About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Michael Moore asks, "You're not into conspiracy theories, are you?" after Hannity suggests there were WMDs in Iraq

October 06, 2009 11:01 pm ET

From the October 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

MOORE: Well, you know there weren't weapons of mass destruction there.

HANNITY: Yeah, well. None that we saw. None that we found.

MOORE: Oh, Sean, no. Come on. You're not into conspiracy theories, are you?

Previously:

Citing no evidence, Hannity maintains Iraqi WMDs "were moved"

Fox News hosts and guests touted discredited report that WMDs were found in Iraq

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (October 06, 2009 11:57 pm ET)
      15  
      You know hannity is desperate when he brings Michael Moore one his show.Someone who would accept the challenge just to walk on top of Hannity's lies.It is not going to help Hannity's ratings,or help him get any sponsors back.Republican party media was in a big rush to prove President's Obama's incompetence.They have insted proved Obama's competence,exposed,and magnified the world's view of their own incompetence,and low down dirty motives
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (October 07, 2009 12:19 am ET)
        14  
        Hannity accusing anybody of giving a "simplistic analysis" is a jaw-dropping moment. The guy has made a career out of simplistic analysis.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by noneyabidnis (October 07, 2009 12:59 am ET)
          5  
          ha - you caught that too! That made my jaw drop as well. (I posted my comment before reading yours..)
          Report Abuse
        • Author by vysotsky (October 07, 2009 3:31 am ET)
          8  
          I had a good chuckle when Hannity accused Moore of being simplistic in his analysis with one breathe, and in the next claimed that the U.S. wasn't to blame for its bad intelligence about Iraq because "the Soviets got it wrong" too.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by vysotsky (October 07, 2009 6:15 am ET)
            6  
            And of course, in tribute to Hannity's mistake, I wrote "with one breathe"...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (October 07, 2009 7:21 am ET)
            8  
            But Sean...I thought we were the BEST damn country on the planet...with the BEST damn military in the universe...and the BEST health care system...and the BEST intelligence gathering apparatus...far, far superior to the intelligence operations of the Soviets, the Brits, the Israelis or anyone else. If we're so damn good then why were we so wrong? Or is it that, as Michael Moore says, Bush and Cheney ignored the warnings from our own intelligence folks?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (October 07, 2009 8:09 am ET)
              8  
              Please Irony. Let's not put words in Sean's mouth. Why not give the actual quote?

              "America is the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth."
              - Sean Hannity


              So all of the other best countries that God has ever given man on the face of the earth can go screw. Cause we're number one damn it!!!

              The only fault I find in Sean's quote is that he limited our being the greatest, best country that God has ever given man to the planet earth.



              Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (October 07, 2009 8:13 am ET)
                5  
                Maybe I was just being overly simplistic... ;>)
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Alone in Texas (October 07, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
                2  
                To add to Sean's quote, it normally follows with: "... and America has done more than anyone else to progress the human condition"

                I am a simple person, but does this not imply all of America, Liberals, Conservatives and all the rest? Or is this conclusion too complex for Sean to comprehend?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 07, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
            3  
            Can someone explain to me how they think that two wrongs make a right, or how the failure of the Soviets to do a good job excuses the Bush Administration from ignoring the on the ground information from the UN Weapons Inspectors who contradicted the intelligence we had?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (October 07, 2009 11:49 am ET)
          1  
          And a lack of introspection and self-awareness!

          ---------------------------------------------------------------
          LOL
          Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 07, 2009 12:16 am ET)
      6  
      All I can say is SHEER INSANNITY must begetting desperate to have MICHALE MOORE as a guest. GO MICHALE.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by alien13ufo (October 07, 2009 12:31 am ET)
      5  
      did hannity really call Russia the Soviets? I guess hes still living in the 80s.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by noneyabidnis (October 07, 2009 12:57 am ET)
      10  
      The real stunner is Hannity saying "that's a simplistic analysis."

      And in a way, he's right. It wasn't simple. But neither is, let's say, something like healthcare reform. Or bailouts.

      Yet, when those come up, all he can do is respond with a simplistic analysis. Socialism. Communism. Death panels.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donwelty (October 07, 2009 1:20 am ET)
      6  
      Hannity should have more people on his show who are respectful and who calmly make assertions asking Hannity to back up some of the wild claims that he has made. I will have to admit to having Michael Moore on the show was probably one of the more saner moments of Hannity show.
      Calmness and rationality have invaded an area where they are not normally seen. Michael Moore looks good; Hannity appears more rational than he normally does. This was a segment of the show worth watching for a change.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (October 07, 2009 1:56 am ET)
        7  
        This is a sign of the end.If Hannity became fair and balanced,who would watch???The loons would turn him off,and nobody else will trust or listen to him.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (October 07, 2009 6:57 am ET)
        6  
        Methinks Mr. Hannity is feeling the pressure of Glenn Beck's ratings and is trying to recast himself as a person of gravitas in contrast to the flakey Beck. That is "Beck"...as in "train wreck". But t the end of the day Hannity is still the dumb, partisan hack Hannity.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (October 07, 2009 7:09 am ET)
          7  
          One last thing...I don't think Hannity's audience will buy into his experiment as a calm, serious, fair moderator. They want red meat...they want him to mercilessly attack everything that is not right wing extremism.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tbone (October 07, 2009 9:16 am ET)
          7  
          Hannity does not have the intellect to pull off gravitas plus he's already a brain-washed Reaganite who can't grasp that Ronnie was no fiscal conservative.

          The country needs consistent, conservative analysis. We have a 30 yr. fiscal mess to clean up and neither party has shown any intention of doing so. It's either tax and spend more or borrow and spend more.

          It seems to me that few Americans grasp that it can't be guns AND butter AND better health care AND no new taxes. This political lie is unsustainable and America's Ponzi scheme is already unraveling but no one will admit it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (October 07, 2009 10:19 am ET)
            4  
            The country needs consistent, conservative analysis.

            I would agree with that, as long as it is noted that the the Repubs are not the type of conservative that we need. Noting that they have done more to screw up america than any of the democrats.

            It seems to me that few Americans grasp that it can't be guns AND butter AND better health care AND no new taxes. This political lie is unsustainable and America's Ponzi scheme is already unraveling but no one will admit it.

            I believe you are making the same point that I have several times. Americans "want" a lot of things but; don't seem willing to "pay" for it. Until Americans, in general, come together and decide what it is they are actually willing to pay for, nothing will change, as far as how politicians and our system works.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (October 07, 2009 1:27 am ET)
      5  
      MOORE: Well, you know there weren't weapons of mass destruction there.

      HANNITY: Yeah, well. None that we saw. None that we found.

      MOORE: Oh, Sean, no. Come on. You're not into conspiracy theories, are you?


      But the fact that we didn't find any is not the only "evidence" we have that there were no WMD's there. We have Saddam's statements that he was trying to keep up his bad guy image. We have every scientist that worked with WMD's in Iraq who said that the WMD program was dismantled and never started back up again. And we have discredited the Iraqi turncoats who told the USA that there were WMD's.

      But the only thing that Hannity ties his argument to is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, because if he acknowledges that the other evidence we have debunks the thought that there were any WMD's that we didn't find!!!!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (October 07, 2009 11:22 am ET)
        2  
        absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

        In a purely philosophical sense, Sean-boy is right: It's not. However, absence of evidence where there should be evidence, is.

        If there had been WMDs in Iraq, there should have been, would have been evidence. There wasn't. That's not only evidence of absence, it is as close to proof of absence as we're going to find in an imperfect world.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (October 07, 2009 1:47 am ET)
      6  


      Good gracious, Sean -- the White House itself admitted there were no WMDs in October of 2004 . . .

      Does that mean you're accusing your hero, Bush, of making a "simplistic analysis"?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by vysotsky (October 07, 2009 3:36 am ET)
      8  
      You know, since he seems to believe that WMDs were in Iraq and American troops just missed them, I invite Mr. Hannity to travel to Iraq with a shovel and start looking himself. Right after he makes good on that pledge to be waterboarded for charity.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (October 07, 2009 7:37 am ET)
        8  
        Well, as all right wing nutters know, the WMD were secretly taken away to Syria...probably with the help of ACORN. Jeremiah Wright was actually seen driving one of the trucks as Bill Ayers tried to light the fuse of one of the WMD.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (October 07, 2009 9:17 am ET)
      5  
      You want a simplistic analysis, Sean? "They did it too!" That was your simplistic reply to Mr. Moore's assertion.

      Want another simplistic analysis? Okay, we invaded Iraq for profit. Profit for Halliburton, for oil companies, and for the the Bush/Cheney administration. Paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and the blood of thousands of members of America's armed forces.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ghost of russell (October 07, 2009 10:36 am ET)
      4  
      "None (WMD's) that we found"

      So I guess the Iraqi's, who equipped with mountains of WMD saw the most powerful army in the world massing on their border and decided to.... ship the weapons to Syria and let them sit there for seven years.

      Brilliant work, Sherlocke!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (October 07, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
        2  
        That's always been my question about the whole thing, too. And it's especially strange considering how hyped up Saddam was as a dangerous madman. But when he's about to be thrown out of power, he fails to cry havoc and release his dogs of war, and instead ends up captured and executed.
        Report Abuse