Hannity accused "Kool-Aid" drinking "Clinton supporters" of having "defended the indefensible"; what about Hannity?
SUMMARY: Discussing congressional Republicans' willingness to oppose the Bush administration on the ports deal, Sean Hannity claimed that Republicans are not like Clinton supporters "that defended the indefensible." But from Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay to CNN analyst Bill Bennett's controversial abortion remarks and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson's comparison of embryonic stem cell research to Nazi experiments, Hannity has gone to astonishing lengths to defend what are, at best, questionable remarks and actions, often with falsehoods of his own.
On the March 9 broadcast of Fox News's Hannity & Colmes, while discussing congressional Republicans' willingness to oppose the Bush administration's position on the Dubai Ports World (DPW) controversy, co-host Sean Hannity claimed that Republicans "are not Kool-Aid drinkers, like some of the Clinton supporters that defended the indefensible." But from Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay to radio host and CNN analyst Bill Bennett's controversial abortion remarks and Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson's comparison of embryonic stem cell research to Nazi experiments, Hannity has gone to astonishing lengths in defense of what are, at best, highly questionable comments and actions, often with falsehoods of his own. For instance:
- Hannity downplayed Abu Ghraib prison abuse
On the June 7, 2005, broadcast of ABC's daytime talk show The View, Hannity downplayed the abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib by claiming that the extent of the abuse was limited to "underwear on the head of one of them." Numerous photos from news sources and an Army report documenting individual instances of abuse prove otherwise. On the September 10, 2004, edition of his ABC Radio Networks show, Hannity suggested that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) may have been behind the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos, stating: "Was that a DNC plot, too?"
- Hannity minimized abuse at Gitmo
On the May 31, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity claimed that "we didn't hurt anybody" at Guantánamo, despite first-hand accounts by FBI agents and humanitarian workers for the International Committee of the Red Cross documenting prisoner abuse that included, but was not limited to, hooding and slapping prisoners, sleep deprivation, the use of dogs for intimidation, temperature extremes, persistent noise, and "some beatings." During the March 3 edition of Hannity & Colmes, despite several reports to the contrary, Hannity asserted: "There's nobody at Guantánamo Bay that's there for nothing."
- Hannity defended Bennett's controversial race comment
On January 18, Hannity defended a controversial remark by Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan -- that "if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Hannity echoed Bennett's own false claim that the remark was not his "theory" and that Bennett was "quot[ing] from a book." As Media Matters for America noted, Bennett purported to explain the comment by falsely claiming that he was simply reiterating a theory presented in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But, neither Levitt, nor the book, discuss "the racial implications of abortion and crime," as Bennett did.
- Hannity defended Dobson's Nazi comparison
During an interview with Dobson on the August 9, 2005, broadcast of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity defended Dobson's August 3, 2005, comments, in which he compared embryonic stem cell research with Nazi experiments conducted on live human patients prior to and during the Holocaust. Hannity told Dobson: "You said if any ethics or morality is removed, then you have Nazi Germany. You were very clear. You weren't making a comparison."
- Hannity attacked caller for linking Rove to Plame leak
On the October 25, 2005, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Hannity responded to a caller's assertion that White House senior adviser Karl Rove was "involved" in the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity by labeling the caller a "nut case" and accusing him of "hatred, hatred, hatred for Bush and anyone associated with him." Rove did reportedly disclose Plame's identity to a reporter.
From the March 9 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, which featured co-host Alan Colmes and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA):
COLMES: It's pretty astounding to have one of the president's biggest supporters basically say -- you know, distancing himself there from what the White House is doing.
GINGRICH: Well, wait a second. I mean, [Rep.] Mark Foley [R-FL] was describing the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 1, is the Congress. Now, the job of the Congress is that nobody in Congress is on the president's team. They are independently elected members who work with the president. They are not people who work for the president.
COLMES: And he was making it very clear that he wanted to create some distance between House Republicans --
GINGRICH: Well, look --
COLMES: -- and the White -- and the West Wing.
GINGRICH: Look, on this particular issue -- and I know you love hearing this, Alan, so I -- I don't know. I don't know. Between now and your radio show later on tonight --
HANNITY: Hey, we got to -- we --
GINGRICH: -- how -- how many times you are going to want to go at this, but I concede this was a mistake. I -- you know, I feel very strongly this was a mistake. I'm glad it's now over.
HANNITY: Mr. Speaker, hang on one -- right there one second. And -- and, actually, we are not Kool-Aid drinkers, like some of the Clinton supporters that defended the indefensible, which is interesting.
"...nobody in Congress is on the president's team."
Yeah, right. They've been nothing BUT the PR-esident's team from the get-go. And that includes almost all of the Decoycrats, except for the few that occassionally appear on Democracy Now.
But being greedy people, they didn't want to lose their jobs just because Chimp wanted to make his friends richer. It wasn't a moral stance or any concern for the country -- it was self interest.
Hannity: ..."we are not Kool-Aid drinkers, like some of the Clinton supporters that defended the indefensible, which is interesting".
That is one of the most flabbergasting things I have ever heard. Hannity is not a mere kool-aid drinker (it was actually falvorade at Jonestown), he is more like the kool-aid man distributing his mind-numbing poison to the kiddies 5 hours a day. Hannity has done nothing but lick Bushco's boots since he was elected. Kudos to Media Matters for documenting a small sample of Hannity defending his fellow rightwingers and their hateful drivel. While the totality of Hannity's actions in this department would create an article the size of an encyclopedia, I would have included Hannity defending Ann Coulter on his show after she has made one of her brilliant comments about killing liberals/foreigners/gays.
For one thing, if it's wrong to blindly support Clinton, it's also wrong to blindly support Bush, and so attacking Clinton supporters for blindly supporting Clinton, while obviously doing so him himself is hypocritical.
But secondly, did Clinton supporters defend the indefensible?
When?
I saw no one defending the indefensible where Clinton was involved. I saw Clinton being attacked unfairly, and people defending him from those unfair attacks. I saw an investigation by a couple of special prosecutors that cost more than $50 million dollars looking into allegations against President Clinton and his wife that came up with nothing besides sexual infidelity and a lie about that infidelity in a deposition in a case that was thrown out of court.
Seems like Hannity was trying to excuse his actions by accusing others of doing the same.
Except that, if it's wrong for others to do it, it's wrong for him to do it.
And, except that he lies about others doing it to benefit Clinton. Most everyone I have ever seen admits that Clinton got a blow job and lied about it in a deposition, and ackowledges that it was wrong to do those things.
about Hannity's shameless pandering to ultra-wingnut Randall Terry during the Schiavo fiasco. In a way, he may be the worst of the worst among the current lineup of quasi-fascist rightwing blowhards because he is such an intellectual dimwit. He is totally unable to discuss issues in a rational way. Like so many others of his ilk, he'd be lost without his kill button.
On his radio show early in the port deal story he was voicing his objection to it, similar to many of both parties. He quickly added that his opposition was different than Clinton's or Schumer's because, even though they had the same view, they were just demagogues lookong for political gain.
He has not a shred of intellectual honesty, something he trumpets on a daily basis. He's a cancer on journalism today.
Invoking Clinton, the GREATEST PRESIDENT in the last 43 years, as a benchmark of "bad" behavior or partisan obsequiousness is obscenely out of touch with reality. The list of Bush #43 screw-ups in 5+ years as compared to Clinton's screw-ups is like weighing a dwarf star against a dwarf, yet Fox News and the entire roster of Republicans at ALL levels of governance continue to support Bush #43 without regard to reality.
A word of advice Sean: you and the fair and mentally unbalanced Fox News bunch oughtn’t to play the Kool-Aid supping fanatic card when your tongue is stained purple.
You must certainly understand the "formula". When Bush appears to be in some kind of compromising position - ATTACK CLINTON!
Find some tenous link! Reach for some ridiculous parallel. Create some grade school analogy! Deflect reality. Then ATTACK CLINTON!
Mr. Hannity's makes full use of that "formula" quite skillfully. Thusly, there is never a negative Bush Administration development that Hannity can't diminish without proclaiming Bill Clinton was worse at it!
He wanted Clinton crucified for his lies regarding his personal life yet he blindly defends every one of Bush's lies. Bush could slit a puppy's throat right on the White House lawn and Hannity would find a ay to defend it.
I really hate saying this "given how much I despise Hannity". But I don't think Hannity is drinks the president's Kool Aid. He is more in bed with the Radical Right than the president. When the president does not agree with the radical right, "which is rare", he calls him out. Of course I think the radical right is far more dangerous drink. But I don't want to see Hannity defenders start whinning about how Hannity is independent. As long as the statement does not go against the conservative dogma Hannity is ready to defend any conservative.
So much of what media matters quotes is "made up" truth.
They cite media reports all the time that are from anonymous sources.
Lots of people think Abu Ghraib was way overblown. Today, supposedly Richard Armitage is the Plame leaker, yesterday we read you could google her name and figure out she was a spy. Also today, we find out Bush was right and Saddam did seek uranium in the 1990 according to newly translated documents (see today's Washington Times).
Much of these debates are still very fluid because all the information is not in. Also, MMFA taints arguments by attacking Bill Bennett as a racist for making an academic argument but I'm sure they wouldn't attack an academic like Jay Bennish for his Bush/Nazi rant.
All that being said, Hannity still gives me a headache, and if he wants to elevate his game, he needs to drop some of his juvenile humor. He is a tough interviewer, maybe the best the conservatives have. I don't know why, he tends to get on my nerves and I am on his side most of the time.
I can only offer a theory as to why you might get a headache listening to or watching him. 1. I disagree with your statements regarding Media Matters. 2. I respect your opinion. 3. You're not WRONG because I disagree with you. 4. Hannity can't bring himself to do what I just did with numbers 1 thru 3!
Lots of people think Abu Ghraib was way overblown. -Leatherhelmet
Thats because this lying chimp administration would only let a dozen or so photographs be released from the 1,600 in their possession. Why won't they realease the rest? So morons can argue that Abu Ghraib was overblown.
I'll tell you why you get a headache from listening to Hannity. It’s because he is constantly lying. I don’t think he is a tough interviewer. Unless by tough you mean constantly yelling at the person being interviewed. His favorite question for liberals is “why do you hate America?”
I know lots of people think Abu Ghraib was way overblown but lots of people also believe that Saddam was partially responsible for 911. Just because people believe something doesn’t mean it is right.
Funny how when the Domestic Spying was leaked the President was all over the story. But when a CIA operative was leaked he did not care. Funny, now it is “you could Google her and know she was a spy.” Come on, that does not defend the person or people that leaked her information. Sure someone “may” have been able to figure it out but that is no excuse for the person or people who leaked the information.
I can not believe you are attempting to defend Bill Bennett by comparing him to Jay Bennish. Comparing people to Nazi’s is so typical today that it is nearly cliché. But even “academically” saying that the murder of a race of people would be good for a crime rate is disgusting. It is not true and only shows his bigoted backwards mentality.
Hannity will defend anyone who is conservative as long as that belief is not directly against the conservative movement. He misrepresents facts and constantly deceives the American public. Hopefully you will come to see that the headache is from your conscience trying to show you the truth.
GOP Senator Lindsey Graham says the photos he has seen from Abu Grhaib depict rape and murder, Rumsfeld has described the acts as sadistic acts cruel and inhuman. Leatherhelmet says its overblown. I am fairly certain that had it been Americans raped, sodomized, and murdered he wouldnt consider similar reactions to THAT as being overblown but as long as brown skinned people in other countries are the victims, he just doesnt care. Raping them sodomizing them, murdering them its all in a days work. Appologies for torture are disgusting and diminish us all. Leatherhelmet shames all Americans for doing so. Hannity hasnt drunk all the koolaid as it is apparant LH has downed massive amounts. It is apparantly very detrimental to the soul
"Americans raped, sodomized, and murdered"
I guess head chopping doesn't count in your world.
So...they have beheaded people. That makes it AOK for us to rape and sodomize. For one of those moral values voters your morality sure is relative.
AHHHH!!! that's such a cheapshot leatherhelmet! Just because someone says it's WRONG to torture Arabs doesn't mean they're saying it's OK to behead Americans!
leave your strawman down on the farm and stop putting words in people's mouths.
nobody wants to see either Arabs being tortured OR Americans getting beheaded.
. . .that's because you haven't stopped spinning yet. Grab some intelligence, listen to his interviews and arguments. He is without a doubt the wickedest of the wicked. Anyone who had 1/2 a brain wouldn't have to answer every complaint about this administration by saying "It's all Clinton's fault." This guy just continues to give the right what they want to hear. If the right were thinking, responsible people, they would tell Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh and the rest--"Don't make things up, it makes you lose credibility." Of coarse, they don't care, as long as they have ratings, and morons give them ratings.
>>Also today, we find out Bush was right and Saddam did seek uranium in the 1990 according to newly translated documents (see today's Washington Times).
This would be huge news. I just checked on CNN and didn't see it mentioned. Are you sure you are not confusing speculation with fact? Because you play loose with the facts with this statment:
>>yesterday we read you could google her name and figure out she was a spy.
No. It was not a google search. You had to get the info from a database. And even then, the info didn't say "Valerie Plame is a spy." It simply stated her address was an embassy. You would have had to dig for the info.
I just found an editorial making the bizzarre claim you just posted. Can't you tell the difference between irresponsible speculation from a right-wing source known for exaggerating and lying and real facts?
[link to www.washtimes.com]
your google only picks up cnn or dailykos.
They are still analyzing and translating but here is what they are finding:
In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.
[link to www.washtimes.com]
This in NO WAY supports your claim that MM is touting anything 'made up'. The claim wasnt that Saddam was trying to get Uranium fromAfrica, at least not as pertains to the Plame affair. Rather trying to get it from Niger. Since Niger doesnt HAVE control over their uranium since there is no evidence from ANYWHERE that Iraq tried to get uranium from THEM. It is far from made up. Niger could not get significant amounts of uranium to Iraq if they tried. THOSE are FACTS not anything made up. This is pure desperation.
In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s. [link to www.washtimes.com] -Leatherhelmet
Who in their right mind would accept a rag run by Moonies as a reliable source?
This report is propaganda. The translator of the tapes is one Tierney. This is what that rigth-wing publication, the NRO online has to say about Tierney:
[link to www.nationalreview.com]
Later, burried in the article, is this quote:
And then the article goes on to pass the most ridiculous speculation that the WMDs are in Iraq. Thier proof consists of Tierney, punidits, and the vague conviction of miliatry officers. Humorously, they are using the fact that Saddam positioned his trusted military officers at border crossings. Why is this humurous? Because there was a very interesting article in the New York Times that gives hard evidence that Saddam told his officers before the war taht there were no WMDs. Somehow, this proof didn't make it into the Wastington Times--or should I say National Enquirere?
The torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was not overblown and the only thing fluid in the debate is when are they going to go after someone of higher rank than an E5. There has been systematic abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and in Afghanistan. The people responsible have shamed everyone who ever wore a uniform in service of this country. Our president and his attorney general have tried an end run around the law and should both be ashamed of themselves. In the past the American Military held themselves to higher standards than their enemies. As a nation, we should repudiate this type of behavior, now. You, as a military man, should know better than to give excuses for this kind of behavior.
What is Hannity talking about? Indefendible? Is this another reference to the BJ? I don't get it.
Obviously, it doesn't matter WHAT he's talking about... as long as his message is "liberals bad", "CLINTON!", and whatever other garbage he can spin. None of this is based in any sort of fact. The Neocon hard-liners just hear Hannity speak and spew the same nonesense in like fashion...
Hey HANNITY! What has Bush done in the last 6 years that has been good for our gov't and our country??? Oh right... Clinton. Good one.
"On the June 7, 2005, broadcast of ABC's daytime talk show The View, Hannity downplayed the abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib by claiming that the extent of the abuse was limited to "underwear on the head of one of them." "
Don't we WISH that the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was merely limited to minimal abuse! Far from it, the revelations of torture were so sexually depraved and disgusting, the humiliation so vile, the despicable acts deserve nothing but loud condemnation. Not only were Iraqi prisoners defiled but the "interrogators" themselves were also forever debased, and the conscience of America is irreversibly tarnished.
"Soldier Quits Army in Disgust at 'Illegal' American Tactics in Iraq", By Sean Rayment, The Telegraph UK
Sunday 12 March 2006
"An SAS soldier has refused to fight in Iraq and has left the Army over the "illegal" tactics of United States troops and the policies of coalition forces.
After three months in Baghdad, Ben Griffin told his commander that he was no longer prepared to fight alongside American forces.
He said he had witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by US troops, claiming they viewed all Iraqis as "untermenschen" - the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human."
-----------------------
"Mr Griffin, 28, who spent two years with the SAS, said the American military's "gung-ho and trigger happy mentality" and tactics had completely undermined any chance of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population. He added that many innocent civilians were arrested in night-time raids and interrogated by American soldiers, imprisoned in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, or handed over to the Iraqi authorities and "most probably" tortured."
------------------------------
" "I did not join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy," he said. He expected to be labelled a coward and to face a court martial and imprisonment after making what "the most difficult decision of my life" last March.
Instead, he was discharged with a testimonial describing him as a "balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions".
Last night Patrick Mercer, the shadow minister for homeland security, said: "Trooper Griffin is a highly experienced soldier. This makes his decision particularly disturbing and his views and opinions must be listened to by the Government." "
[link to www.truthout.org]
to find mis information is a waste of time. Any one who regulary broadcasts the views of Pat Robberman can't be considered a serious journalist and even less of an entertainer. But I expect most of the outrageous "facts" he throws out are merely done for the sake of ratings, after all, no ratings = no job.
became a cliche like this is because it spoke of people so blind in their belief that they would kill others and themselves because of what their "leader" told them. i don't think there was any blind belief in clinton, mainly because he did a good job. balanced budgets, alert on terrorism, and a general attentiveness to governing. on the other hand the really blind are those who continue to defend the indefensible mr. bush. i would like for any one to tell me when they voted for this man in 2000, that this is what they expected. this administration is a disaster, an endless war totally mismanaged, two major cities suffer crippling blows because of failure to heed warnings, out of control spending. koolaid is a right wing drink of choice. [and clinton does not get my unqualified endorsement. nafta and other trade agreements have left corn farmers in mexico and rice framers in haiti unable to compete with american agribusiness.]
Let's not forget that botched job at supposedly protecting copyright and intellectual property rights (and throwing the concepts of fair use out of the window) known as the DMCA too..
That was definitely one of the things alongside with NAFTA that saddened me about Pres. Clinton..
Enough with the K00l-Aid references, honestly. Half the people watching have no clue what it actually means.