Hannity deceptively edited Obama to falsely accuse him of "attacking General Petraeus"

From Media Matters Sean Hannity deceptively edited comments President Obama made during a 2007 Senate hearing to falsely accuse Obama of "attacking General [David] Petraeus." In fact, in comments cropped out of the video, Obama made clear his criticism was directed at President Bush and was "not a criticism" of Petraeus. Hannity deceptively crops Obama's comments to portray them as "attacking General Petraeus" Hannity: "Here is Barack Obama attacking General Petraeus." On his Fox News show, Hannity discussed Obama's decision to nominate Petraeus to be commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and said, "Here is Barack Obama attacking General Petraeus." Hannity then played deceptively edited video of Obama's questioning of Petraeus during 2007 Senate testimony. From the June 23 edition of Hannity: HANNITY: We have a tape, Coulter, you have not seen this tape. I was telling you about it before the interview. General Petraeus is going to take over. General Petraeus was successful in Iraq. Barack Obama opposed it. Joe Biden attacked it. OK? Here is Barack Obama attacking General Petraeus. OBAMA [video clip]: We have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation, to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006, is considered success. And it's not. ... We are now confronted with the question: How do we clean up the mess and make the best out of a situation in which there are no good options? There are bad options and worse options. ... I think the surge has had some impact, as I suggested. I would hope it would, given the sacrifices and loss that have been made. I would argue that the impact has been relatively modest, given the investment. ... How long will this take? And at what point do we say enough? HANNITY: He actually used the term at one point in this, "disastrous." He said "no good option" -- this is after the surge has been successful. Bad or worse in terms of the options available. And at best, moderate impact. [Hannity, 6/23/10] Obama made clear the very comments Hannity aired were directed at President Bush and were "not a criticism" of Petraeus Obama to Petraeus and Crocker: "And this is not a criticism of either of you gentlemen. This is a criticism of this president [Bush]." During the Senate hearing Hannity deceptively edited, Obama explicitly said that the very comments Hannity characterized as "attacking General Petraeus" were "not a criticism of either" Petraeus or Adm. Ryan Crocker, then the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Obama made clear that his criticism was directed at the Bush administration. From the September 11, 2007, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing [accessed via Nexis]: OBAMA: And so I think that some of the frustration you hear from some of the questioners is that we have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation, to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006, is considered success. And it's not. This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake. And we are now confronted with the question, how do we clean up the mess and make the best out of a situation in which there are no good options? There are bad options and worse options. And this is not a criticism of either of you gentlemen. This is a criticism of this president and the administration, which has set a mission for the military and for our diplomatic forces that is extraordinarily difficult now to achieve. And there has been no acknowledgement of that on the part of this administration, so that we have the president in Australia suggesting somehow that we are, as was stated before, kicking A-S-S. How can that -- how can we have a president making that assessment? And it makes it very difficult then for those of us who would like to join with you in a bipartisan way to figure out how to best move forward to extricate this from the day-to-day politics that infects Washington. So I just wanted to get that on the record. Final stipulation: I think the surge has had some impact, as I've suggested. I would hope it would, given the sacrifices and loss that have been made. I would argue that the impact has been relatively modest, given the investment. And I have to say that based on my (sic) testimony, it is not clear to me that the primary success that you've shown, in Anbar, has anything to do with the surge. You said in this testimony that it's political, the reason for the success in Anbar, not because of an increase in troop strength. We have maybe seen some modest decline in sectarian violence inside Baghdad as a consequence of our troop patrols. That's been purchased at the cost of increased U.S. casualties and is unsustainable. What we haven't seen is a significant disarming of the Shi'a militias. I've -- again, during your testimony, you've told us that, essentially, the Shi'as decided even before we got there to stand -- to get on one knee and to wait it out. We haven't seen, most importantly, any significant improvement in terms of the central government's performance. It continues to be ineffectual, and we have not seen national reconciliation of the sort that was promised prior to the surge.

Conservatives Who Demanded We ‘Listen To’ And ‘Stand Behind’ Gen. Petraeus Now Disregard Him

By Zaid Jilani When Vice President Biden recently told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s intention to build thousands of new settlements was undermining U.S. interests in the region, he was reportedly conveying the assessment made by Gen. David Petraeus.

Foreign Policy’s Mark Perry reveals that Biden’s concerns about Israeli behavior endangering American troops stem from a special briefing delivered in January at the Pentagon. On January 16, “team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command [CENTCOM],” acting under the orders of CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, presented Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen with a “33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing” outlining the concern that “Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region.” The presentation “stunned” Mullen. Perry reports “David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”

After the Obama administration publicly aired its concerns, leading conservatives began quickly attacking. House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the administration’s admonishments were “irresponsible” and “an affront to the values” of our relationship with Israel. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) accused Biden of a “double standard,” Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) claimed that the administration was alienating an ally over a protest over a “zoning decision in its capital city,” and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) effectively told “the White House to be quiet on [the issue].”

While conservatives are currently on the offensive against Petraeus’s concerns today, they thought differently in 2007. As the country was heatedly debating our policies in Iraq, leading conservatives demanded that we listen to Petraeus and agree with the views he advocated:

– Boehner said in the Fall of 2007 that Petraeus has “earned” the right to be listened to. In a statement put out condemning a Moveon.org advertisement criticizing Petraeus, Boehner said, “I call on my colleagues to listen to what General Petraeus has to say. He’s earned it.” [9/10/07]

– Cantor said it was important to show that we “stand behind” Petraeus and his advice on Iraq. During an appearance on PBS’s Newshour, the congressman endorsed the “Petraeus plan for victory” and said that supporting him was a way to “send a message to our troops that we stand behind them.” [3/22/07]

– Brownback called Petraeus an “exceptionally smart and thoughtful man.” In a press release lauding President Bush’s appointment of Petraeus as the new top military commander in Iraq, Brownback noted that he knows Petraeus “very well” and that he’s an “exceptionally smart and thoughtful man” who “will do a superb job.” [1/5/07]

– Lieberman and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) asked their colleagues to “listen carefully” to Petraeus’s advice on Iraq. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in September 2007 titled “Listening To Petraeus” the senators implored their colleagues to “listen carefully” to the General’s advice about how to stablize Iraq. [9/10/07]

General Petraeus is hardly the only defense official who has warned that failing to bring a just end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can lead to Muslim radicalization and endanger our troops. In 2004, the Defense Science Board Task Force noted that our “one sided support in favor of Israel” and failure to resolve the conflict was a leading source of “threats to America’s national security.”

Given how eager the right was to endorse Petraeus’s Iraq solution in 2007, will they listen to him, CENTCOM, and other defense officials about the dangers of not acting to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Update Last winter, the European Union noted in a report that Israel has been using the settlements to "deliberately to alter [Jerusalem's] demographic balance and sever East Jerusalem from the West Bank." The Wonk Room's Matt Duss notes that "taking on the pro-eviction lobby in Congress and suspending aid to Israel...is the only thing likely to change Israeli behavior."

Update In his prepared testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning, Petraeus said, “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. … The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.”