gov., if you actually take the time to come back and "explain" your comment (which seemed pretty clear) to Barney Fife, could you give him a cookie and put him down for his nap when you're finished? I think enough thread space is taken up here with providing day care services for him already.
I just hope my explanation was ok with him. I would hate to be in non-compliance with some other American.
I can not figure out this new format but here is the web site again
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/palin_leaders
I'm surprised that no pundits are able to point out that John McCain is running one of the worst presidential campaigns by a major party candidate ever.
Sshhhhhh - It's a secret.
'She's doing the company line...' Well, I guess that's better than Cheney- he's fisting the country from behind!
'She's doing the company line...'
You mean like this?
The Assumption Continue
There is so much assumption created arround the middle east. One of those assumption is that all Americans are on board with Republican talking points. I am not and could care less about the Surge, the Gaurd, and many of the other booggie men they try to throw my way.
Critical World
They have told us: "For the first debate, John McCain has a clear advantage." Are they crazy? McCain is outmatched and "presidently challenged." The man does not have very much stage presence and is easily shaken by his own mistakes. In other words, he lacks the ability to come back spontaneously.
What I stated is a fact; it can be proven by looking at the many video takes of him be caught in a lie by reporters. On Friday, he will be caught in many lies, and his heart will be broken when he is told " so what we won the Surge." He acts like it is such a big deal that the most advanced military in the world won a so-called offensive against a third world opponent. No McSame no one is surprised we won the Surge.
Joseph
caught in a lie by reporters...
Even Joy from the view called him on his lies. The lies are there in the open for all to see - except those who prefer to be ignorant.
Small correction - we didn't "win" the surge. There has been no political settlement which was the stated reason for the surge (I hate that word - call it what it is - an escalation)
I think the first debate is on Domestic policy so they won't be asked about the surge.
I was reading a diary over at Daily Kos specifically on what Obama and Biden should say about the surge. There were a lot of suggestions but I don't think they would work to Obama or Biden's advantage. They took the wrong approach when the surge was announced. They should have opposed it on the grounds that our country should not be placing more troops in a situation that is not and never was critical to our nation's security and whose people cleary did not want us there.
Lets Talk Real Truths
I agree with your statement they took the wrong approach, however, I disagree with what they should of challenged. There was no need for a Surge to rid the Iraqi people of Al Qaeda in Iraq to begin with.
Night after night, I watched the MSM build up what was supposed to amount to 2% of the problem in Iraq to a well organized fighting element. This administration needed a "killing field" and used Al Qaeda to mask the elimination of one of the civil combatants tearing the country apart.
By the time they begun the Surge, they decided to pay off most of one side while they used special opps to kill the rest. The only way they could stop the violence in Iraq was to eliminate one of the civil combatants. That is what the Democratis should of chellanged concering the Surge.
Joseph
Don't you have a puppy to go beat or something?
thOrN pUncH keyBoarD and MakE cOmMenT fuNnY at ObaMa. ThOrn nO PunCh pUpPieS.
Are you trying to disrupt the board?
I thought than any district attorney worth his salt could indict a Mary Katharine Ham sandwich.
They could put Ham in Rye,NY She'd be in a pickle and should get her head checked at the Mayo. (ripped off from Airplane 1)
Sorry, hit the send key too soon. You see that the article focuses on the finding that the Liberal group, when presented with corrected information, do not return all the way to agreeing with the corrected statement. Some continued to believe the misinformation statement. What the authors pointed out on NPR, and what the article does not address, is this. When the Conservative group was presented with the corrected information the percentage of Conservatives exposed to the initial misinformation almost DOUBLED their espoused belief in the initial misinformation. In other words, the study found that correcting misinformation to Conservatives actually reinforced their belief that the initial misinformation was true. The authors hypothesize that the emotions Conservatives associated with initial Conservative misinformation was so strong that the corrected information--even though given as true--was so emotionally threatening that the "truth" of the initial misinformation was reinforced. So, based on the interview I heard on NPR, this article itself is a study in misinformation.
Odd that I can't find this on NPR, searching either by title or author. I also notice that the WP article does not link to the original study. Appreciate any links you wizkids can find. Think I'll contact NPR.