Hannity falsely claimed Dem debates didn't include questions about partial-birth abortion, NIE
On the June 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while discussing the June 5 Republican presidential debate with Republican pollster Frank Luntz, co-host Sean Hannity claimed to be "frustrated" by purported differences between the Democratic and Republican debates: "The Democrats don't get the questions on partial-birth abortion or asked if they've read the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE]. It seems like the Republicans are getting more scrutiny." In fact, during an April 26 debate, the Democratic presidential candidates faced a question on the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion, and at a June 3 debate, several Democratic candidates were asked whether they regretted not reading the September 2002 NIE on the threat posed by Iraq. Indeed, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) response to the NIE question was specifically noted by Luntz during a June 4 appearance on Hannity & Colmes.
During the MSNBC-sponsored Democratic presidential debate on April 26, co-moderator and NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams asked former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): "Our most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicated a majority of Americans approved of last week's Supreme Court decision to make so-called partial-birth or late-term abortions illegal. Most of the people on this stage put out statements and criticized the ruling. A lot of American families find this just a hideous topic for a discussion. Is this a case, do you think, of the Supreme Court and the public with opinions in one place, and yet a lot of elected officials in another?"
Williams later asked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), "On this same topic, what about your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?"
During the June 3 CNN-sponsored debate, moderator and CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked Clinton: "Do you regret voting to authorize the president to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq without actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, the classified document laying out the best U.S. intelligence at that time?" He also asked Edwards, "You didn't read that National Intelligence Estimate either. Do you regret that?"
On June 4, Luntz appeared on Hannity and Colmes to discuss the Democratic debate and commented that the focus group he assembled for the event reacted negatively to "Hillary Clinton's attempted explanation of why she didn't read the intelligence report." He continued: "That one the Democrats thought was awful."
From the June 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Let's look at [Sen.] Sam Brownback [R-KS]. We have a tape of him that you also have the dials on. Let's take a look.
BROWNBACK [video clip]: I don't remember that report. I had a number of briefings, and I held a number of committee hearings. At that time, I was chairing the Middle East Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, and we held hearings on this topic, and what was taking place, and what Saddam was doing, but the issue is, is that we've got to put forward now a political plan.
HANNITY: You know, but, what, six senators read the National Intelligence Estimate.
LUNTZ: Yes, but this is the most important estimate of this entire war. This is a document that the American people expect you to read.
HANNITY: But you know what I'm frustrated -- you know. I'm watching all these debates. The Democrats don't get the questions on partial-birth abortion or asked if they've read the National Intelligence Estimate. It seems like the Republicans are getting more scrutiny. Am I -- look at Alan, he's smirking.
COLMES: Oh, poor baby. Poor baby.
LUNTZ: I was going to say, this is not something I can control, but what's great about those dials is that it shows you, moment by moment, exactly how people are reacting.
HANNITY: Great.
From MSNBC's April 26 Democratic presidential debate:
WILLIAMS: We'll switch now to a section of questions on mostly domestic policy, and we'll begin with you, Senator Edwards, on the topic of abortion.
Our most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicated a majority of Americans approved of last week's Supreme Court decision to make so-called partial-birth or late-term abortions illegal.
Most of the people on this stage put out statements and criticized the ruling. A lot of American families find this just a hideous topic for a discussion. Is this a case, do you think, of the Supreme Court and the public with opinions in one place, and yet a lot of elected officials in another?
EDWARDS: No, I don't believe it is. I would say first that this decision by the Supreme Court is actually a perfect example of what's at stake in this election. The kind of people that will be appointed to the United States Supreme Court by the next president will control whether a woman's freedom, freedom to choose, make her own health care decisions will be made by her or will be made by the government or by some men sitting on the United States Supreme Court.
So I think it's really crucial for all voters who are listening to this debate, including here in South Carolina, to make a very hard decision about who's most likely to be strong in winning this election. Now, on the issue of abortion, I think -- I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I think this is an extraordinarily difficult issue for America.
And I think it is very important for the president of the United States to recognize, while I believe the government should not make these health care decisions for women -- I believe they should have the freedom to make them themselves -- this is a very difficult issue for many people. And I think we have to show respect for people who have different views about this.
WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.
Senator Obama, on this same topic, what about your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
OBAMA: You know, I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are.
Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1 percent of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it.
Now, there is a broader issue, though. And that is can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy, making it less likely for women to find themselves in the circumstances where they've got to anguish over these decisions. Those are areas where I think we can all start mobilizing and move forward rather than look backwards.
From CNN's June 3 Democratic presidential debate:
BLITZER: All right. Hold on, hold on. I want to bring Senator Clinton in. Senator Clinton, do you regret voting to authorize the president to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq without actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, the classified document laying out the best U.S. intelligence at that time?
CLINTON: Wolf, I was thoroughly briefed. I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying, and I sought out dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts.
You know, that was a sincere vote based on my assessment that sending inspectors back into Iraq to determine once and for all whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and using coercive diplomacy was not an unreasonable act.
What I did not count on, and what none of us did who voted to give the president authority, is that he had no intention to allow the inspectors to finish their job.
Now, we can argue about the past, or we can answer the question you asked about from the National Guard. Our troops did the job they were asked to do. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They conducted the search for weapons of mass destruction. They gave the Iraqi people a chance for elections.
BLITZER: All right.
CLINTON: And to have a government. It is the Iraqis who have failed to take advantage of that opportunity.
BLITZER: So let me just be precise, because the question was: Do you regret not reading the National Intelligence Estimate?
CLINTON: I feel like I was totally briefed. I knew all of the arguments that were being made by everyone from all directions. National Intelligence Estimates have a consensus position, and then they have argumentation as to those people who don't agree with it. I thought the best way to find out who was right in the intelligence community was to send in the inspectors.
If George Bush had allowed the inspectors to finish the job they started, we would have known that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and we would not have gone and invaded Iraq.
BLITZER: Senator Edwards, you didn't read that National Intelligence Estimate either. Do you regret that?
EDWARDS: No. Actually, I think that -- that I would agree with some of what Hillary just said. I think it's true that -- I was on the Intelligence Committee -- and I don't think Senator Clinton was, but I was on the Intelligence Committee. I received direct information from that. I met with former high-level people in the Clinton administration who gave me additional information, and I read the summary of the NIE.
I think I had the information I needed. I don't think that was the question. I think one difference we do have is I think I was wrong. I should never have voted for this war. And this goes to the issue that Senator Obama raised a few minutes ago. He deserves credit for being against this war from the beginning. He was right. I was wrong.
And I think it is important for anybody who seeks to be the next president of the United States, given the dishonesty that we've been faced with over the last several years, to be honest to the country. We have to -- we have to re-establish trust between the American people and the president.
BLITZER: All right.
EDWARDS: And that's going to require any of us who want to be president to be open and honest with the American people.
From the June 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: All right, I don't like this. Does that mean, every time I take a shot at Alan that --
COLMES: Which is like every other second.
HANNITY: -- the dials are going to go down? You know, I'm a little afraid of that. But in all seriousness, what's scary about that, though, Frank, is that what you're saying is, if you compare and contrast - here's Edwards says, "You guys didn't show leadership." And he's like, "Wait a minute, I'm the guy that didn't vote for this thing, you did," that that's perceived negatively.
LUNTZ: That was the second-lowest reaction, the second-worst reaction of the entire two hours. The only thing that was worse than that was Hillary Clinton's attempted explanation of why she didn't read the intelligence report. That one the Democrats thought was awful.
COLMES: We're going to -- by the way, only six senators read that report, the NIE, by the way.
You'd think since he's paid a gazillion bucks to follow politics you could trust this dope to know what he's talking about once in awhile.
Now now... there are two possible reasons for this mistake. He might not have done his research. Or he might have lied. To jump to the conclusion that he's incompetent isn't fair, in my opinion.
since he never researches anything, I vote both
Maybe I'm cynical, but the words ostrich and butt come to mind.
On first view, the graphic of Hannity on this page immediately embedded "I don't even know what I'm TAWKIN' about!!!!" in my brain, and now nothing else can come to mind except "Who's on first, what's on second...".
Thanks to you, it'll be hard to watch Hannity without thinking of Lou Costello. I just can't come around to associate Alan Colmes with Bud Abbott. Lou always looked up to Bud, whereas Hannity has no respect for people who disagree with him.
My sincere apologies.
It's just that I hate suffering alone.
Knowing that you're actually watching H&C eases my pain. Bless you, kind sir.
I watch H&C in small doses; I don't treat it as chemotherapy. I think it's important, though, to hear what the other side is saying. I also want to keep tabs on what my 82-year-old mother is watching for "news." They've got her convinced Faux is "fair and balanced."
I love the answer of Obama and also like the more campaign-like answer of Edwards. Lets compare it to the republican reaction: Abortion: outlaw it, bad, antifamily, antichrstian. Only Guiliani stood up! here it for that only I would listen to other things he has to say!!
Of course I mend: Where it for that only, etc
A third option might be to set the tone for the discussion that followed and allow Luntz the opportunity to correct him. It may have been a bit of hyperbole on Hannity's part but he followed it by expressing his view that Democrats are not scrutinized on these issues the way the Republicans are.
Having said that, it would be interesting to see how many times these questions were asked of the Republican candidates and how many times they were asked of the Democrats in the 'debates' so far.
I have not watched any of the debates but MMFA's response seems to me to be a little light. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me like these two questions were only asked to only two of the Democratic candidates.
But aren't most of the Rep. candidates making their Pro-life stnce a major part of their campaign. They seem to be excited to elaborate on where they stand on that issue (excpt for Ghouliani and Romney).
You would think that them being asked the questions more frequently is because they draw more attention to the issue in their campaigns?
Interesting point. I don't know.
The framing of the question itself reveals a right wing bias. The question is misleading, its divisive and the asking of it gives credance to the premise that libs kill half alive humans.
Frankly, I am bummed that none of the candidates called Williams on the bs conservative framing.
Dems will not make significant headway with Americans until they outright reject the conservative frames and move discussions toward their own terms.
The framing of the question was absolutely correct. The Democrats support a procedure in which a half born baby is stabbed in the head with a pair of scissors and has it's brain sucked out. It's a sick and disgusting procedure that only a barbarian would support.
Late term abortion is singularly rare.
If an honest assessment of the question is made, one will realize that the assumption, by omission of extenuating circumstance, is that liberals support unnecessary late term abortions. We would protect the right of women and their doctors to make such a life altering decision.
As a rarely-used procedure to protect the life and health of the mother.
And as a decision that is made by the mother in consultation with physicians that government has no business interfering with.
But the "health of the mother" can mean anything. A woman could simply say that she has a headache or would be depressed if she had the baby, and that would be reason enough to crush the skull of the baby and kill it. That doesn't seem like a very good reason to justify such a gruesome and barbaric procedure. The health exception is simply a giant loophole which abortion advocates use to make the ban useless.
Got any facts to bolster that assertion?
Down in Wichita KS, in my home state, an abortionist named George Tiller aborts late term babies because the mother is "depressed." Depression counts as being part of "the health of the mother." Documents from Tiller's clinic that Bill O'Reilly got a hold of prove that Tiller was aborting late term babies because the mother was depressed. "Health" can mean anything at all, even depression. It's simply a device used by the pro-aborts to basically nullify the ban on late term abortions.
Depression is a chronic physical and mental disorder, people kill themselves in fits of depression. If you have not suffered from depression, you should reserve judgment.
What about headaches? Does Tiller perform late term abortions for headaches as previously stated?
Facts, give us facts not anecdotes. Don’t give us these overly emotional arguments. Give us links to reliable medical journals and the like.
What percentage of abortions performed late term? Is it truly that easy to skirt the laws regulating the procedure?
Monk,
You're right. However, most of the pro-life Republican candidates make a much larger issue of their pro life stance during the primaries when their more conservative base is necessary for victory, generally speaking.
When it comes to general election, they seem to push it from the meat of their batting order down to the pitcher's spot........politics is such a game of convictions and principles, isn't it?
Sean Insanity is a whore.
A cheap whore for the RNC, willing to lie and misquote for the phony "conservatives" still in the House and Senate, in the White House, and running for president on the republican side.
Don't forget, this is the same a**clown who when he was a radio talk-show host for WOR radio, kept pushing the lie about Abner Louima, who had a toilet plunger shoved up his rectum.
Hannity kept saying his injuries were due to "rough gay sex."
When the cop who actually DID shove that toilet plunger confessed, Hannity went dead silent.
And TO DATE, refuses to say anything about it, and will change the subject.
Hannity also at WOR radio had this good friend, who was a regular caller, "Hal from New Jersey."
Hannity refuses to even acknowledge the guy's existence anymore and no wonder.
"Hal from New Jersey" has his own radio talk show now.
http://www.halturnershow.com/
Arch,
I'm confused. Who is plugging who?
;-)
This is one of the best examples of how Fox News works: Repeat anti-dem talking points so that republicans will just repeat them to others on the street. Just like the 'Edwards is a phony' thing that O'Reilly does. The other day, my mother told me that and I asked her, "What are you talking about?" She said, "Yeah, that Edwards is just such a phony."
Good thing the Dems gave up on "Bush lied" huh.
Yeah, I suppose that would be the same thing except "Bush Lied" might not be factual accurate. We know what cam out of his mouth prior to the war was not true. The question is, did he know it. What Mr. Hannity said is just wrong, but he wants others to repeat it.
Actually Bush lied IS factual and accurate as I have shown at least a dozen times. He made up a position for the IAEA that was the polar opposite of their actual position he sent a dozen reports to Congress saying the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used as Gas Centrifuges when our own scientists had examined these tubes after we got our hands on some and denied they were even LIKELY to be used that way much less could only be used that way. Bush is a liar. He lies like most people breathe, that is a plain fact.
I only said "might not be factual" because I couldn't think of a time where Bush knew he wasn't telling the truth. Although, as you pointed out, Bush has obviously lied.
I didnt mean to imply you did just used your post to reiterate an important point
Hahaha.... Thanks for the memories! ;-)
Always willing to remind you when I have proven my point about something like this.
Quick Solon, Get your "Bush is a liar" evidence on the speediest donkey directly to the liberal honchos in Washington so they can use it to force the ole' cowboy out on the rails, fast.
If it's that rock solid this should have him back in Crawford rolling tumbleweeds before the fall harvest.
Solon was refuting the point that Bush didn't lie!
You made a strawman argument that Solon was suggesting something that he wasn't!
As I said Sue, if the proof is there it should and would be an impeachable offense to lie this country into a war, don't you agree?
So get on your horse and get this evidence to the Democratic leadership who can begin impeachment proceedings........they are waiting for you.
The proof IS there. I have proven it. I have cited more specifically those points at least a dozen times not ONCE have any of you on the right refuted a word of it. Whether it merits impeachment is a political decision and one that isnt mine. That is a completly different discussion. However there is no QUESTION that Bush did lie.
Other Bush lies:
"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."
"We’ve never been stay the course, George!"
"Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture."
"These [Guantanamo prisoners] are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren't wearing uniforms . . . but were there to kill."
“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
"And that changed, the law changed on- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see?"
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."
"I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops."
“Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.”
This list could go on for day, but one of my favorites...he even lied about what kind of cheese he likes on his Philly cheesesteaks:
[link to www.cjr.org]
GREAT list - and *I* like the link, too! Good work, Clams!
Oh, the evidence is rock-solid...we got lots and lots and lots of footage of him lying his arse off. BUt the Democrats can't stop the war....AIPAC won't allow it. The Zionazis must show unity when on Crusade for Jerusalem, right?
Bush is either a liar or a Cheney sock puppet. Maybe both.
Psst. I think he was discussing repeating lies, not repeating truths. Pay attention!
Sean is too busy chasing his money to follow up on these issues. Fox News employees who do the research for H&C know more about the issues than Sean. This man has a short-term memory and must be reminded of things.
Don't let them fool you at Fox. Most of the suits at Fox News are Conservative Republicans and they are intentionally attacking the Dems with negative stories.
Look, I don't believe in name-calling ...
That said, let's be clear: This man Hannity is a twittering, bizarre, nauseating, putrid, American abomination.
Research? I strongly suspect that the only research Sean does is to read through the daily GOP talking points. I also strongly suspect that he's as stupid as a bag of hammers...really.
Hannity never met a fact he couldn't ignore. If the GOP Big Lie Machine hadn't turned him into one of their premiere propaganda puppets, he'd be selling used cars somewhere.
Yeah, either that,
Or I could see him on Sunday morning waving a Bible.
Amen, brutha!
...or SELLING bibles.
Has he been frustrated because he hasn't been able to ask any of the Dems why they hate America recently?
It's not that Hannity doesn't do research. He never does research. Hannity is a professional Bibble Babbler, a producer of Bovine Excretment.
Bull Roar and Hog Wash. You would think the sound coming out of him is from eating to many beans; in reality it's just him talking. The insecure Conservative crowd desperately needs someone to put them to sleep and Hannity can put anyone to sleep.
He is the winner of the Oil of Tongue award. His audience comes from the lower end of the Bell Curve. The upper half of the Bell Curve calls him Hokum Hannity.
Hannity reassures Conservatives that you don't need reality you only need to speak fiddle faddle and call it being informative. Speaking of fiddle faddle check out this link
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13068
and see if you can wade through the cow confetti that comes out of this current administration. Note: let us know how you score. It's multiple question link.
Oh stop this nonsense. The Democrats won't go on Fox News because they wouldn't be able to handle the questions. Period.
If you are too afraid to go on the largest cable news network, you don't deserve to be President.
HA you are a moron period. It has to be true see because I said PERIOD. I say if you arent willing to put out your eye with a red hot poker you dont deserve to post here. Not going on Fox is like not beating a rude Nun, its not that you CANT its just that you know no good can come from it.
I'd go on FOX...and I'd destroy every one of their statements. Let them take that challenge...I dare 'em!
Ah, the classics! Is Hannity an idiot, a liar, or both? Can you be both an idiot and a liar? (See GW Bush, President, 2001-2009).
To be an idiot indicates a lack of guile; to be a liar indicates far too much guile to be an idiot.
So how do we define Hannity...idiot, liar, or like an albino lizard...a rarity...both!
These events are completely useless.It is one thing to be an aggressive reporter, but something else to badger the witness These arrogant little pit bulls who are asking the questions don't know the difference and never will.
asnet 6.15.07
I must add another comment. I've been in the news business for quite some time and Sean is the worst I've seen. Sean is not that bright. Ailes and Shine like this guy for some reason. They think he is doing a good job. God help us.
By the way, News Corporation is selling off nine Fox network affiliated television stations. Hopefully Murdoch will focus on Fox News Channel next and dump a few "journalists" as well. Let the shakeup begin.
He's a propagandist selling the War god's plan for Armageddon. The nihilists in the neo-con press eat the boy up. He's shilling for mass destruction like a demon. Of course the producers love him, they want to end the world.
FOX is not news. It's propaganda. Real news is what the military calls intelligence, articles of fact that can be used to picture the story together. The better quality the facts, the more there are to use, the better the intelligence one has to work with.
But FOX is not fact. It's intentional misinformation, it's a political agenda in a shiny package. It doesn't give intelligence, it gives opinion, and only one opinion at that. It will omit and will distort any facts it feels are not going to further it's agenda.
Hence, FOX gives bad intelligence to the viewer. It does not inform, it brainwashes. I keep wondering why they want into the Canadian market. Is Murdoch after the Great White North for his war on liberalism?
Indeed.
And the interesting thing about it is that the kooky-cons get to shout liberal media and criticize MSNBC and CNN, who in response put on Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, et al. However, FOX's only regular liberal is a watered-down Alan Colmes who has to share his time with Hannity. And no one says a word about FOX's conservatively biased programming.
It's all pure garbage meant to sell the corporate line. They sell us war crimes and politicians like they sell us dish detergent and underarm deoderant. Counterpunch is my newspaper, telling me all the truths the soap-opera-wannabes refuse to, in between their flash ads for the lastest cars and bombing campaigns. I go for the real liberal media...it's the good stuff.
I've been in the news business for quite some time also, but I can't say Hannity is any worse than the others.
I've heard a Limbaugh promo saying we don't need a fairness doctrine because the "truth" (which, of course, he says he portrays on his show) does not need balance. That's actually the worst I've ever heard.
Of course, Hannity says the same on his show... that it's there you hear the truth that the mainstream media refuse to report
And let's not forget Bill O'Reilly, who portrays the lie daily that his show is the "no-spin zone".
Heck, I even associated for a bit with a lady by the name of Blanquita Cullum who would spew directly from a Heritage poop sheet, and say how you get your unbiased news from her show.
I don't mind talk shows representing themselves as what they are... shows that produce editorial comment. What I have huge problems with are talk shows that represent themselves as real news sources... representing editorial opinion and uncollaborated information as news material.
It's this type of representation that screams for a "fairness doctrine".
To be honest, American "news" has done that for generations. Exagerrated accounts of Indian massacres that never happened, Hearst demanding his reporters make up stuff to sell a war over Cuba, Time lying it's arse off about the Chiang regime in China. Yellow Journalism, alive and well in the US of A, land of PT Barnum, BF Skinner, and WR Hearst. Caveat emptor.
Frankly, I'd like to take Murdoch on at his own game. Put out a really good news rag with page three girls of our own. Educate the masses against his agenda with his own tactics.