Yes, Joe Biden’s Helicopter Really Was “Forced Down” in Afghanistan

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


One of the narratives the blogs are talking about this week is that Joe Biden is—gasp!—”gaffe-prone.” Nevermind the fact that this has been the story about Biden for 30 years: now journalists are even finding gaffes where none exist. In a post on The Stump exploring Biden’s unfortunate attack on his own campaign’s ad, Michael Crowley claims that this Joe Biden anecdote is a “gaffe”:

“If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.

In an unsigned follow-up post on The Plank (accompanied by an awful Slate-style “gaffe meter”), someone claims that this quote “could teeter into Hillary-in-Bosnia territory.” But what exactly is wrong or misleading or inaccurate about Biden’s story? The Jake Tapper post Crowley links to is an admirably straightforward fact-check of the story—it turns out Biden’s helicopter was forced down by a snowstorm. But did Biden say the helicopter was “forced down under fire” or even “shot at”? No. And Tapper points out that Biden went on, saying this:

[John McCain] says he’ll follow [Al Qaeda] to the gates of hell. You don’t have to go to hell. Just go to Pakistan. Just go to that area. That superhighway of terror that exists between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Biden’s right on in the rest of the quote, too: As far as we know Al Qaeda and bin Laden are in what Biden calls, “That superhighway of terror that exists between Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

The difference between this “gaffe” and Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia sniper story is obvious. She said she “remember[ed] landing under sniper fire.” That was demonstrably false. Joe Biden said his helicopter was forced down. That’s demonstrably true. It’s not a gaffe, or a lie, or an exaggeration—it’s a description of what happened. What are Biden’s detractors suggesting, anyway? That Biden was saying he was in danger when he wasn’t? First of all, he didn’t say anything about being under fire or in danger. Second, the “forced down” language that the right seems to be so fired up by is fairly common in these situations. Like, for instance, the original press reports of the emergency landing:

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan, Feb. 21 (UPI) — A helicopter carrying three U.S. senators made an emergency landing in Afghanistan because of bad weather Thursday, aides to the senators said.

CNN reported the chopper carrying Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del.; John Kerry, D-Mass.; and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., was forced down in a snowstorm in the mountains. Kerry spokesman David Wade told CNN the senators, all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were then taken by convoy to Bagram Air Base, from where they left for Ankara, Turkey. [Emphasis added.]

pej-biden.jpg

The Boston Globe headline at the time also used “forced down.” Biden was unquestionably in more danger than Hillary Clinton was when she landed (in an airport) in Bosnia, and he didn’t even say he was in danger. And while Chuck Hagel, who was also on the helicopter, said he “felt” no danger during the incident, it still “took a ‘large convoy’ more than three hours to reach the senators and their aides,” according to the Omaha World-Herald (which also used “forced down,” by the way). And even Hagel was quick to point out that “it’s still a war zone, there’s still Taliban.” Let’s be clear here: Biden, Kerry, and Hagel were unexpectedly on the ground in Afghanistan. That seems like a pretty good way to end up dead. If anything, Biden is under-selling this anecdote.

Biden’s had a rough couple days, but it’s unfortunate that he only gets media attention when he screws up. He’s been on the trail, working away, without a scrap of media coverage. (See the Project for Excellence in Journalism chart to the right, which depicts news coverage of the four candidates for the week of Sept. 14-18.) Now that Biden’s said a few dumb things, he’ll undoubtedly get more coverage. But despite everyone’s urge to jump on the bash-Biden bandwagon, it’s not fair to turn non-gaffes into gaffes. That’s what’s happening here. Poor Joe just can’t win.

Update: I see the invincible Brian Beutler agrees.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate