Hannity falsely claimed Feingold was a "flip-flopper" on Iraq invasion
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity selectively quoted from a speech that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) gave before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to falsely characterize Feingold as a "flip-flopper" on the decision to authorize the Bush administration to use force to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In fact, Feingold's comments, made days before he voted against the October 11 war resolution, contained a multi-faceted argument against the resolution.
On the March 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity selectively quoted from a speech that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) gave before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to falsely characterize Feingold as a "flip-flopper" on the decision to authorize the Bush administration to use force to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. While Hannity noted that Feingold stated in the October 2002 speech that "Iraq presents a genuine threat" and that Hussein "is exceptionally dangerous and brutal," Hannity ignored the fact that Feingold also provided a series of reasons why he opposed the use of force before concluding that "I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us."
In a discussion with Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh about Feingold's March 13 resolution calling for the United States Senate to censure President Bush over the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, Hannity misrepresented Feingold's October 9, 2002, pre-war comments by highlighting only a selected segment of Feingold's speech that opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Hannity told Marsh: "If you want to vote for a guy [Feingold] that, quote, in the lead-up to the war said, 'I agree Iraq's a genuine threat in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potential nuclear weapons. I agree he's dangerous and brutal, Saddam Hussein is,' you know, and then turn on the troops the way he did, just the way [Sen. John] Kerry [D-MA] did -- if that's your guy for '08, I'm all in favor."
In fact, Feingold's comments, made days before he voted against the October 11 war resolution, contained a multi-faceted argument against the resolution. From Feingold's October 9, 2002, speech on the floor of the Senate:
Many of us have spent months reviewing the issue of the advisability of invading Iraq in the near future. Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the president's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, I still don't believe that the president and the administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.
[...]
Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, the administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of Al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.
[...]
None of this is to say that I don't agree with the president on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal if not uniquely so, as the president argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.
[...]
But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomena of many Americans questioning the administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time. I'm talking about the spectacle of the president and senior administration officials citing a purported connection to Al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
[...]
Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time-consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
Hannity has previously distorted other Democratic politicians' positions on the Iraq war, as Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, and here).
From the March 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Well, but -- look, I actually think this is a good thing. Mary Anne Marsh, you can have Russ Feingold. If you want to vote for a guy that, quote, in the lead-up to the war said, "I agree Iraq's a genuine threat in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potential nuclear weapons. I agree he's dangerous and brutal, Saddam Hussein is," you know, and then turn on the troops the way he did, just the way Kerry did -- if that's your guy for '08, I'm all in favor. Let's bring the next flip-flopper on, and he's going to lose just like the last flip-flopper, the friend of yours.
Hannity has been spewing this type of lies and hate since he started.
Cal Thomas declared (4/16/03): "All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking." or perhaps my favorite from Just Joking Joe Scarborough"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing." (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)
Screw this guy and his twisting of the Senator's words.
Only 23 U.S. Senators had the guts (or the wits) to vote "No" on using the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq, and the Senator in question is one of them.
And proud he should be, and the other 22 also, now that it is known to the whole country and the whole world that the Administration lied and falsified intelligence and manipulated the American People and their Congress into believing Iraq was somehow a threat to U.S. National Security.
...and have gotten 2,314 U.S. Troops killed (so far) and $450 billion dollars (so far) for those lies and falsified intelligence and manipulations.
Good for the Senator in question, and the other 22 also, that they voted "No" to invading Iraq; too bad 28 other U.S. Senators hadn't joined them, them none of that madness would've happened.
Then those 2,314 U.S. Troops would be alive today.
(And you all do see what's happening here? Because of the Senator's Censure Resolution, he now has to suffer slander like this crap; and I bet he isn't complaining, because if you're going to stand up for the American People and their Constitution, then you're going to take a little heat from the Devil and his hacks in the media; but to have to take this heat alone, as your "fellow Senators" run away from the fight, that kind of pisses a man off. And I bet those other 22 Senators who voted "No" to invading Iraq aren't going to let the Senator's ass just hang out there in the breeze, suffering slander.)
of Sheer Insanity's "Enron attack."
The shareholders of Enron believed management's lies and then lost their money.
The Democrats listened to the administration and supported the President - now they learn they were serious misled if not outright lied to and they no longer support him.
But if you listen to Sheer Insanity it's the Democrats' fault...
Committed the unforgivable sin of BEING RIGHT
the reason that the reason so many Democrat congressmen and senators believed that Saddam was a threat is because that was what the Bush administration gave phony evidence of Iraqi weapons programs to the Congress. It was the Bush administration which chose what the CIA and other intelligence agencies told Congress. It has already been proven that much of the evidence was manufactured and evidence that put doubt on the President's assertions were suppressed.
The WMD inspectors had only been on the ground in Iraq about 4 months as of 3/19/03, when the war started. HERE'S THE KICKER. The following is the fact which conservatives don't want people to know about the statements Democrats have made saying Saddam was a WMD threat. ALL OF THOSE STATEMENTS WERE SAID BEFORE INSPECTORS WERE ALLOWED INTO IRAQ BY SADDAM IN 11/02. Before that date, the correct thing to do was see Saddam as a threat and everybody did. Saddam keeping out inspectors shows guilt. After the inspectors went in, the correct thing to do was to let the inspectors do their job and prove whether Saddam had WMD or WMD programs or not.
In the months after the inspectors went in, it became clear to many that WMD may not be in Iraq. Democrats pushed to delay the invasion until the inspectors found proof. The UN did the same. It has become clear to me now that the Bush administration did not want the inspectors to do their job. They did not want to risk ending up NOT GOING TO WAR if a long time passed and no WMD were found. They wanted a war and GODDAMMIT they were going to get it.
what most people don't remember is that it was six months from the vote to the invasion. kerry said at the time of the vote that he was in favor for one reason only. to get inspectors in. after an initial period of resistance, they were going everywhere, including the places we sent them. they found nothing and called our information "garbage". they were pulled out for one reason only. bush gave a 48 hour deadline for saddam to leave or war would begin. they wanted their war and they got it. but sometimes be careful of what you wish for. i doubt the judgement of history will be kind to mr. bush.
how exactly did Feingold "turn on the troops"?
what is obvious is that Hannnity actually read Feingold's address. meaning that he read Feingold's stated concerns with the invasion of Iraq. i repeat his concerns here because they are historically relevant:
"If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time-consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security."
it would be nice if cable "news" media talked about these kinds of comments. i suspect that about 70% of America right now would say: "you know what, Feingold was right". i have to think that Hannity knows this, and this why why he is smearing him with such ridiculous comments.
This is classic Hannity at his worst. His entire schtick is made up of half-truths, partial quotes, misquotes and outright lies all wrapped up a neat little package of poisoned deceit that is easily swallowed by all those "Great Americans" out there.
Let's see, in Hannity's world Feingold voted against the resolution to use force in 2003 and is still opposed to the war and in spite of that he is still a "flip-flopper". sigh....
I can't for the life of me figure out how this guy has any shred of credibility left.
The smug master of misinformation...spews more nonsense. No surprise.
Nice Work.
What is Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh doing on Hannity & Colmes? No Democrat or progressive should ever be on Fox, period. They are just setting themselves up and giving Fox undue credibility of being a news organization, which it is not. Fox is a propaganda machine devoted to promoting the neo-con agenda. By the way, Bush flip-flopped on the Dubai port deal. I don't recall Fox calling Bush a flip-flopper.
Hannity is so full of it, I can smell the stench when sitting in front of my monitor. We need to start a campaign of e-mailing MM to folks on the right to see if we can break through their bubble by presenting them with the facts. Then maybe they'll be able to smell the ample quantitites of horse manure emanating from Hannity's mouth.
should shut up. Feingold is the best thing to happen to the Republicans in years. He has split the Democratic party and they are fighting among themselves, his censure proposal is making the dems look weak on defense, and the whole censure debacle is rallying the republican base.
If Hannity had any brains he would leave Feingold alone. He is "Fine Gold" for the republicans.
Who posted some kind of lie that Mr. Schumer's Resolution on Port Security was against "brown-skinned people" and guys named "mo" and other lies, when in fact it was aimed at Foreign Governments that supported the Taliban, such as the UAE...
You think anything you post here has even the least bit of credibility or intelligence to it?
I'm pretty sure I disqualified you and your posts.
And if it wasn't you, then I'm sorry; it must have been some other ignorant jerk.
he was the jerk.
Sorry, you are looking for the wrong poster. Leatherhelmet is not going to provide either of those qualities...ever.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that Hannity is making an effort to disqualify Feingold as a presidential candidate because of something unrelated to the censure resolution? Hannity knows Bush is unpopular. He knows that Democrat and Independent voters are longing for a decisive, outspoken candidate, after so many like Kerry, Mondale, Gore, Dukakis, who played nice and not only lost for it but get unfairly criticized and lied about on top of it. He knows what Feingold is saying is going to resonate with a sizable majority of the people, and that's trouble for you!
The "weak on defense" card is wearing thin. If you were against the Iraq invasion, you were "weak on terror" and on national security. Where's public opinion on that now? As for "rallying the base", Bush is 33-37% approval rating, well over 50% disapproval. How is calling for accountability going to make people forget what a disaster Bush is? Are they going to think he's a victim? Do you really think that people in general are thinking "Yes he's doing a bad job, but don't pick on him, the poor guy"?
If Repubs in congress really feel emboldened by this, then they're free to embrace Bush even more than they have this whole time. Think that's going to sway the swing voters? Good luck!
Flipping channels, and seeing Wolf Blitzer's hack of a face (and beard to the Administration), I had to pause to see what part he was playing this evening...
It was talk of a big Military Offensive in Iraq, a big Air Campaign; there were pictures and everything: Troops aboard craft, in web-slings, awaiting Arrival Time; awaiting Landing.
It was standard DOD file footage, it had nothing to do with the big Air Campaign; but I didn't care, they were good pictures anyway; the Troops mostly had sunglasses on, but I could still see enough of their faces to see they were OK, they were calm, and ready, and OK.
And I wished I could have recognized a face or two, but then I thought about that for a second, and didn't need to recognize anyone, because they looked OK.
But it was just standard DOD file footage anyway.
And then I heard Wolf say a peculiar thing (or more peculiar than usual): He said that the White House was denying that this big Air Campaign had been ordered because of lagging (plummeting!) Public Support for the whole Iraq thing; he said they said it had nothing to do with them, that the Air Campaign was ordered from the Field, by Field Commanders...
But that wasn't what caught me: Wolf then started talking about that lagging (plummeting!) Public Support for the whole Iraq thing; and he showed a graphic, contrasting poll results now, with poll results 3 years ago when the Operation was getting underway; and the numbers were something like 60% against the thing now, with only 30% for it, now...
contrasted with more than 60% for the Operation then, 3 years ago when it was just getting underway, versus about 30% against the thing, then.
And then I realized that that was a reversal of sorts, a reversal of Public Opinion on the whole Iraq thing.
And then I thought "Those damn flip-floppers, the American People!"
And so I was glad to have paused while flipping channels, to have paused on Wolf's face; if not for that insightful observation about the reversal of Public Opinion on the whole Iraq thing, and if not for the denial of the Administration as to the timing of the big Air Campaign, then at least for the pictures of those Troops: Slung-back awaiting, looking calm, looking ready, looking OK (even if it was just standard DOD file footage).
And then I shook it all off, and realized the time, and flipped the channel right over to Keith Olbermann.
He's no flip-flopper.
Yes what a devastating charge indeed. I would think poopy-pants is the only comment that could possibly be more childish.
Feingold didn't flip-flop, but even if he had, what is the point? People see the error of their ways all of the time or simply change their mind on an issue.
I believe Feingold is honest and generally shows good judgement. That is more important to me than whether he ever changes his mind. We have a president right now who isn't honest and rarely changes his mind. I can't see how that is admirable at all in comparison to Feingold as presumably Hannity would like us to think.
Even if Hannity was speaking the truth, which he's not, I think the American public is finally understanding that there is nothing wrong with admitting you've been wrong and based on new information and evidence, you're changing course. Bush Co's message is losing its attraction and the longer they stick with it, the better off progressives will be.
While the media doesn't show the bodies coming home in flag draped coffins every day, the American public can't deny it any longer. We've wasted so many precious lives for what? and the longer you sit on the sidelines, the more you realize you're responsible.