Citing no evidence, Hannity maintains Iraqi WMDs "were moved"
On the January 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while discussing the execution of Saddam Hussein, co-host Sean Hannity again claimed of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction, "I believe there were WMDs" in Iraq, adding, "I believe they were moved." As Media Matters for America has previously noted, the Iraq Survey Group's final report, commonly known as the Duelfer report, did not find any evidence that illicit weapons were secretly transferred out of Iraq.
According to the Duelfer report's Key Findings:
- "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
- "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
- "Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of [Biological Warfare] weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction."
On January 17, 2005, the Associated Press wrote that unnamed "intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information -- never 'a piece,' said one -- indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere." The same article reported that the ISG's chief, Charles Duelfer, "told a Senate panel ... that it remained unclear whether banned weapons could have been moved from Iraq." Duelfer was quoted as saying, "[A] lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. ... But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."
Hannity has a history of distorting Duelfer's remarks to support his claim that WMDs were moved from Iraq. On the June 21, 2006, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity also touted a discredited report that WMDs were found in Iraq.
From the January 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: It's interesting to me that, considering -- you know, look at his fate here. I mean -- and, by the way, there's nobody in the world who deserves it more than him. I mean, evil to the level of a million and a half people killed, by estimates, under his reign.
But he didn't have to get to this point. He could have had everything. He could have had his 80 palaces, a life of luxury, but he was so -- he was such a megalomaniac, so arrogant, such a narcissist that he thought he could beat the United States. It's sort of spectacular.
MORRIS: And even more so, if you believe there were no WMDs.
HANNITY: Well, it's spectacular in terms of its stupidity. I believe there were WMDs. I believe they were moved. All right, let me move to some political --
MORRIS: But the political reaction -- I remember I was on BBC the night they captured the guy, and there was this liberal on with me who was saying they shouldn't have shown him with his teeth open and his hair crazy, and I said, "What do you want, hair and make-up for a dictator?"
I wonder if we can look forward to mysterious "Iraqi WMD sightings" along with Elvis, Jimmy Hoffa, and Jesus appearing in a tortilla in Mexico.
I AM SORRY BUT.....
IF HE THINKS THE WMD'S WERE MOVED.....
Then he probably thinks Elvis Presley was moved and is still alive out there somewhere with those WMD's. I am totally in awe as to how Hannity is allowed to be on camera for a news organization. But then I consider, hey, this is happening at Fox News and I can then understand.
This statement beats anything Limpbrain or O'Really?? has every uttered. Please.....Would someone please take Hannity away in a straight jacket?
If he truly believes the WMD's were moved, that is major breaking news and he should have to explain the rest of the story. Such as where are they now.
Just the right amount of humor. I think the rest of us make the mistake of assuming that Hannity like Coulter and others actually believes what he says, whereas the likelihood is merely that he - like the others - is pandering to the diehard audience that continues to result in the fattening of his wallet.
I know the coverage is small here so I send some of these comments to all the news outlets and to Senators, Congress and others to show them what people think about the issues we face today.
Thanks for posting you comments here.
Take Care - Sam I Am
He's still bringing up the nonsense that Santorum and Hoekstra were hyping, and when he does he presents it as fact. It's a double-edged sword for him. He gets to say that there were in fact WMDs, and then he also gets to bash the "liberal press" for hiding the truth by not reporting it.
under herr dubyah's desk? Remember how funny that skit was!? While our troops are killed and injured while looking for them there pesky "WMD", herr dubyah gets to make jokes over the hunt for WMD. That deserves a capital "LOL" and a knee slap.
Hannity's faith-based foreign policy. Actually there were "WMDs" in Iraq at one time, so Hannity can say this without technically lying. What he won't mention is that we probably provided most of them so that Saddam could kill Iranians.
Here's the real question: At the tiime of Bush's invasion, was Iraq a threat to the U.S., as Bush emphatically stated? The answer is a resounding "NO."
God spoke to Hannity [yeah he usually only speaks to Robertson] BUT perhaps God told Sean they were moved. Too bad he didn't tell him, WHERE, WHEN & HOW ;-)
There where no weapons like they had ax-pected to find. Only a fool lives on that false hope.
I believe this is what psychologists call magical thinking. If I believe it will happen then it will magically come into being. This is similar to yesterday's posts about Iraq invasion looking better in the future. Hannity and his supporters cant wrap the heads around the fact that we have been beaten. The invasion was fatally flawed on several levels. History will highlight all the missteps- criminal incompetence. They cant look at reality and make radical changes in their thinking. Despite the mightiest army the world has ever known we are being slowly bled . They blame the media and liberals, they need to look at themselves. There were no WMDs. They need to stop believing their own propaganda so they can make decisions based on reality and facts.
Hannity gleened his knowledge of WMD's sitting on that throne in Baghdad. All hail King Sean!
Jamil Hussein (sp?) has the WMDs under a tarp in his basement.
Michelle needs to get right on this!!
"Reality has a liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert
would be that Saddam moved them to the easiest place imaginable-- the two gaping orifices on Sean Hannity's body. That would explain the noxious fumes that are apparent during the H & C timeslot.
Evidence is extremely over rated and rarely should get in the way of the good prosecution of bad wars.
Spectacular in terms of HIS stupidity. I know a few other people in positions of leadership in this country and in the media who could be described as megalomaniacs, arrogant or narcissists. Maybe Sean should look in the mirror Or are those rumors true about there being no mirrors in the Fox News building? After all, so few people working there cast reflections.
So why do our President and his followers find virtue in faith-based political policies such as knowing, just knowing, Saddam moved his WMD, or just knowing the free market will solve all our problems when evidence to the contrary is all around them? It’s one thing to believe in God, an improvable, but believing that tons of biochemical stockpiles were magically moved without leaving a single trace is unadulterated absurdness, as is believing in the magical “Invisible Hand” of economic stability when observable reality illustrates time and time again that it’s actually the Visible Meddling Hand of Governmental Intervention deciding which businesses to bail out (airlines/automobile makers/banks/farmers) and which to just let rot.
Believing in myths isn’t sound government. Hell, it isn’t sound, period.
Sean needs to take his thumb out of his mouth, take a look around and soak up the ugly truths of the real world.
He doesn't know squat, he just knows how to keep the myths alive so that wingnuts can repeat the bullsh*t while protecting their wounded pride.
Hannity: "I believe they [WMDs] were moved."
Yeah. Makes sense.
Following OUR country being attacked on 9/11, the first thing we did (as soon as Cheney crawled into his spider-hole) was to hide ours in Canada.
Hey-it's what "I believe". I don't have to prove it.
and subtle too. For tghe longest time I wanted to believe Cunningham was innocent until the evidence was overwhelming. Hannity is incapable of performing logical trains of thought.
This is probably not a case of Hannity being stupid by "believing" WMDs were moved. I believe he knows full well that if there were ANY eveidence to support such a statement, that the current administration would have made sure it got out to the US citizens, especially before the last elections. But while Hannity does not believe his statement is true, he does hope that it will provide solace for the 33% of the population that still support Bush. I beleve that he is, once again, deliberately lying in order to help keep some people believing in Bush. It is pathetic that FOX and Hannity resort to deliberately lying to the American public in order to push their agenda. It is also anti-American, as it seeks to subvert Democracy by misleading people about the facts upon which they base their voting decisions.
I don't throw around that term lightly but lying "news" shows deserve it. Hannity also urged people NOT TO VOTE before the last election (could anything be much more "anti-American" than that?) and he excused the Abu Ghraib abuses. He is total scum and I don't like thinking of people that way. It is very telling that Insanity is one of Bush's favorite mouthpieces.
>>"He "believes" no such thing
I agree with you. I don't think he really means what he says.
It's Hannity abusing the trust he's acquired from his audience--an audience of Hannity fans who believe in this man, and trust that Hannity wouldn't lie--that they're getting the straight, honest story. What's really happening is that these fans are being used.
...beyond the loss of life, the horrible financial situation, the usurping of the balance of power in the constitution, the absolute political cronyism of this administration, the one thing I find most damagins is their destruction of facts and truths.
For claiming that libruls are 'relatavists', it is amazing how this administration has reduced everything to opinion. There are no facts any more. Darfur report? Just an opinion. War in Iraq is going badly? Just an opinion. Tax cuts increase deficits? Just an opinion. No WMD in Iraq? Just an opinion. Global Warming is real? Just an opinion.
I can't imagine this administration ever coming up with any factual, objective metrics to measure 'success' in any situation. It's just reduced to opinion and pointing fingers at 'them' who want to use facts for political advantage.
That, I think, is the most destructive aspect of this administration. And Hannity fits right in. It's true because I say it's true. If you cite sources, cite facts, bring up their previous quotes, it has no more value than my opinion.
At least we get the sardonic, tongue-in-cheek Colbert out of this.
The reaction to this comment misses a more subtle point than just "Hannity is such a blowhard fathead, I wish he'd shut up", or "Here we go again with the right-wing lies and propaganda." Those sentiments are perfectly true, but they miss the larger, and more dangerous truth regarding remarks like this.
Hannity isn't just being a fathead and a blowhard, this is part of a pattern of behavior common to the whole right-wing punditocracy. It is a concerted effort to destroy the concept of objective truth.
Much of the progress of liberalism in the last 40 years was facilitated by science, scholarship, and academics -- things that carried the imprimatur of objective reality. Long about the 1980s, the burgeoning social conservative movement figured out that they'd been being beaten by liberalism because liberalism had science and academics on its side. Liberalism profited from seeming to be based on objective fact rather than received wisdom and prejudice.
One response of the right was to launch the attack on the "liberal establishment educrats" in order to discredit their objectivity by accusing them of having an "agenda". Another response was to begin undermining the concept of objective truth. Hannity's strategy follows this reasoning: you can't prove that there weren't WMDs in Iraq at the time of our invasion. Don't bother me with your "evidence" and your "facts"; I don't care what Mohammed al Baradei and a bunch of other wussy-ass UN-lovers say. They just want to undermine the Bush administration and America. You weren't there in Iraq, looking into every corner and square inch of the country at the same instant, so you can't prove that Saddam wasn't hiding WMDs. Because you can't prove it, all your evidence adds up to nothing; it's just your opinion against mine, and why should your opinion be taken as any more valid than mine?
It's analogous to the old bumper sticker: "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." Shawn says "I think there were WMDs in Iraq", and that means his opinion is as valid as the opinion that there weren't because his specious standard of proof cannot be met. That being the case, he proceeds to argue from the assumption that there were WMDs and all policies built around that assumption are valid.
This goes beyond Shawn Hannity, Iraq, or even the Bush aministration. The same process works in the Creation/Evolution debate, and the church-state separation issue, to name but two. Since no one can ever prove that evolutionary theories about the origins of any taxon are true -- because no one was there to see it -- evolutionary theories remain just another idea that has no more validity than creation. No one can prove that God didn't create everything the way it says in Genesis, so it's just one opinion against another. I believe that the Bible is true, and therefore all assumptions that follow from that belief are as valid as any conflicting ones.
Church-state separation works the same way: the Christian right defines atheism as the "belief" that there is no God. Secularism is not the absence of belief in the divine supernatural, it is the belief that there is no such thing, and therefore it is simply a secular atheistic religion. They then argue that if we're going to promote one religion over another in society, why shouldn't it be the religion of the vast majority of Americans, and not the religion of a narrow fringe of God-hating secular atheists?
I think it's important to stop seeing behavior like Hannity's as isolated instances of some right-wing liar shilling for Bush or spewing propaganda, and see the whole pattern as the result (at least) of a concerted effort to redefine debate in America so as to empower reactionary conservatism. Sadly, all pundits do it, left, right, and center, because the whole idea has succeeded appallingly well. However, it's invidious, intellectually dishonest, and destructive to intelligent discourse and realistic policy-making.
-mid
Although I would venture to say that many people, (myself, and others interested in facts as opposed to opinion) do not view the Hannitys and other right-wing pundits and news analysts as isolated examples of anti-intellectual thought and philosophy. There is a vast and growing number of individuals and groups that are promulgating this disconnect from reality. The only way to combat this is to provide a litany of facts before every single lie, half-truth and ommission that is advanced by such unsrupulous people and organizations. The right's strategy is always to advance their arguments without the benefit of context. To overcome that, context based in facts needs to be provided to bolster clear minded, reality based arguments.
Midsize: You are right, that is exactly what is happening. Attack facts so that there is no longer a "truth" to be dealt with. Anytime that facts do not support your position, suggest that the known facts are really just biased statements put out by your political opponenets that should not be believed. Frankly, I always felt that what they did to Kerry was despicable. If they wanted to say that Kerry's Viet Nam experiences were irrelevant to how he would perform as President--fine. If they said that Kerry was wrapping himself too much in his experiences in order to gain votes--fine. But to say that the medals he earned were not deserved, and that he manipulated situations to take those medals--that was horrible. This is not debate. This is taking away a man's past to suit an agenda. Once everything is open to question, then there are no objective facts upon which opinions should be based. Rather "facts" are just twisted and molded to fit a preconceived notion. Our "opinions" are just based on our own existing biases with the facts constructed to support our "opinions'." Noone ever has to think about whether they are right on something; rather any fact that might make someone reconsider their position will just be omitted or changed to reinforce the opinion. Very scary, really, and a complete assault on democracy. If democracy is not based upon a well-informed eloctorate, then it has no intrinsic value at all. It is just a race to see who can misinform the best.
My prayer is that we will come to our senses and look back at this time period much like we look at the yellow journalism at the turn of the previous century. My fear though, is that it will become accepted, conventional wisdom that Murrow, Cronkite, Severied, Huntley, Brinkley, Smith, et al. were nothing but a bunch of muckrackers.
Thank you for such a well-explained analysis. I'd just like to add that this strategy gladly embraces the dumbing-down of the American mind by both the increasing vapidity of much of popular culture and the implicit stratification and mind-dulling of our public school system embraced by the high-stakes testing culture absent any sense of true reform. Keep people ignorant and simplistic, and you can appeal to faith/belief over reason/logic anytime.
KGONZ: Watch the "news" and it highlights exactly what you are saying about the "dumbing down" of America. Three minutes on Iraq and national news, five minutes on the weather, five minutes on sports, five minutes on telling us how air travel will be that day (even though most of us are nor flying on any given day), five minutes telling us who won on American Idol the night before (imagine that--crap from a TV show that I did not want to watch in the first place is now "news" by the next morning), and top it all off with breathless reports on "real news" like Brittany Spears divorce, or Rosie vs. Donald. It is appalling.
A quote that really shows off this it's-all-opinion mentality was GWB's quote. The full quote is "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."
The idea that the 'best action to take' isn't a matter of facts, or measurements, or achievements towards goals, it's a matter of one person's opinion. This coupled with his belief that any self-doubt or reflection is a sign of weakness explains why we're in the mess we're in both at home an in Iraq. Why spend time making plans? Why care about someone's qualifications for a government position? Why spend time in overseeing the rebuilding of New Orleans? "What's best" is all just a matter of opinion, with no basis in reality.
I could as easily imagine him saying, "I'm the decider, and I decide how things are going in Iraq."
They say that history is written by the victors. That might be so, but it is definitely being re-written by the fearful for the fearful.
Even though no WMDs have been found and most people with the experience to know these things agree that they do not exist, the anti-intellectuals, Santorum and Hannity, know better. We are well on our way to becoming an intellectual backwater.
Blind faith is more important than knowledge. Questioning anything is unpatriotic. How did it come to this?
We are living in "Animal Farm".
Worrier: My only disagreement with your statement is that I do not think the people rewriting history are "the fearful." I think they know the risks of a terrorist attack hitting them are small, so they do not fear it much at all. But they are definitely rewriting for the fearful to reinforce the fear, and to get the fearful to agree to grant government more and more power in order to "save" us. Do not ask questions, do not ask for facts, do not worry about civil liberties; just assume that the government will do what is necessary to protect you, and the less the public knows about what the government is actually doing, the better. This is actually a very un-American message, and I never ceased to be amazed at how many outwardly patriotic Americans are so willing to abandon the ideals that really make this country great.
Hannity and O'reilly are secreted off to Iraq where they are allowed supposed inside access so they can come back waving their decoder rings and give "the real story" to the gullible. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld are interviewed by the oh so solemn Brit Hume, who gives them a good solid grilling. Right. Hannity continues to say ad infinitum that the WMDs were moved without ever having to provide a shred of proof, with Dick Morris thrown in playing the part of Charlie McCarthy, or is it Mortimer Snerd? His faith based/magical thinking is just the lipstick on the pig that is this administration. Either interpretation: Hannity as souless, liying government shill or a deluded magical thinker are both equally reprehensible. And the propaganda machine rolls on.
Should edit Sean's "I believe they were moved." comment together with all of his other falsehoods and score it to "What a Fool Believes" by The Doobie Brothers.
Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are two sides of the same coin.
there are still a few things noted in MMFA's post that may leave a reasonable shadow of doubt.
From above
1)"Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of [Biological Warfare] weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction."
2)"[A] lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. ... But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."
And as a third point, while the above info notes that materials were destroyed in 1991, I wonder why a past president lobbed cruise missles into Iraq in the late 90s.
It is my hope that there were/are no WMDs or Biological agents in the area, I don't (like Duelfer) see 100% evidence of same.
that two months right before the war when we had the u n inspectors in iraq. that period of history all right wingers and george bush have chosen to forget. after an initial period of resistance the inspectors were going everywhere and finding nothing. and more importantly, rummy said we know he has wmd because....."we know where they are".....
or were they moved to Syria prior to the 2 months before the onslaught? Other posters here say it is an improbability for Syria to have taken WMDs and yet the ISG mentions materials (of unknown composition) were moved to Syria. What was those materials? Hopefully, not WMDs or Biological Agents that could be processed into WMDs, but who knows for sure? Certainly not our intelligence community.
Sean, 'You're a Great American' Hannity continues to spew outrageous lies to his 'numbed-out' audience WHEN the facts as both presented by the UN Inspectors on the ground WHO for eight years overturned every suspected site in a quest to find the fictitious WMD and the subsequent invasion by American forces reveal without reservation THAT Saddam did abide by the UN demand to destroy what ever WMD was left in the aftermath of Gulf War1.
The bogus WMD rationale for initiating the worst foreign policy blunder in the 200+ years of the Republic was the subterfuge USED to both deceive the World Community and the American people for a folly THAT for a certainty has eroded American credibility throughout the world in addition to providing the impetus to have essentially broken an Army, WHICH had been rebuilt and re-established as an honorable fiighting force in the wake of the VietNam war debacle.
Iraq, a Nation reduced to third world status having fought an eight year war with Iran with ' American made' WMD, Then only to face the combined technological power of the US juggernaut a few years later, followed by US-led and sponsored scanctions for 10 years replete with designated 'No-Fly Zones with continuous aerial bombardment............... And WE are to believe that this impoverished and pulverized nation of internecine tribal and religious rivalries WAS a THREAT to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA???
The real story behind the 'shadow forces' WHO were betrayed and exposed by this treasonous administration with the uncovering of Valerie Plame's spook status as well as the real crime WHICH was the revealing and compromise of Brewster Jennings as the cut-out front company tracking the real WMD throughout the region. This betrayal resulted in a few agents of influence being 'terminated with extreme prejudice'...... and THUS is the Real Crime as it pertains to WMD.
Our security has been undermined by the very same rogue liars WHO repeatedly state that WE are more safe due to this illegal, immoral and dishonorable descent into MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Allow me to close the case:
It is unlikely Iraq shipped banned weapons material into Syria before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to report released by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA/Pentagon team searching for Iraqi weapons programs.
link
why would syria take the chance on doing that and being discovered? not that they are some beacon of democracy or human rights, but they had nothing to gain and lots to lose by being found to be in leaque with saddam.
Hair and make-up for a dictator. How about: wait to convict him until after his natural death, like we all did with Pinochet. There's a need for this thing called consistency in US politics. You can't call Iran and Syria an axis of evil, then ask them to help you in Iraq. You can't keep banging peoples heads together like that without getting your own head banged in twofold.
Everything the Republicans have supported relating to a war that have taken so much life is riding on there being WMDs pointed at the US before we invaded Iraq.
The truth is without the core lie for creating this war, we have did the very thing we have accused Saddam Hussein of doing to his people: invaded and took over another country.
This lie is so strong we have created a silence surrounding the logic of what should of been done after we found out there were no WMDs. However, the more we look back at our actions, the more we realize just how wrong we as a country are.
There are those of us who talk about a truth associated with this war but dare not contemplate holding those who manipulated the facts to go to war responsible.
There are those who would say so what we invaded Iraq. "Anyway Hussain was a murderer who deserved to die. So what we killed so many who had nothing to do with any threat directed at anyone." They have created a term or category for the innocent killed in our name: Collateral Damage.
Now there are the Democrats, who have found it in themselves to try to understand what we have done, how we got into this mess, and who is responsible for the wrong associated with it. The one draw back. I don't think the Democrats want to face the just consequences needed to prove to the world we can own our mistakes.
No one or, in this case, Party is perfect. However, we must stride for perfection in all of it forms, even when does not look so shinny.
The core lie must be clarified at every utterance. The core lie must not be allowed to grow or presented in patriotism. The core must be placed in the very perspective it generated.
Joseph
This is not a valid complaint. As long as he preceded the statement with "I believe", instead of stating it as fact, it's innocent. People say a lot of rediculous things attached with "I believe..." and it's commonly considered an opinion.
Hi, my name is wes. I've decided to be the conservative voice around Media Matters to straighten out the inaccuracies and unfair accusations.
I posted the post above. And you'll probably be seeing more of me around here if they don't cancel my account.
If that is all you have, you better grow a real sense of reality. I spoke about a need to have facts distorted by the Right wing war mongers.
Using your logic: I believe all of what I noted in my post. The next time you introduce yourself as something significant you may want to sound a little more convincing. As it stands, your minority threat want get you taken off the site. However, I have scene a dull sense of grandiosity drive some participants crazy.
Joseph
as I have asked many Cons who believe this WMD fantasy.
If Saddam was a megalomaniac, so arrogant, a vicious killer(and I agree with all of these), why did he not use his WMD's or keep them for protection? Why send your only defense against a country as strong as the USA "OUT" of the country you wish to defend? Why did Saddam not use his WMD's against our Infantry? Sean, you make no sense, but your followers allow you to make a lot of CENTS. May your God have pity on your blackened, greed filled soul.
that was making the rounds in Washington, DC several years ago. Does Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? We ought to know, we still have the receipts.
Weapons of mass destruction had absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. It had to do with the supply of oil. The world is not running out of oil. It has an over supply. Why does OPEC exist? Its surely not to produce more oil.
Saddam only had 3,000 wells. Counting all of the strippers, Texas has one million. Saddam was a loose cannon on deck. He had to be dealth with. If Saddam had chosen to drill and produce to a maximum, he could have broken the price of oil. We couldn't have that now could we?