HANNITY’S LATEST LUNCH-MEAT! Hannity plays Kerry spokesmen for fools. Reason? He knows that he can:
WHAT US WORRY: There’s a must-read piece in this morning’s newspapers—and it appears way back on page A23! In his New York Times op-ed column, Nicholas Kristof quotes a widely-respected former diplomat:
KRISTOF: William Perry, the former secretary of defense, says there is an even chance of a nuclear terror strike within this decade—that is, in the next six years.As we’ve said, you must read every word of this piece. And then you should marvel at the fact that it’s found on page A23.''We're racing toward unprecedented catastrophe,'' Mr. Perry warns. ''This is preventable, but we're not doing the things that could prevent it.”
Many deeply experienced people believe a nuclear strike is coming. American society will come to an end on the day this happens. But your Washington “press corp” slumbers and burbles. Alas! Denial plays a powerful role in human affairs. And it doesn’t take much to divert the weak minds of those whom we still call a “press corps.”
It may be that the human race has reached the point where it can no longer cope. Your national “press corps” is too inane to discuss this topic out on page one. Denial rules the human mind. Let’s hope that Bill Perry’s a crackpot.
TAIL-GUNNER UPDATE: We’d still like to tell the folks if Blix appeared on O’Reilly’s program (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/10/04). But no word yet from the folks at the Factor. People! We’re looking out for the folks! Please e-mail this key information.
HANNITY’S LATEST LUNCH-MEAT: God protect the human race from the efforts of Dem Party spokesmen! The latest victim was Kerry adviser Jeh Johnson. Sean Hannity ate the spokesman for lunch on last night’s Hannity & Colmes.
How freely does Hannity misstate simple facts, even with Kerry spokesmen present? Last night, he spoke with Johnson about those Swift Boat Veterans. As they chatted, he repeated a claim—a claim he now makes quite routinely:
HANNITY (8/10/04): Let me ask you this, because we're never going to agree. I think everyone should be heard. I think the American people are smart enough to make up their own minds on something like this, especially when there's conflicting stories.Holy cow! Did Kerry really admit that, “quote,” he “committed atrocities?” Hannity viewers hear the claim almost every night; he has made it on his last four programs, for example (more examples below). But did John Kerry actually say that, quote, “I committed atrocities?” Here’s a fuller excerpt from last night’s show, including the tape which Hannity played. The tape comes from a 1971 episode of the Dick Cavett Show:So let me ask you this. One thing we do know is John Kerry admitted that, quote, “I committed atrocities.” He said that. He admitted he burned villages. Let’s take a look at one of the tapes where he did this.
HANNITY (8/10/04): One thing we do know is John Kerry admitted that, quote, “I committed atrocities.” He said that. He admitted he burned villages. Let’s take a look at one of the tapes where he did this.Before and after the Cavett clip, Hannity refers to Kerry’s statement that “quote, ‘I committed atrocities.’” But when the actual tape is played, Kerry utters no such “quote!” In fact, Kerry says he didn’t see atrocities, but he did take part in free-fire zones and search-and-destroy missions—organized acts of American policy which, he says he later learned, were violations of international conventions. But so what? Before playing the tape—and immediately after—Hannity “quotes” Kerry saying something he plainly didn’t say. What follows is the Kerry spokesman’s reaction. We’ll include the whole gruesome outing:KERRY (videotape, 1971): I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions, in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles is, in fact, guilty.
HANNITY: All right. Mr. Johnson, let me ask you this question. He admits—quote, his quote, “I committed atrocities.” He said, “I burned villages.” Here's the point. He made Vietnam an issue in this campaign. Should we pursue answers to the questions of what atrocities he committed, why did he burn down villages?
JOHNSON (continuing directly): It’s documented that atrocities occurred in Vietnam in the late '60s, early '70s. Unfortunately, we're seeing some regrettable things occurring in Iraq right now. It's documented. There are people who are three-, four-star generals who have acknowledged what went on. There were prosecutions built around atrocities, the My Lai prosecution. And so—Good God! And Lord almighty! “Mr. Johnson, thank you very much for being here tonight,” Alan Colmes now said.HANNITY: That wasn't my question. My question is this—
JOHNSON: —for John Kerry to acknowledge that this is what went on and to acknowledge that as early as 1971, I think was an act of candor.
HANNITY: All right. Fair enough. Here's my question, though. He admitted he committed atrocities, and he admitted he burned down villages. He's made Vietnam a big centerpiece of his campaign.
Should we get specificity, what atrocities, and why burn down villages? Should he have to answer those questions?
JOHNSON: John Kerry, as you just saw, has candidly acknowledged what happened in Vietnam.
HANNITY: Not with specificity.
JOHNSON: And what his role is. I think we need to move on from that. We need to focus on the fact—yes, his military record, his acts of heroism are something that we should consider for our new commander-in-chief, yes. As I said before, Sean, hold on. This is a man who, when he finished college at age 22 in 1966, chose to go into battle in Vietnam and risk his life—
HANNITY: I understand that. You said that already.
JOHNSON: —for his country and for his fellow crew members, and that's something that we need and we should want in our next commander in chief.
HANNITY: Here's my question. He wants to be commander in chief. If he burned down innocent villages, if he did; if he committed atrocities, shouldn't we know about this before he becomes president? Wouldn't the American people—because I think the American people, actually, in the context of somebody fighting in war, would understand it. I believe that. But you seem—
JOHNSON: And he's virtually said that.
HANNITY: You seem to not want the specificity. I think we ought to have those questions answered. Tell me why I'm wrong.
JOHNSON: Well, I think John Kerry was very candid in the clip you just showed us from 1971.
HANNITY: He didn't tell us what atrocities, though.
JOHNSON: He’s told us that this is something that he participated in. I thought that statement was very candid, and we can move on from that, because he's acknowledged it.
Can we make a suggestion to the Kerry campaign? Don’t send people on TV if this is the best they can manage! In that 1971 TV appearance, Kerry said that he didn’t witness personal “atrocities.” He said he did take part in US military policy—policy which violated international conventions. Can we make a suggestion to the campaign? If your spokesmen can’t deal with distinctions like that, don’t let them out of the office! Give them coins for the food machines, and let them sit around and brainstorm. But don’t let these people go on TV! Hannity eats your people for lunch. God save the American people from the ongoing work of your spokesmen.
HE DOES IT BECAUSE HE CAN: As with Garofalo, so too with Johnson—Hannity says any damn thing to Kerry supporters because he’s sure they aren’t prepared. He also knows when he can’t play these games. For example, here’s what he said on Monday night to hapless, sputtering Lanny Davis:
HANNITY (8/9/04): He has decided to highlight Vietnam in this campaign. So therefore, the door has been opened. He admitted in an interview that, quote, "I committed atrocities.”And here he is last Friday night, turning “Democratic strategist” Steve Murphy into his personal punk-ass:
HANNITY (8/6/04): Here's what bothers me. And I assume you want to know the truth. Here's what John Kerry said on the Dick Cavett Show. Let's roll this tape:Amazing, isn’t it? Kerry didn’t “use the words ‘I committed atrocities,’” but Hannity instantly says that he did! Murphy’s answer, by the way? “Sean, I don't have any problem with this ad running whatsoever, because as I said, it is so mean-spirited it is going to backfire.” Where on earth—where in the solar system—do they go to find these spokesmen?KERRY (videotape, 1971): I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions, in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. All of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.
HANNITY: Here's my point, Steve. He admits in that interview and other interviews that he committed atrocities. He uses the words "I committed atrocities." He admits—he admits that he burned down villages. Here's the point. Shouldn't we vet this out? Shouldn't these guys tell their story, Kerry tell his? Shouldn't he answer questions about what atrocities he admits to committing?
But there you have it! Hannity says these things because he can! By contrast, when Tommy Franks appeared on his show last week, Sean was much more circumspect. Here’s the way he framed this issue with a capable soldier on hand:
HANNITY (8/4/04): We continue now with General Tommy Franks. I want to play a tape of John Kerry, and I want to get your reaction to this tape.Note well—with a capable guest on hand, Hannity didn’t characterize Kerry’s comments. He didn’t claim that Kerry had said that “quote, ‘I “committed atrocities.’” Why didn’t Hannity say this to Franks? Duh! Because he knows that Franks is capable and fair! He makes fake claims to Kerry spokesmen because he knows Kerry spokesmen are lunch.KERRY (videotape, 1971): I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on—these acts are contrary to The Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So, in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.
HANNITY: What does that mean to you?
It’s hard to believe the way these lambs are led off nightly to the slaughter. Hannity knows he can lie in your faces—even with Kerry’s spokesmen right there!
YOUR PRESS CORPS IS UTTERLY CLUELESS: And make no mistake—on their own, your press corps is clueless. This Monday, the Kerry camp finally began to note that President Bush threatened to veto that “uncomplicated” $87 billion funding bill. When they did, we caught a quick glimpse of the cluelessness of our big pundits.
Susan Rice, a Kerry adviser, appeared with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Rice debated various issues with Danielle Pletka (American Enterprise Institute). When Pletka began to batter Kerry for “punishing the soldiers” in his “no” vote, Rice finally played the veto card; she noted that Bush had threatened the veto the very same spending bill. According to Pletka’s ham-handed logic, Bush was willing to “punish the soldiers” too. Here was Rice’s first parry:
RICE (8/9/04): John Kerry voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. But when it was apparent that the president had botched the road to war, had not brought our allies with us, had not equipped our forces adequately, had not had a plan to win the peace, he thought that it would not make sense to then go ahead and support the $87 billion. I want to point out, however, that this was—In short, Bush fought against—and threatened to veto—a form of the bill which he opposed. Kerry voted against a different form of the bill—a form which he disfavored. None of this is worth discussing. But note what happened when Rice made this point. To all appearances, Blitzer didn’t have any idea that Bush had threatened a veto:PLETKA: Susan, that is punishing our soldiers.
RICE: Excuse me. Excuse me. Talking about politics here, it was President Bush who threatened to veto the $87 billion resolution when it didn't suit his needs either.
BLITZER: In almost every speech the president makes, Susan, he makes that specific point, that—that he voted for the war, that he voted against—for the $87 billion, then he voted against the $87 billion. He says it's not as complicated as John Kerry wants it to be.Amazing, isn’t it? Completely amazing! There was nothing wrong with Bush’s veto threat. There was nothing wrong with Kerry’s “no” vote. But there is something wrong with Bush’s clowning, in which he says there was “nothing complicated” about the funding votes in question. But guess what? Blitzer didn’t have a clue about the basic facts of the case! “Go check on it,” he told his guest.RICE: All right. Wolf, have you asked the president why he threatened to veto the $87 billion for political reasons?
...
BLITZER: Well, we're out of time. But do you remember the president threatening to veto the $87 billion appropriations if he didn't get some—some provision that he wanted?
PLETKA: Let me be honest. I can't answer that. I have no recollection of it whatsoever. But let me tell you—
RICE: Go check on it. We'll see.
Somehow, we doubt that Wolf heard back from Pletka. But why hadn’t he heard from the Kerry campaign, long before this juncture?
TOMORROW: Bush campaign clowning reaches new heights.
NEXT WEEK: Don’t read Clinton’s book, the Times said. In four parts, we explain why they did.