Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Another Unbalanced Discussion About Karl Rove on Hannity & Colmes

Reported by Ellen - July 15, 2005

It was GOP-only again on Hannity & Colmes last night when Republican Congressman J.C. Watts was the sole guest for a discussion about Karl Rove and the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Alan Colmes introduced the discussion by saying that former Ambassador Joe Wilson "lambasted" Karl Rove today at a press conference and demanded that he be held responsible for divulging his wife's identity. "But USA Today reports this morning that Wilson's own book could clear Rove's name... There may not be a crime to investigate."

Colmes' first question made it clear what he really thought. "If that's true, why did Luskin, Karl Rove's own attorney, decline to say whether he knew she was a covert operative? Why wouldn't he be forthcoming?"

Watts answered by ducking the question. He said that politics has a way of "trying to make someone guilty because they think they're guilty and in our system of judicial processes in America, you're not guilty because someone says you're guilty."

Colmes, who has got to be one of the world's most concise talk show hosts said, "The administration for two years said Karl Rove had nothing to do with it. McClellan in news conference after news conference said he knew he had nothing to do with it. Clearly, they've now changed their tune and all they say is 'ongoing investigation' which it's been for two years. So they're not consistent. You've got to at least acknowledge that."

Watts: What has been revealed is that Karl tried to keep a reporter from misstating the facts in his story...

Colmes laughed at the ridiculousness of that spin.

Hannity started out his portion of the segment by sanctimoniously attacking Joe Wilson "The one person who has been consistently not honest here is Joe Wilson... Everything he said turned out not to be true."

Maybe in Sean Hannity's dreams Wilson's behavior has some relevance to Rove's outing of Wilson's wife. I doubt it would in the real world of a court of law. But Hannity, who likes to fashion himself as a legal expert, once again proved that courts are not necessary in his world. After reading aloud from the law against outing an undercover agent "'cause the Democrats trying to say that a law is broken," Hannity was ready to give his verdict. "There is no broken law here. There is no revelation here. The question remains, why are Democrats doing this if not for politics?"

Watts did his best to seem in concert with Hannity but actually contradicted his adjudication. "And that's the issue... As badly as we like to jump the gun and convict someone because we want 'em to be guilty, you have nailed the real issue here... what does the law say?" Watts said that until the investigation is complete, it's just speculation.

Hannity nodded his head in agreement despite the fact that Watts had just overturned Hannity's verdict of Karl Rove's innocence. As he always does when the talking points aren't going his way, Hannity changed the subject to an attack on Democrats. He must have felt especially cornered because his attack was especially vicious and especially sanctimonious, complete with the Hannity head-slant and squinted eyes. "Here we are in Washington (though it looked like the NY studio to me) where Howard Dean is as shrill as any Democratic chairman I've ever seen. Republicans are evil, brain dead, I can go through the whole litany. Dick Durbin's ridiculous comments about Gitmo. Senator Kennedy's comments, the whole bunch of 'em. The attacks - if we go down the list, against the president himself - constantly calling him a liar, the vice president, Condi Rice attacked, Gonzales attacked, Ashcroft attacked, Rummy attacked. This is all the Democratic Party now represents, is a party that attacks Republicans without any ideas for important issues like national security or the economy, no?

Comment: What does that have to do with Rove leaking classified information? Or was the thought of due process just too unbearable for Hannity to cope with?

As the segment ended and the music began, Alan Colmes added, "There IS an ongoing investigation, says the CIA, and that means they're looking at something."

Exactly. And I'd say it's very unlikely that the investigators will be consulting Hannity for a legal opinion.

Comments
Post a comment




Remember Me?


We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.