On Hannity & Colmes, Gingrich falsely claimed that Dennis Hastert "did not get a private plane"
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Newt Gingrich falsely asserted that following 9-11, Dennis Hastert "did not get a private plane," adding that "[t]here's no reason for anyone but the president and vice president of the United States to have that level of security." In fact, at the time, the House sergeant-at-arms, the Defense Department, and the White House agreed that military planes should be made available to the speaker of the House for national security reasons, and Hastert was the first speaker to use one.
On the December 19 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Fox News contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) falsely asserted that former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) "did not get a private plane" following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gingrich added: "There's no reason for anyone but the president and vice president of the United States to have that level of security." Gingrich made his comments during a segment in which co-host Sean Hannity criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) use of a private jet. In fact, following 9-11, the House sergeant-at-arms, the Defense Department, and the White House agreed that military planes should be made available to the speaker of the House for national security reasons, and Hastert was the first speaker to use one.
During the segment, Hannity said to Gingrich: "With all of this news and all of this outrage over the auto CEOs and private jets, et cetera, et cetera, here's what we discovered today -- that Princess Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader] Prince Harry Reid [D-NV] and every member of Congress during these tough economic times, they're going to get $4,700 in a pay increase. Nobody's mad that Nancy Pelosi has her private jet. You didn't have a private jet as speaker of the House." Co-host Alan Colmes later stated: "[O]n the private plane for Nancy Pelosi: She was advised after 9-11, as I understand it, for security reasons, to -- that she needed to have the private plane." Gingrich responded: "That's baloney. That is just baloney. Denny Hastert did not get a private plane. There's no reason for anyone but the president and vice president of the United States to have that level of security."
As Media Matters for America noted, contrary to Gingrich's claim that "Denny Hastert did not get a private plane," House Sergeant-at-Arms Wilson Livingood said in a February 8, 2007, statement: "In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker [of the House] for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi."
In addition, then-White House press secretary Tony Snow said in a February 7, 2007, White House press briefing, "After September 11th, the Department of Defense -- with the consent of the White House -- agreed that the Speaker of the House should have military transport." He also said: "So Speaker Hastert had access to military aircraft and Speaker Pelosi will, too." The next day, Snow stated, "It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel," adding that such protection was "certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert."
Media Matters previously documented Hannity's false suggestion that Pelosi's use of a military jet for transportation was unprecedented on the December 4 broadcasts of his nationally syndicated radio program and his Fox News television program, as well as Gingrich's assertion on that evening's edition of Hannity & Colmes that Pelosi's use of a military jet for transportation was a "misuse of Air Force personnel" and that "there's no practical reason for it."
From the December 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: And we continue now with former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a -- stand back and look at the big picture here: $700 billion bailout for banks, for financial institutions, for insurance companies. We have Barack Obama and the Democrats putting on the table nearly $1 trillion, including a new welfare program they'll create as part of their stimulus package.
Now, the $17 billion is a loan. I don't want to see one autoworker lose their job -- neither does any American -- but we need the unions to work with the auto companies. But here's my problem: With all of this news and all of this outrage over the auto CEOs and private jets, et cetera, et cetera, here's what we discovered today -- that Princess Nancy Pelosi and Prince Harry Reid and every member of Congress during these tough economic times, they're going to get $4,700 in a pay increase. Nobody's mad that Nancy Pelosi has her private jet. You didn't have a private jet as speaker of the House.
Why isn't there more anger at Washington government mismanagement than, you know, companies?
GINGRICH: Well, I think there's a pretty good bit of anger about Congress and the entire mess in Washington. I think there's hope that President-elect Obama will somehow represent a change, but I have to say that the things we're seeing happen are almost unimaginable.
Here you have the U.S. Congress rejecting help for the auto companies, saying that it shouldn't be passed unless there are very strong changes, and having the United Auto Workers in particular reject those changes. Now, you have the president coming right back and saying he doesn't care what the Congress did, he's going to write a check for $17 billion -- fundamentally wrong in every way.
The fact is that the United Airlines, for example, went into bankruptcy, spent four years reorganizing, came out of bankruptcy, is healthier and stronger today, and would not have survived without that reorganization. Giving these companies $17 billion without having them change their behavior simply throws away the money, buys a few extra months, and then the companies are going to continue getting weaker and weaker.
COLMES: But they do have to change their behavior, Mr. Speaker. In fact, by the way, on the private plane for Nancy Pelosi: She was advised after 9-11, as I understand it, for security reasons, to -- that she needed to have the private plane.
GINGRICH: That's --
COLMES: That's why she has it --
GINGRICH: That is just --
COLMES: -- based on what happened after 9-11.
GINGRICH: That's baloney. That is just baloney. Denny Hastert did not get a private plane. There's no reason for anyone but the president and vice president of the United States to have that level of security.
COLMES: But she was taking advice to do this. She didn't decide to do it. She was advised that this would be the safest way for her to travel.
HANNITY: She asked for a bigger plane.
GINGRICH: Alan.
COLMES: That's what happened.
GINGRICH: Alan, if you believe that, I want to introduce you to Mr. Martyr who may have a little bit of his phony stock left, because I'm sure he'd like to sell it to you.
COLMES: Well, thank you. Thank you for caring about my financial well-being. That's very kind of you, Mr. Speaker.
It's gonna be real interesting next year. A whole hour of hannity agreeing with himself and bloviating about how he doesn't need a liberal on his show to debate facts.
Without George McFly it's all Biff all the time.
I want to see Alan Colmes write a tell-all book. I have always suspected that Colmes was contractually limited in what he was allowed to say on the air which might refute the star of the show, the award-winning liar, Sean Hannity. Colmes sat with Hannity five nights a week for what, 12 years? You don't think Colmes has some stories to tell?
Good riddance to Colmes. Here we have another one of the right-wing professional liars' B.S. talking points served up on a silver platter, something that Colmes could easily be ready for, and AGAIN he miserably fails to pounce on it and make Gingrich look like blabbering fool that he is.
to be fair to the weenie I got the impression Hannity and his bitchity pretty much made it clear they weren't gonna believe anything else anyways.
I'm more concerned with the reason John Ashcroft stopped taking commercial flights in July 2001 and started taking government flights instead.
Of course I'm not insinuating he knew something was up prior to 9/11. I mean we were taken completely by surprise. No one could have ever predicted that terrorists would use commercial flights to fly into buildings.It was inconceivable at the time. If only there had been some type of warning. But that's just me pre 9/11 mindset. Thank God they've kept us safe since then. History will look kindly on the Bush administration.
I've got to stop. I'm starting to believe my own bullsh¡t.
Hannity pulls this crap on his show all the time, too- he repeatedly tells his audience that Pelosi is acting like a Queen because she has the audacity to use a private plane, and NEVER mentions that Hastert used one, too.
Just like him making a royal freaking fuss that Obama is Time Magazine's Man of the Year; nobody can tell him or his drooling moron audience that the President-Elect is ALWAYS selected as Man of the Year. He's not a moron, he's just wilfully lying by omission. And his audience just laps it up and begs for more.
Clarification: I meant on his RADIO show, which I do catch for a few minutes each day because I'm in my car and could use a laugh now and then.
That's no idle claim about the Time Man of the Year: FDR, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush (twice!) - all are honorees. They skipped only Truman, Eisenhower (who had be so honored at the end of the war) and the first Bush. http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa050400a.htm
The Man of the Year flap really is one of the stupidest arguments of all time. Not only is it traditional for the President-Elect to win, but Obama is the first black person to hold that title as well. There's almost literally no decision involved. What were they going to do, choose Palin as "Woman of the Year" instead? The bias would be so pronounced that their credibility would be shot for years from that alone.
It's frightening that there are people who won't commit the few seconds' worth of thought it takes to realize this, just because they don't want to do so.
Without FoxNews in general, and Hannity in particular, Gingrich would have faded into his non-famous history long ago.
He and Hannity keep talking forever about principles, freedom, conservatism (in case of Hannity, this word is with an annoying nasal drwal) etc. And listening to when he and Hannity are together you get the feeling this guy was the best Congreeman ever.
Yet, Gingrich will not put his principles to test and re-run for any public office.
Loved your first sentence, My4cents1172! Faux "News" has been recruiting as many whack-jobs as they can by hanging out at unemployment centers and shelters in Washington. I understand Newt was begging for left-over fries outside the capitol Burger King. Murdoch is funding a program, as in "Boys From Brazil", to clone Father Charles Coughlin. Just wait until after the President-Elect takes over. Think of all the new programs at Faux: "Hannity and Cheney", "Rumsfeld and Friends", "The Dick Morris Factor", and "The Sewer Report" with Anne Coulter.
Gingrich can't or won't put his "principles" to the test by running for office because it's in his divorce agreement that his last ex-wife will not divulge the details of the affair he conducted with his now-wife if he stays out of public office.
Remember that Mr. Speaker, MR FAMILY VALUES, was conducting this affair with an underling even as he was wagging his finger at Clinton.
I wonder if Hannity ever acted as alibi for Speaker Gingrich when he was out with his whore? (That IS the good Biblical term for Speaker Gingrich's then-girlfriend, isn't it?)
Hannity is such a slug.
MY4CENTS, Good point. All I ever see GINGRICH IS ON FOX. I dont remember him on the other networks very much. Of course he is taylor made for the FALSE NEWS CHANNEL.
No one wants to see censorship of news and commentary but, as someone else recently suggested here, the lying from the right has reached such proprtions that perhaps it is time to consider implementing a Truth in Broadcasting Doctrine. Hannity is the worst offender...he's an award winner for lying. And obviously the guests he books on his show are almost equally as adept at lying as he is. It is irresponsible for FOX News to keep this show on the air.
Hey, Irony, don't you realize Murdoch has a "responsibility" to his stockholders. The dough he is raking in with this swill will always be a factor. Hannity is just chump-change in his organization.
Just that naive idealism of mine that pops up now and then, Dog... ;>)
I've already crafted the policies.
For hosts, the 50-strike rule. If you're wrong 50 times, innocent or not, you're demoted.
For guests, the 1-strike rule. If you lie once (willfully and obviously), you aren't invited back.
Limbaugh wouldn't last the first 15-minute segment.
Hannity and Gingrich both fail to realize how bankrupt their FAR RIGHT WING ideas really are.
I disagree--I think they know and they don't care.
HISTORYGEEK001 You may very well be right. All they really care about is how much money they can raise blowing out their hot air.
Its absolutely amazing to see the speed and frequency with which Insanity and the rest of the Faux News talking heads reserect debunked neocon talking points. That they've been thoroughly disproven does not exactly render them as unusable to the right. This one had been put to bed a couple of years ago, and now here it is creeping back in with all the odor and itchiness of a recurring foot fungus.
Insanity will drop these talking points for a while, but he knows that the public (especially Faux News viewers) have a disapointingly short memory. After a few months (or even weeks) he slips them back in, knowing that many people will only vaguely remember that there was once some sort of controversy about them, but will assume that they must be true, if for no other resaon than they're being said on television. They're then said often and authoritatively enough that they take on enough of an appearance of 'the truth' to satisfy the dimmer members of the electorate.
Goebbels would be so proud of Sean.
Insanity will drop these (debunked) talking points for a while, but he knows that the public (especially Faux News viewers) have a disapointingly short memory.
That's why Hannity won an award. We should never cease reminding Hannity of his award-winning status. It's one thing to be called a liar by many people... but to win an award for lying? That pretty much says it all. ;>)
IMHO, I don't know why congress were complaining that the CEOs came in Private jets, who really cares? I mean, they have them...so why not use them.
You're right actually. But at that point in time, it was about PERCEPTION of the leaders of the Big 3 using private planes. It really matters not much as far as how the company actually operates, but since they were there, hands out, asking for money, just not a good idea to arrive via private plane.
"No one wants to see censorship of news and commentary but, as someone else recently suggested here, the lying from the right has reached such proprtions that perhaps it is time to consider implementing a Truth in Broadcasting Doctrine." -- Irony101
While I would like to see more truth in broadcasting, I have to disagree. Any "Truth Doctrine" could only turn out badly. I have no doubt that true progressives would not use it -- because of a fear of being labelled censors and hopefully the "Bill of Rights". And those it was meant to impel to tell would be all too willing to dictate the "truth" to journalists. We've already seen this.
"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -- Orwell
There would be the end of truth.
I re-emphasize that censorship is not something I would be inclined to favor...and I doubt very seriously if anything remotely approaching that could ever come to fruition (except, perhaps, under a Dick Cheney presidency). But if the lying from the right wing broadcaters continues I would like to see the subject at least brought up by Congress. Of course, the entire media would look bad, but which broadcast network would come out looking the worse, FOX News or CNN? Can you imagine a Congressional hearing in which Sean Hannity's chronic lying is set forth in great detail? If the public is hearing poltical spin disguised as fact perhaps they should be made aware. I would like to see a disclaimer run at the beginning and end of each FOX News broadcast advising viewers that the content contains primarily opinion. Everyone knows that cigarette smoking causes cancer and an assortment of other health problems but there are warnings on each pack. In this instance what is at stake is democracy as a great percentage of the voting population is being manipulated by lies and misinformation disguised as legitimate news and commentary. It is one thing if political campaigns engage in spin, but when a news organization does it then it should be labelled as such.
GOP consultant killed in plane crash was warned of sabotage: report
John Byrne, David Edwards and Stephen Webster
Published: Monday December 22, 2008
ya want a scandal, hannity? Here's one for you. Of course, it will mean putting your partisanship aside and growing a new set of ethics since it involves your beloved conservative values...
lodry. They just flat out lie. Can they do that?
Yes, they can. They just don't do it well.
With an audience that has been trained to disbelieve anything other than what comes from FOX News they don't have to be good at lying. I have a close relative who still believes that China is drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba as we speak because he heard it on FOX... and FOX has never corrected that bit of misinformation which derived from Dick Cheney and which Cheney was forced to retract. If a nutjob appeared on a FOX broadcast this morning and suggested that Barack Obama was born a woman and underwent a sex change operation in Indonesia, by nightfall it would be taken as gospel truth throught the right wing world and Barack Obama would be denounced for lying to the American people. And I mean that literally...
Next up on HANNITY & colmes... Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich go into a jealous rage over Barack Obama's flat stomach... "Troubling", says Hannity... ;>)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/22/obama-shirtless-in-hawaii_n_152873.html
Hastert may not have gotten "a private plane" as it actually may have taken two to get him anywhere.
What about Hannity claiming he donated $10,000,000 from his so-called"Freedom Concerts" of 2007 last year! As found at: premierespeakers.com/sean_hannity/bio
After requesting and receiving Freedom Alliances Tax Form 990 for 2007 (it's a 501c3 charity) there was no such donation made! Where the $10,000,000 donation should have been listed in the 990 for last year (2007)there was no mention of it! He's been having these concerts since '03, however the supposed donations made from the "Freedom Concerts" can't be found in any of the Freedom Alliances Tax Form 990's!
He had one concert this year in Vegas, at a off-the-strip Casino called the "Orleans," It wasn't a Freedom Concert to help Freedom Alliance raise money for the Disabled Vets and their families as he had named it "Sean Hannity and Friends!" Only time will tell with this years 990's as they'll be due next year!
Also the name "Freedom Concerts" wasn't in Freedom Alliance's main menu in the upper left hand corner on their Homepage, unlike the past years! I have called almost monthly for a concert tour dates but they never had any dates to give out! Thedifferent persons that answered the phones always roughly said: "When Sean notifies us of a concert date, we'll post it!"
"SHOW ME THE MONEY,Hannity!!!!"
Gingrich's time has come and gone, what a loser!