On Fox, Hannity, North, and Hasselbeck claimed Pelosi may go to Iran, despite her denial
On the April 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity, Fox News military analyst Oliver North, and ABC's The View co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck all repeated the false claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would consider a diplomatic trip to Iran, even though the Associated Press had reported her spokesman's statement the previous day that Pelosi has "no intention of going to Iran." The claims continued despite co-host Alan Colmes' noting that Pelosi "never said she was going to Iran." Later, Colmes noted, "[H]er spokesperson says she has no intention of going to Iran."
During an April 10 press conference, shortly after returning from a trip to Syria, Pelosi and House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) were asked by reporters if they were interested in extending their diplomacy to Iran. Lantos replied, "Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning." He added: "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be." Although Pelosi did not respond to the question or to Lantos' statement, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article headlined, "Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran." Conservative Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked to the article on his website, the Drudge Report, with the headline "Pelosi may go to Iran ..."
However, throughout Hannity & Colmes, Hannity, North, and Hasselbeck repeated the claim that Pelosi may be interested in traveling to Iran without noting the statement by Pelosi's spokesman. In the first segment, Hasselbeck said, "You know, people now are saying, should Nancy Pelosi be -- you know, should she have gone over to Syria? Should she have been in Iran? Will she go to Iran?" Colmes responded by saying, "She never said she was going to Iran," to which Hasselbeck replied, "No, she didn't say she was going to Iran, but the potential is there. We all know that." Later, Hannity told viewers that "the embattled San Francisco speaker hints at an impending visit to the rogue nation of Iran," and North said that Pelosi is "now willing to at least consider going to Iran."
From the April 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HASSELBECK: Absolutely. On so many fronts, we divide ourselves between race and politics. You know, people now are saying, should Nancy Pelosi be -- you know, should she have gone over to Syria? Should she have been in Iran? Will she go to Iran?
COLMES: She never said she was going to Iran.
HASSELBECK: No, she didn't say she was going to Iran, but the potential is there. We all know that.
COLMES: She should be. She --
HASSELBECK: She should go there. And have chit-chats.
COLMES: Absolutely. She should have chit-chats, because we should be talking to other countries, just like the Baker commission suggested.
By the way, you say you're evolving. Toward liberalism?
HANNITY: No, don't. That's devolving.
COLMES: You're getting -- you're growing, you're evolving, you're moving toward the light?
HASSELBECK: Did I suggest that?
COLMES: Is that what's happening here?
HASSELBECK: Oh, Alan. Oh, Alan.
COLMES: You said you were growing, so I figured you were --
[...]
HANNITY: And later -- well, we haven't seen the latest of Pelosi diplomacy as the embattled San Francisco speaker hints at an impending visit to the rogue nation of Iran. We'll get into that later on. Straight ahead.
[...]
HANNITY: Also, Nancy Pelosi making friends with America's enemies. First Syria, now a possible visit to Iran. Why is the San Francisco liberal willing to compromise with radicals and apparently not the president? That's next.
[...]
HANNITY: Let's talk a little bit about Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria and sort of a veiled threat that now, "Well, maybe I'll create my own diplomatic effort in Iran."
NORTH: Yeah. Which would be a disaster, by the way. I mean, it was bad enough to go and cavort on what I call her, if you will -- I suppose it's kind of like the Terrible Regimes Victory Tour, or something like this.
I mean, what this woman is doing is playing with American diplomacy and convincing our adversaries -- and they're very serious adversaries -- that we really don't have a foreign policy in this country. And I find that to be very alarming. When she says things like she said in Syria, offering to be a broker between the Israelis, who didn't ask for one, and encouraging a peace process that is totally broken.
And she's now willing to at least consider going to Iran, which just threatened the world by announcing that they brought on an array of centrifuges, 3,000 of them --
HANNITY: Hey, Colonel.
NORTH: -- about 100 times more than anybody thought they had. That's very serious.
HANNITY: We're running out of time. I think you had the best War Stories I ever saw, your biography of Winston Churchill. And now you have the Manhattan Project to Tehran. It's going to be right after Hannity's America on Sunday night.
Real quick, [unintelligible] controversy still waging over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
NORTH: Yes, but the most important thing is the new enemy who intends to use a nuclear weapon -- and David Kay is as blatant about it as you could be -- is Iran. And [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad wants to have his finger on the nuclear trigger. That's like playing Russian roulette with nuclear weapons.
COLMES: By the way, her spokesperson says she has no intention of going to Iran. It was Lantos who said he'd like to go.
NORTH: Neither one of them should go.
COLMES: We thank you for being with us. Hope you feel better. Be sure to tune into --
NORTH: I feel great.
COLMES: -- War Stories this Sunday at 10 p.m. Eastern, directly following Hannity's America.
Lantos replied, "Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning." He added: "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be." Although Pelosi did not respond to the question or to Lantos' statement
Pelosi should go and take Harry with her and stop this terrible war Bush strated.
But Lantos is visciously pro-Israel. He'd only go to insult and threaten everyone in sight. It's the Zionazis who are the most eager to blow up Iran.
Hey!! Pelosi!! You'll go where Fox tells you to go!!
Hannity's two most frequent guests- Oliver North and Dick Morris, are two of the slimiest names in politics. Why should anyone believe literally anything they have to say?
Because they validate the viewers' preconceived notions. These morons that watch faux news don't have to be ashamed of their bigotry and hatred as long as there are "newspeople" on the "teevee" openly spouting the same nonsense the viewers are truly too ashamed and too afraid to display on their own.
Ah, Lis Hasselbeck joins the conservative misinformation party.
Hopefully Rosie sets her straight on Monday.
I was thinking it was the guy from Baywatch...
Rosie to set her straight????!!!!
According to her, Bush knocked down the towers, the terrorists are good people w/ children, the British faked their soldiers getting captured...and on an on.
Your homework is to find the actual occasions, with links, where Rosie has unequivocally suggested each and every one of those things.
If you can't, then you need to
1. STFU
2. Become intimately acquainted with the term "straw man".
Then, and only then will you be allowed to return to the adult table for further discussion.
Run along now.
Oops.
Not "suggested".
Stated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiIyI6ugmUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0JBpJA6k4s
http://newsbusters.org/node/8987
HERE IT IS.
url 1: swing and . . . a miss! Rosie's closest approach to espousing "Bungle done it" is "I don't know."
I told myself I wasn't going to any more of Ldorens links, but I'm a sucker for cheap entertainment
Actually, when asked if she thinks Bush did it, she says "no", although she seems to have some fixation on fire not melting steel.
"Don't live in fear" doesn't seem too crazy, in the context of talking about the dehumanization of entire groups of people..
Unless I heard it wrong, O'Donnell's comments on the British hostages were that the intent of the Iranians was different than compared to the 70s situation.
I realize these were put up before I forbade LDoren from providing links to sites that are irrelevant to its point, but I just had to see if it was still batting .000.
BTW, anybody wondering on what planet the righty posters here make sense, go to the Newsbusters link, and read the comments. I especially like the tag lines posters add ("Save my gun, shoot a liberal " is among the most clever)
Why do they think none of us liberals have firearms? I've got three.
I have somewhat the same problem, although applied in a different context (*I* favor the molten steel in the basement element, since otherwise I have to drag out several sources of "authority" to argue that even the collapse is physically impossible solely from the maximum calculation of duration and temperature of the contents plus the entire 10,000 gal of fuel per tower; although I believe that to be true, I rarely address that argument.)
Isn't it nice that you cut out what she said.
She said don't fear the terrorists because they have children too. Under that logic, we shouldn't fear the KKK and Nazis.
Moreover, she DID say that the soldiers were captures to provide a justification to go to war, and she compared it to the Gulf of Toncin (spelling).
She also said that the Gov't knocked down the towers.
We used to not be afraid of anyone. Didn't somebody once say "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?"
I might really believe we're in a War on Terror if the government wasn't so bound and determined to keep us in a state of generalised, non-specific terror all the time...
DEEZNUTS
Great post! Lol!
I think that some of these people will never see the truth, maybe its brainwashing from childhood and they never will get over it?
Har. Things are getting tough on the Rightys, even the ones who are normally semi-coherent. Anyone else notice the regular posters who are degenerating before our eyes?
Yes I have its almost sad
I take issue with your use of words. Degenerating means to degenerate.
I've always prided myself on being a degenerate. We, degenerates of this world will not stand to be compared to these people.
King, as a fellow degenerate-American, I obviously meant no affront to you. I have no problem with degeneracy, as it is defined by the Puritan busybodies who apply the word based on people's private lives and other areas of nunya-f*ckin-bizness.
I was specifically referring to the observable degeneration of the ideology and coherence of the conservative posters who seem to be plummetting into the neighborhood of Slobbering Valley lately.
I hope this clears things up.
Ldoren is having a rough week, and can only link to sites that have nothing to do with its comments.
Of course, having a very high embarrassment threshold , and living in the right wing world where all errors are erased overngiht,it will be back with more of the same, as if nothing ever happened.
Why do you have to be so hateful? If the poster is wrong, its ok to simply correct them. How about a pledge of civility, for just one day? No cheap shots, just a debate, based on the merits of the arguments you present.
And if a poster is always, and persistently, and, well, idiotically wrong, to an extent that impedes such discourse as might otherwise arise here - almost as though their whole purpose is to so impede - what then?
How many times, for example, do we suffer 700-word cut-and-paste operations, lacking any credible relevancy to the thread topic, lacking even rudimentary formatting (such as paragraphing) to be dropped upon us without objection? How many times do we accept, and track down, links to, well, unrelated sites, links provided as the sole substantiation of rather strange and extreme arguments, without objecting that those links are not merely not the proffered proof, but at least as often as not, are absolute refutation of the poster's alleged point? Are we allowed, finally, to explore the threshold of pain for the guilty, to see if (like a puppy being house-broken) scolding and chastisement can be applied usefully?
As to the usual advice to simply ignore the offender, that might work well if there were only few dozen regulars, but (especially with the attention Imus' problems have attracted) there are daily several dozen new IDs showing up, who do not know the history of our many resident trolls (or might themselves be new ones - who knows?)
Look, I'm just saying the level of discourse usually drops very quickly in many of the threads. I typically don't post, a "lurker" I guess, but just try to absorb the various points of view. It seems that a big part of MMFA are the boards and opinions within and for MMFA to be effective, the boards, in my opinion, need to be less about the insults and more about the discussion.
I can't even count the number of times I've seen people dismiss everything a poster says, before its even been posted. On any given topic Tommy, for example, is called out and ridiculed before he even posts. I don't often agree with him, but I still want to hear what he has to say, because he acts as a sounding board as much as Tex and Jeter.
The responses that I am responsible are my own. If someone tries taunting me into a degrading exchange it is my responsibility to try to rise above the fray, not descend into it.
I know this is probably coming across as a "holier than thou" thing, and I'm sorry for that. Any way, just my 2 cents. Keep posting posters!
Cute little Lizzy Hasselbeck got the handbook. Wow.
The bash Pelsosi train never should have left the Limpaugh Station with Cheney at the helm...that is if there was a such thing as a Left wing Media
"The potential is there" . . . for FoxLies and all the other Corporate Media to do useful things; but they won't. "The potential is there" . . . for Repugnants to evolve toward humanity, if not liberalism; but they won't. "The potential is there" . . . for Bungle to disavow his lust for stolen wealth and stolen power; but he won't.
"The potential is there" . . .
Why is Ollie North not serving life in prison for Iran Contra?
Because he 's a war HERO!!! Oh, wait... he's not, you're right- he should be in chains for lying to Congress about his illegal activities...
Because in the USA, it's ok to travel outside the borders with a government passport and kill brown people in foreign lands, by any means deemed enjoyable.
Ollie is a traitor. He should be in jail.
Ollie North refers to Nancy Pelosi's factfinding trip to Syria as the "terrible regime victory tour". These words are coming from the man that was involved in selling weapons to IRAN. This happened after IRAN had released American hostages that they had held for over a year. I guess Ollie thinks that no one will remember his crimes.
Amazing. The bar is so low at Fox News, a reality show contestant quarterback's wife qualifies as a political pundit.
so far not a one of yo has made one intelligable comment other than call fox news unfair .therefore i suggest that since you have control of the remote that you turn it off. or better yet change it to the far left and keepyour opinions to youselves.
Here's a U and an R...there you go, be a good chap and run off now
You must have overlooked the absolutely intelligible word, "LIE". Unfair? Maybe so, but I didn't notice, for how fair does one expect a LIE to be?
Eden, do you have an "A"? Conley didn't have one for intelligable.
Thanks for drawing attention - I hadn't even noticed that "it" had mis-spelled the word, so busy was I pointing out that there was no dearth of intelligible commentary available, and that said commentary seemed to lack accusation of "unfair", as opposed to the prevalent "lie".
What's this? Don't you believe in the first ammendment?
I dont think he can count that high
"keepyour opinions to youselves."
Spoken like a good little fascist.
Begone troll!
Sorry, Dar, didn't mean to come storming into your living room(basement?) with all these opinions.
I guess I will give my opinion whenever I feel like it. The airwaves BELONG to us and we have every right to complain when we dont like how they are used. I dont know who you think you are but your delusions of adeqacy have gotten the better of you.
"delusions of adeqacy"
* (jotting down/stealing for future uncredited, "off the cuff" use)*
That one is an original. Feel free to lift any of my stuff as public domain. I am an amatuer
Something to do with Shrub Sr. I believe he pardoned him when he left office. Some other guy from the Contra mess got off also. He's reportedly working in some capacity in washington D.C.
Poindexter. He got a job in Rumsfeld's Pentagon. He tried to set up a program called Total Information Awareness that would collect all information on Americans, especially what we bought at stores, read in libraries, watched on tv, etc. Interestingly enough, none of the information was militarily relevant and was to be handed to donor corporations to figure out how best to milk us like cattle for product consumption. The program was rejected after public outcry, but the Pentagon uses a similar program to determine how best to con teen-age children for recruitment purposes. They use outside civilian data-mining corporations that also consult corporations on American consumption habits.
Isn't it nice to know that we're considered cattle to be herded, controlled, milked, and slaughtered by our government and the corporate world? Welcome to America, leave your humanity and free will at the door. Just follow the corridor and have a seat in the room marked Brainwashing.