
Honestly, there are times when I wonder if liberal media members are just addle-minded, or so obsessed with their political agenda that fabricating news seems acceptable to them.
Either must have been the case when the Associated Press, followed by the leftwing entourage of Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington, completely misrepresented a rather innocent statement by Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and in so doing, cast doubt on their veracity as journalists.
In fact, and as difficult as it may seem, the three entities mistook the name "Assad" for "Osama."
Nice job of fact-checking, guys!
Sadly, this all began Monday with the following Associated Press article (emphasis added, h/t Hot Air):
"This is the world we live in. It's not this happy, romantic-like world where we'll negotiate with this one, or we'll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we'll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we'll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House," Giuliani said.
"Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball," he added.
This set off a Netroots firestorm culminating in Olbermann and Huffington having the audacity to call Giuliani a liar on Tuesday's "Countdown."
Unfortunately, there was only one flaw in their vitriol: Giuliani said "Assad" NOT "Osama," and, as such, was referring to the current President of Syria.
This inconvenient truth was deliciously uncovered by the American Spectator's Philip Klein Wednesday, whose post included the MSNBC video of Olbermann's segment with Huffington, where at roughly minute 1:15, Giuliani clearly says "Assad."
In fact, this seemed quite apparent to whoever transcribed the text for MSNBC, for here's the section in question directly from the network's website:
GIULIANI: It‘s not like this happy, romantic world in which, you know, we‘ll negotiate with this one and we‘ll negotiate with that one and there will be no pre-conditions and we‘ll invite Ahmadinejad to the White House and we‘ll invite Assad to the White House. I mean, Hillary and Obama are kind of debating you know whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball.
Yet, Olbermann and Huffington, clearly living in their own dream world, heard "Osama":
OLBERMANN: Let me first talk to you about technique there. He misrepresents the positions of Clinton and Edwards about Iran and he takes one leap away from engagement, suddenly-it‘s negotiation. And all of a sudden it‘s no longer negotiation, now he‘s leap over to inviting terrorists to the White House. The kind word for this rhetorical advice is hyperbole. The least kind one is Giuliani is lying. How does this continue to happen?
HUFFINGTON: Well, he‘s lying and also every day he reveals more and more of himself. And you can see that he really has the soul of a thug and the disposition of a tyrant. It really proves the famous saying by Jimmy Brazlen (ph) when he said that Giuliani is a small man with the search for a balcony. You can see that every day with what he says, there is no technique that implies some type of rationality. This is pure savageness (ph), pure testosterone again and again. And what is amazing to me, Keith, that there hasn‘t been any uproar. If that was a Democrat saying that they-there would have been demand every for an apology that there would have been an emergency session of Congress and resolution condemning such remarks. Remember, after all John McCain said that Moveon should leave the country, should be thrown out of the country because they called General Petraeus - "General betray us." And here is Giuliani daring to insult his Democratic opponents by saying that they would invite Osama bin Laden to the White House? That is really something which should not be accepted.
OLBERMANN: The Petraeus thing looks like a high T compared to what Giuliani said. But you can see through the haze on this and understand why Giuliani would think aligning himself with Bush about Iran or the so-called "War on Terror would help him in the campaign. But I‘m missing something here when we are at a stage in polling where more Americans say they believe in ghost than believe President Bush is doing a good job about Iraq. What is the upside of trying to marry himself to Bush about Iraq specifically?
HUFFINGTON: You know, Keith, I think that Giuliani has believed his own myth that somehow being tough means being tough with the Iraqis - means being tough everywhere. If as though he‘s writing that S on his chest and has the dust from the twin towers on his head and that‘s the myth is he portraying. And with the small minority of Americans, the Republican base, it‘s working. He‘s kind of channeling Rush Limbaugh, he‘s making the lunatic fringe mainstream. And I am, again, I‘m going to blame the media for not challenging that kind of approach.
OLBERMANN: I‘m doing what I can but apparently I‘m alone out here.
Listen, the "Washington Post" reported something that is of value in this sense that Mr. Giuliani is still working part time at a security consulting firm even though he had promised to leave it in April and that it continued to pay for his security until June. Is he in trouble with Federal Election laws?
HUFFINGTON: Well, he is in trouble with Federal Election laws but probably by the time they work their way through this sort of procedures of the Federal Election laws, who knows when it is going to catch up with him. The question is he should be in trouble with the voters. He should be in trouble, again, with the media because he lied. He said he was going to leave the company. He didn‘t leave the company. And, in fact, he is now trying to say that he forgot or to defend himself in some way when there is really no defense. He thinks he is above the law, above relations, really a law unto himself.
OLBERMANN: Just a quick thought on this. Has it reached a level yet where we should be considering examining whether or not this is compulsive lying that there is something endemic to him? Or this specific purpose driven lies?
HUFFINGTON: But that was driven I don‘t know, it‘s like if you look at what he said about his company. What he said in his latest ad about socialized medicine. And what he‘s saying about Iraq having the potential to have nuclear weapons, all these things, I mean, there is a pattern here which is really disturbing.
OLBERMANN: Arianna Huffington, the founder and editor of Huffington post.com. As always, great thanks you for coming in.
HUFFINGTON: Thank you.
In the end, at least the AP took the high road, and issued a correction:
In an Oct. 29 story about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani criticizing Democrats on Middle Eastern policy, The Associated Press erroneously reported Giuliani's mention of Syrian President Bashar Assad as a reference to Osama bin Laden.
Yet, such a pathetic mistake brings with it consequences, for the Netroots - and, sadly, these days, Olbermann and Huffington are clearly included in this group - jumped all over this AP report, completely ignoring the actual videotape of Giuliani's speech, and disseminating lies about a well-respected American.
I guess that's par for the course, isn't it?
As a sidebar, does anybody believe Olbermann and/or Huffington will apologize for their erroneous defamation of Giuliani?
Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
....Keith Olbermann and
November 1, 2007 - 19:15 ET by DaBird....Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington, completely misrepresented a rather innocent statement by Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and in so doing, cast doubt on their veracity as journalists.
That ship sailed a looooooonnnnnng time ago my friend.
Actually, the word journalist and Olbermann should never be mentioned in the same sentence. Unless you are "debunking Olbermann as a journalist".
When Is Enough, Enough
November 1, 2007 - 19:18 ET by BourbeauWhen does MSNBC and their cohorts establish an Ombudsman who ensure these clowns are forced to apologize when they egregiously misstate the facts? It becomes an endless stream of nonsense, spoken with reckless abandon, and never, ever having to admit your wrong. Huffington and Olberman are two of the worst culprits, but they are one of many. And worse yet, the corporate fathers to these windbags sit back and chuckle at their stupidity without any sense of responsibility to their viewers to set the record straight. Talk about tolerance for lieing?
I don't mind.
November 1, 2007 - 19:29 ET by NBFLiberals bashing RINOs like Rudy McRomney? RINOs getting the GOP nod is about the only chance they have at causing GOP explosion & third party... which is the only way Hillary can possibly get into the White House.
Keep it up.
In their own minds, it's
November 1, 2007 - 19:31 ET by motherbeltIn their own minds, it's entirely plausible that Giuliani might invite OBL to the White House, in spite of the fact that he didn't say that. They somehow think that this guy, who told the Saudi prince to stuff his $10 million that he offered to NYC, would do that!
What does that say about them?
Good Point
November 1, 2007 - 20:16 ET by JimboGood point. Rudy tells a Saudi prince to stuff his money after 9/11 and Hillary will take money from criminals, illegals, and people who don't even actually exist.
Quite a contrast.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
. . . and MSNBC continues
November 1, 2007 - 19:31 ET by Free Stinker. . . and MSNBC continues to make itself more and more irrelevant with each broadcast.
Olberdude and Huffpuff, how fitting
November 1, 2007 - 20:06 ET by general companyYou got that right,,,,dude!
...patiently awaits the
November 1, 2007 - 20:11 ET by Roger the Shrubber...patiently awaits the arrival off the Olbermann Defense League...
I think they're back in
November 1, 2007 - 20:14 ET by Free StinkerI think they're back in their cave, getting the evening supply of talking points.
OK, I'll say it: Olberman,
November 1, 2007 - 20:38 ET by balboaOK, I'll say it: Olberman, in no way was ridiculing Max McGee when he said Guiliani was lying.
You are a dork, haha. That
November 2, 2007 - 08:49 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou are a dork, haha. That was funny, Bal.
"and in so doing, cast
November 1, 2007 - 20:20 ET by JAB"and in so doing, cast doubt on their veracity as journalists."
This is Noel working on the next NB's skit, it has to be, I'm ROTFLMAO before I can get to the meat of the article.
Noel, you're a riot.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
Olberman and Huffington.
November 1, 2007 - 20:43 ET by zhombreOlberman and Huffington. Think what the offspring would be like if they mated. Shudder.
You know these two should
November 1, 2007 - 20:57 ET by Airforce_5_OYou know these two should get married but the problem is their children would be born without spines.
I can't even watch Sunday night football because of this dope.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
"Geek, Dweeb, or Spaz"
November 1, 2007 - 21:17 ET by third eyeMany of my peers often confuse the terms "geek, dweeb, and spaz" and how they apply to our mutual friends Olbermann and Big Red. Now I can see how many people out there might believe Olbermann is simply a straight dweeb. I can assure you however, this is incorrect. Olbermann, the stud famous for being rejected by Mary Carey, is actually a spazzy-dweeb. Now when you combine him with Big Red, who brings her own credentials as a dweeby-geek to the table, you run the risk of tearing the time-space continum via sheer stupidity.
http://www.youtube.c...
I think Oderman would be
November 1, 2007 - 21:40 ET by Airforce_5_OI think Oderman would be lost with that poor girl. Need a road map if you know what I mean.
This is the way I see him.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
Compulsive liars
November 1, 2007 - 22:17 ET by well99KOed and Huff are compulsive liars.Nothing new there.The msm just likes to distort and stir up things.Funny thing today go on msn.com and under Videos you have a tank going down streets of San Diego.That was in 1995.Everything else is new.Wonder what is up with that. http://video.msn.com...
To understand how "effective" these two are
November 2, 2007 - 08:46 ET by FastEdwe should wait to see what kind of legs this "story" has! Me thinks that others will see exactly how stupid these "journalists" really are, and ignore their statements as empty words from empty heads.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V