Hannity again mischaracterized Obama's "air-raiding villages" statement, praised Palin for bringing up comment
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity praised Gov. Sarah Palin for citing Sen. Barack Obama's remark that more coalition forces are needed in Afghanistan "so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Hannity did not note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently offered Afghans "sincere condolences and personal regrets for the recent loss of innocent life as a result of coalition airstrikes" and that news outlets have repeatedly reported that U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan have resulted in civilian casualties.
On the October 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity repeatedly praised Gov. Sarah Palin for citing during the vice-presidential debate Sen. Barack Obama's August 13, 2007, remark that "[w]e've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." However, Hannity -- who has repeatedly criticized Obama's remark, including during an October 1 interview with Palin -- did not note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently apologized for deaths resulting from coalition airstrikes, saying in a September 17 statement: "I offer all Afghans my sincere condolences and personal regrets for the recent loss of innocent life as a result of coalition airstrikes. While no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder. I have asked for a detailed briefing this afternoon about our close air support as well as our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations." Gates' comments were noted in an Associated Press report published, among other places, on FoxNews.com.
Further, Hannity again did not note that U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan and accounts of resulting civilian casualties have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" the day after Obama's remark: "Western forces have been killing [Afghan] civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents."
Moreover, during the show, Hannity mischaracterized Obama's remark, falsely claiming that Obama "said he would air-raid villages and kill civilians." Hannity said to former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: "I think there were devastating moments in this debate for Joe Biden. The white flag of surrender. 'You said, Senator, that Barack Obama voting against the troops would cost lives. You even wanted to run with him.' Barack Obama said he'd air-raid villages and kill civilians. She was on message every point." As Media Matters for America has documented, Hannity has previously falsely suggested that Obama "attack[ed] our troops as murderers," claimed that Obama's comments were "not true," and otherwise repeatedly attacked Obama's remark (here, here, here, and here) without noting the widely reported U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan.
During the October 2 debate, Palin said: "Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause."
On the October 1 broadcast of his radio show, Hannity said to Palin:
HANNITY: Let me ask you this: And I, when we spoke in our interview on Fox News Channel, we were talking about your relationship, and your son, he was going to fight in Iraq. Everybody knows that Senator McCain knows the reality of war first hand, and his son also has fought in Iraq. One of the issues that has come up is now the issue of national security, and I am sure its going to be a big part of the debate tomorrow night. How do you respond to Senator Obama, who has said that he would "cut tens of billions of dollars in defense spending," that Iran is a tiny country and not a serious threat, and Senator Obama, who once accused our troops of air raiding villages and killing civilians?
Palin began her response to Hannity by saying: "Well, it's beyond naïve, it's downright dangerous to consider that those have been Obama's positions and that now that the defense of those positions of course he attempts to spin out of those statements that he's already made."
On the October 2 Hannity & Colmes, Hannity also said to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): "Do you think that's fair to say that about our brave men and women while they're fighting a war, that they're air raiding villages and killing civilians?" In a later segment during the post-debate show, Hannity said to Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO): "I also thought, 'Finally someone brought up' -- I have been saying this for, finally she brought it up tonight, what he said about our troops, which is unforgivable, that they're air-raiding villages and killing civilians. I just got into this with the Congresswoman. That is unforgivable, Senator Obama. And he ought to apologize. And he ought to be called by the media to apologize for that."
From the October 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: I think there were devastating moments in this debate for Joe Biden. The white flag of surrender. "You said, Senator, that Barack Obama voting against the troops would cost lives. You even wanted to run with him." Barack Obama said he'd air-raid villages and kill civilians. She was on message every point. It was --
GIULIANI: One of the very best debate performances I've ever seen by anyone. And only the liberal media could deny her this victory.
[...]
HANNITY: But let me ask you this. Let me tell you -- the most effective moments were on foreign policy when Joe Biden himself had said that the Presidency doesn't lend itself to on the job training, Governor Palin brought that up. "You said that if you voted against funding the troops," Joe Biden said about Barack Obama, "it would cost lives." Barack Obama said about our troops in Afghanistan, "They're air raiding villages and killing civilians," and Governor Palin brought that up tonight. Do you think that's fair to say that about our brave men and women while they're fighting a war, that they're air-raiding villages and killing civilians?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We're talking about someone who has been to Canada and Mexico, and has never met a world leader before. But --
HANNITY: I'm going to ask you again, do you think that's right for your candidate to accuse the American troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I think what Joe Biden talked about tonight was the fact that we really need to be investing --
HANNITY: You can't answer a question; you're just like Joe Biden.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No. I will answer the questions that are relevant to this Presidential campaign.
HANNITY: He wants to be the commander-in-chief.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We need to make sure that we move our troops, not from Iraq, but that we move them into Afghanistan where the war on terror really exists.
HANNITY: You don't think it's relavant that you're commander-in-chief is accusing our troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don't think that's --
HANNITY: You don't think that's relevant?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don't think he's done that.
HANNITY: I'll give you ten thousand dollars if he didn't for your campaign.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: OK. I'll take your ten thousand dollars.
HANNITY: And you give me a thousand dollars if I don't.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And I'll make sure that we have Joe Biden and Barack Obama leading this country --
HANNITY: Barack Obama said our troops were air raiding villages and killing civilians.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: -- move the troops to Afghanistan where the war on terror exists today. That's what Joe Biden was making the case for.
[...]
HANNITY: Good to see you. The white flag of surrender, Obama air raiding villages and killing civilians, that in spite of what you said would turn unflinchingly and look right at him, and say, "In spite of your warning to him, he still voted to cut off funding for the troops." I thought it was a masterful performance.
LIEBERMAN: She was brilliant tonight -- all the more impressive because there were so many people, who either had doubts about her, or were trying to create doubts. I mean, she hit it out of the ballpark.
[...]
HANNITY: She even said at one time, talking about meeting with preconditions with rogue dictators, "It's beyond naïve. It's beyond judgment. It's outright dangerous." And when she brought up the line about air-raiding villages and killing civilians and using Senator Obama in his own words, and even saying, "Senator Biden, even you said this about Senator Obama." Did you think that was an effective technique?
WOLFSON: Well, Sean, my attitude is if I'm willing to come on this show and sit down with you without preconditions, the Government of the United States should be able to engage our adversaries diplomatically, as well.
[...]
HANNITY: I also thought, "Finally someone brought up" -- I have been saying this for, finally she brought it up tonight, what he said about our troops, which is unforgivable, that they're air-raiding villages and killing civilians. I just got into this with the Congresswoman. That is unforgivable, Senator Obama. And he ought to apologize. And he ought to be called by the media to apologize for that.
See, thing is Sean, they are air raiding villages, and killing civilians.
And Obama wanted more troops so that we wouldn't be doing that.
It's hard to imagine how anyone can be more dishonest.
It's impossible for these people to lie and misrepresent things so much that they're not psychotic.
Pay me $13,000,000+ a year and I will convince you the earth is 2,400 years old. It is ALL about the money for these cretins. It is amazing what people will say for cash. Falwell is a good example.
Palin has morphed into Hannity, her smear and distort mission has been blueprinted by the king, Hannity. She has adopted HIS talking points, HIS checklist of smears against Obama, and she's taking them out of Hannity-world and into the mainstream.
How will it play, THIS time? In the past, the smears torpedoed Kerry and crippled Gore, so Hannity thinks the SMEAR is the way to go. You better believe he harrangued the impressionable Palin to take up the "gutsy" cause of attacks and character assassination of one's opponent ... with the TRUTH be damned.
Palin has thrown in with Hannity, she's HIS outlet. Will it make a difference, this time? Will it rescue McCain? Doesn't look like it, THIS time.
No, no, no...in the history of this country the American military has NEVER killed an innocent civilian. Anyone who says differently is an unpatriotic radical leftist. That is, according to Sean Hannity. Now let's all join in chorus of USA! USA! USA!...
IRONY 101 , you hit the nail directly on the head. This is the mentality of the EXTREME RIGHT WING,ifyou dont believe everything that they do, instead of being a member of the loyal opposition, you are an unpaitriotic traitor. What a bunch of useless jerks.
Yes, and Obama is AGAINST killing civilians. Why does Palin disagree with him? I don't get it...
Well...because they're just sayin' they're innocent civilians, but you know how those darn turrists lie. Look at Barack Hussein Obama for example...pallin around with all those turrists who won't to harm this great country of ours that we all love from the bottom of our red, white and blue hearts, and would die for, or offer our kids to die for...and it's about creatin' jobs, too...and, hey, I wouldn't have sat silent in that pew for twenty years if my pastor said GD America, no sireeee, Bob... ;>)
Actually, UK, there's really no lie there. Hannity is just making it clear that, like Palin, he thinks we should be air raiding villages and killing civilians. It's on the record.
Does that mean republicans are pushing "even a blind squirrel is bound to find a nut in the forest" defense?
Sean Hannity has said so many 'false statements' on television and radio about Senator Obama because Sean is "Mr. Un-touchable". Sean will always quote two or three words out of a ten worded sentence rewording it with his sleazy, slick and sick view to attack Senator Obama. The FCC will not place fines on the Networks that carry FoxNews or the ABC Radio Stations for Sean's 'false' statements, so why should he stop? Oh, that's right Sean Hannity can get away with it because he's "Mr. Un-touchable". Shameful.
Is that shack in the back sinking or emerging Mary?
Nicely done, Though Mr.C seems to projecting angst, which would be highly unusual. I think I'd prefer an expression that says, "A crocodile is crewing on my foot!"
:)
chewing,not crewing, crocodiles are not known for communal activities on anybodies foot.
The shack is probably sinking. I suspect that that trio would sink anything within 200 yards. And I like "crewing" it makes a fun image.
Now someone with artistic talent needs to draw Cheney or grampy as Captain Hook with a croc crewing on their legs. ;-)
why should anyone not agree with what obama said. in war, you want to be very careful about civilian casualtiies because it.....gets the civilian population mad. this is hardly anything controversial. plenty of military leaders acknowledge this.
The rightwingers don't give a damn about civilians and they don't care about our military either. They are only out to score a desperate cheap point.
Can't wait to see if McCain will win ANY states come november.
I just saw the McCain ad that uses that clipped sound bite from Obama tonight. That has to be one of the most shameless, dishonest bits of editing of a statement I've ever seen. It gives an impression of Obama's statement completely at odds with reality. I was disgusted.
I hope the Obama camp comes up with a good response demonstrating how dishonest that ad is. If they produce something effective there will be an ugly blowback on McCain's campaign, as there certainly should be.
i saw the ad this morning. it is shameless editing. the woman announcer says something like here's what senator obama said about our troops in afghanistan, and then it has him saying they're "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians". there's a problem when you pull a sentence out of the middle of a quote, but when you actually go to editing a few words out of a complete sentence, that is totally unacceptable. it's an automatic sign you are attempting to deceive.
Who is this Wasserman Schultz person by the way, and why couldn't she simply ask Hannity "Are you saying we don't air-raid villages and kill civilians"? I hate these weak Democrats that go on Fox and make fools of themselves.
Who is this Wasserman Schultz person by the way, and why couldn't she simply ask Hannity "Are you saying we don't air-raid villages and kill civilians"? I hate these weak Democrats that go on Fox and make fools of themselves.
It was a poor choice of words on Obama's part. I watched his whole response to that on youtube. In context I understand what he's getting at, that we need troops on the ground and we can't rely on airpower to get the job done.
But "air-raiding" villages has not been a tactic in Afghanistan. Yes, civilians have been killed, but we're not performing air raids against entire villages. We're not flattening rows of houses on the off chance that there might be some civilians there. There's simply no way one can accurately say we have performed "air-raiding" against villages. Simply finding some civilian deaths doesn't back up at all what Obama said. It just gives the impression of fact checking, and it's pretty weak of Media Matters. Also Reid Cherlin said our strategy consistst "solely of air raids and bombing of civilians."
Anyway, I don't know if the people at media matters have any clue about modern weaponry, but if we were air raiding villages the casualties would be a lot higher then six or seven civilians! It would be in the hundreds and thousands...
Again, poor choice of words, and they wouldn't matter if people would stop defending them. This is like one of those battles in WWI, tens of thousands of people dying over some meaningless hill, when one side could just as easily pull back a quarter mile and save a lot of manpower.
no one is claiming what you are characterizing it as. no one claimed we're targeting entire villages.
In military terminology, air raiding refers to strategic bombing, like the flattening of whole cities in WW2. As such, Obama implied we're intentionally flattening entire villages. That isn't the case.
I know he didn't mean to make that implication. But he did to many people, especially army people and people alive during WW2, who understand air raiding to be strategic bombing. It was a poor word choice on Obama's part. I don't see why people should defend it. Just say it was a poorly worded statement and move on.
The point is that it makes it sound like Obama is anti-military or against the war in Afghanistan. Neither of those things are true, as he wants more troops there in order to avoid the actions he's talking about. That's clearly a valid point for MMfA to make.
The stated purpose of Media Matters is to battle dis-information. Sure, they're spot on if they want to show how the comment was off color and doesn't represent Obama's opinion. But then they're doing campaigning for Obama, not battling misinformation.
At that point, they might as well respond to every criticism of Obama and explain why it does not apply and how conservatives are putting disinformation out there.
What I really take issue with is the fact that they even feel it's appropriate to find cases of civilian deaths due to US bombings, as if this makes Obama's statement more valid. These civilian deaths are tragic, but they were not the goal of the bombing. In military terminology, air raiding refers to strategic bombing. Like the flattening of whole cities in WW2. As such, Obama implied we're intentionally flattening entire villages. That isn't the case.
I know he didn't actually intend the implication. It was a poor choice of words, and if he wants to he can clarify that. He obviously meant to say that air power is not a substitute for troops on the ground. But standing behind the "air-raiding" statement is silly, it turns what was a silly statement into a campaign issue. It leaves it up to each voter to determine what he means by air raiding. If MM and Obama would instead just admit it was a poor word choice then this whole thing wouldn't be such a big deal.
That's why I say this is like Verdun. Obama and supporters have put so many resources into defending this statement that they can't afford to back down. They've turned a meaningless pile of dirt into a valuable strategic objective.
"The stated purpose of Media Matters is to battle dis-information. Sure, they're spot on if they want to show how the comment was off color and doesn't represent Obama's opinion. But then they're doing campaigning for Obama, not battling misinformation."
That made absolutely zero sense. If it doesn't represent Obama's opinion, then it's misinformation. Are you seriously arguing that you have to be "campaigning" in order to correct a blatant misinterpretation?
"At that point, they might as well respond to every criticism of Obama and explain why it does not apply and how conservatives are putting disinformation out there."
If it's inaccurate, and it's not challenged in the media, then of course they should respond to it. Why is this a problem?
"What I really take issue with is the fact that they even feel it's appropriate to find cases of civilian deaths due to US bombings, as if this makes Obama's statement more valid. These civilian deaths are tragic, but they were not the goal of the bombing. In military terminology, air raiding refers to strategic bombing. Like the flattening of whole cities in WW2. As such, Obama implied we're intentionally flattening entire villages. That isn't the case."
Then it's a technical distinction between "air raid" and "airstrike". Since the context defies the idea that the killing was intentional (if we wanted to flatten villages then we could still do so even with more ground troops), the criticism is dishonest. The error doesn't warrant anything near the level criticism he's getting, and MMfA should point that out. The failure to distinguish between these two terms is "unforgivable", really? They don't have to defend the word choice, as long as they point out that the meaning of his words was clear, that addresses Hannity's distortion of them.
Then it's a technical distinction between "air raid" and "airstrike"... They don't have to defend the word choice, as long as they point out that the meaning of his words was clear, that addresses Hannity's distortion of them.
Exactly! But they do defend the word choice, and they found examples of civilian deaths. Just say it was a poor word choice and be done with it. Finding examples of civilian deaths and refusing to just say it was bad word choice actually reinforces Hannity's argument since that puts you in the position of defending the soundbyte. Obama obviously does not believe we're intentionally bombing villages in air raids, and their right to repudiate peoples claims he does. This silly soundbyte about "air-raiding villages" doesn't bother me at all.
What does bother me a little bit is that his campaign, you and media matters are not willing to admit even a meaningless fault. Everyone mispeaks (Bush more than others!), that's no big deal, but this total refusal admit any fault is silly.
But the misinterpretation still needs to be addressed. The choice of words means nothing to that, and doesn't support Hannity's argument at all.
I wonder if Hannity is really this out of touch or just utterly dishonest as usual.
Everyone knows the war is unpopular. Most people want us to get the hell out, already. Palin reacts to this idea with "white flag of surrender". What is this, 2005? I don't think even Bush spouts that crap anymore. Palin essentially called the vast majority of Americans cowards and/or traitors. It was a horrible moment for her, being stuck without any rational response, and then pulling that line out. The dial-line absolutely plummeted.
But to Hannity, this was sheer brilliance. It's almost hard to believe that he's faking this sentiment, because why on earth would you praise something that went over like a lead balloon? I would think you'd just pretend it didn't happen instead of trying to fool people into not believing their own eyes and ears. Either he really thought it was a great move on Palin's part, or he is (as has been noted here by others) the dumbest man in the media. Or both, of course, I wouldn't want to forget that option.