About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity falsehood: Obama gave "go-ahead" for Iran nukes

June 05, 2009 8:15 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama gave "pretty much the go-ahead ... that Iran can now pursue their nuclear ambitions," and asked, "We're gonna allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon?" In fact, Obama said Iran must comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which bans it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

19 Comments

During the June 4 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that in his June 4 address at Cairo University, President Obama "gives in this speech pretty much the go-ahead, as he did the day before, that Iran can now pursue their nuclear ambitions." Later in the broadcast, Hannity also asked Bernard McGuirk, producer for ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning, "We're gonna embrace, you know, extremist groups? We're gonna allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, Bernie?" In fact, Obama did not give "the go-ahead" for Iran to "pursue their nuclear ambitions," but rather stated that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," which bans Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran ratified in 1970, requires that nations currently without nuclear weapons do not "manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear devices." The treaty also requires non-nuclear states to negotiate safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency "for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." From the treaty:

Each Non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

Obama similarly expressed his support for the pursuit of peaceful nuclear power -- not nuclear weapons -- during a June 1 BBC interview, in which he stated that "Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region." Additionally, during an April 5 speech in Prague, Obama said: "We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all."

From Obama's June 4 speech at Cairo University:

OBAMA: The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

From the June 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Can I ask about it in this context? We don't consider ourselves a Christian nation, which was a phrase that he used, I think it was in Turkey in that speech, and then yesterday was saying that actually America would be one of the largest country -- Muslim countries in the world. And on top of it, gives in this speech pretty much the go-ahead, as he did the day before, that Iran can now pursue their nuclear ambitions.

[...]

McGUIRK: He's gonna throw Israel under the bus if he has the -- if it serves his purpose.

HANNITY: Well, it already is. I mean, look at the -- all the pressure's being brought to Israel. We're embracing Hamas?

McGUIRK: Right.

HANNITY: We're gonna embrace, you know, extremist groups? We're gonna allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, Bernie?

MCGUIRK: Yeah, no, it's ridiculous. And the moral equivalence between those that are killing Israelis and the Israeli government, as though there is some equivalency.

HANNITY: Yeah, he made a moral equivalency.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (June 05, 2009 8:23 am ET)
      6  
      Maybe MMFA should just start the day with Hannity opened his mouth and lied. Does this man ever say anything near the truth ?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by markbfoot199 (June 05, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
          11
        I agree, they could have a contest, who lies more Obama or Hannity.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (June 05, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
          5  
          That's not a contest, Hannity will win hands down. Now a real contest would be Hannity, Beck, and the King Liar, El Rushbo.

          Although the winner will be easy to pick out, who ever says more words would win !



          Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 06, 2009 12:40 am ET)
        3  
        "Does this man ever say anything near the truth?" NO.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (June 05, 2009 9:16 am ET)
      7  
      [i]

        can't believe anyone with a brain actually can listen to or believe a word this a** says.
      [/i]
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (June 05, 2009 10:09 am ET)
        5  
        The way I see it, Marylander (?), Rupert and Roger figure that there are enough 'Murkins out there who use only the "lizard" portion of the brain, and won't bring any critical thinking to the table. So their people are free to cut and paste out-of-context snippets and then extrapolate past logical absurdity into hysteria, with no danger that their followers will follow up and read the primary source. Seaneen's listeners have brains, they just use the pre-rational part.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (June 05, 2009 9:51 am ET)
      7  
      If Hannity runs a cropped clip of what someone says (in this case, President Obama) and creates his own opinion based on that cropped clip and proceeds to spews it as the news of the day...

      How exactly is it that Fox-Noise is allowed to call itself news... oh... that's right... HERE's why!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seeryer (June 05, 2009 10:20 am ET)
      6  
      He has been saying this all week. All week he has been saying Obama has given Iran the "go ahead" to pursue nuclear weapons. The guy is either the ultimate liar or the ultimate idiot. Very possible he is both.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hass (June 05, 2009 10:47 am ET)
      6  
      Actually, George Bush also acknowledged that Iran has a sovereign right to nuclear technology.
      See http://tinyurl.com/qmf6w7

      Funny how Hannity conveniently forgets that.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Brian in FL (June 05, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
      4  
      What blatant lies like this from Hannity show is a contempt for the intelligence of his audience. He must think they are such fools, they will not try to hear the actual speech, or even pay attention to small clips of the speech. He's expecting his viewers to remain ignorant about what Obama actually said, and instead to just accept the Hannity depiction of Obama's speech.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by kfraz43 (June 05, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
        4  
        And Brian, most of them will be complicit. They come to Hannity for his delivery of the news, not the news itself. And when those of us that have actually read the speech in its original context attempt to explain it, we're "apologists". There is no rational thought on the right anymore - it's Hannity and Limbaugh's world, and the rest of us just have to work around it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (June 05, 2009 6:50 pm ET)
          3  
          A nice sumation of conservative arguments
          Report Abuse
        • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 06, 2009 12:46 am ET)
          1  
          "There is no rational thought on the RIGHT anymore".KFRAZ There NEVER was any rational thought on the RIGHT WING.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by TadekKorn (June 07, 2009 1:45 am ET)
          2  
          Re your observation that "There is no rational thought on the right anymore--it's Hannity and Limbaugh's world . . . ." There's some consolation to be taken from the fact that Limbaugh is now sitting down with Hannity so that the two can spew together. Perhaps that's because they're not getting enough traction on their own. The Fox and EB networks now need each other! I wonder how long it will it take for Roger and Murdoch to recognize the postulate of the additive identity, namely, that the sum of two a-holes changes nothing.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Romario (June 06, 2009 1:05 am ET)
      5  
      During the final hour of his radio show on Friday, Hannity was challenged by a caller. He trotted out this same line of attack, and the caller stopped him cold with "Sean, President Obama did not give the go-ahead on Iran's nuclear weapons. He said Iran could have nuclear power for peaceful purposes." Hannity then responded with "getting nuclear energy leads to weapons..." and the caller said "...Sean, you obviously don't know anything about how weapons-grade uranium is processed, because if you did, you wouldn't have said what yo just did." Hannity started stammering and changed the subject to Obama being "radical" and "Bill Ayers". LOL
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace