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

Surprise! Surprise! Sean Hannity And Newt Gingrich Try To Make Political Hay Out Of Averted Tragedy Of British Bomb Plot

Reported by Ellen - August 11, 2006 -

It was another night of Republican guests, only, last night on “fair and balanced” FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes. Newt Gingrich, the first guest, did a double segment about the British bomb plot in which he acknowledged that “Five years after 9/11, we have no evidence that we’re winning this war.” But instead of criticizing the Bush administration – the ones setting policy and implementing it, wannabe-President Gingrich tried to make it sound as though all the failures were the fault of Democrats. Hannity, of course, was more than willing to do his part for the cause. Neither made any effort to unite the country during such a time of stress.

After a bit of discussion about the forestalled disaster, Sean Hannity turned to what was in all likelihood his foremost concern in the matter: How to blame Democrats. “If I can get you for a second to view the events of today and this, this being able to stop this threat – and I want you to view it through the prism of politics for just a minute and, you know, all that has been said in the last five years, that George Bush on a regular basis – the opposition party says he lied, he hyped, he misled. There are people talking about impeachment, he violated the Constitution, he’s responsible for Abu Ghraib, our guards at Guantanamo are like Nazis, they’re killing civilians in cold blood in Haditha, they don’t support the Patriot Act, they don’t even want us to tape incoming calls from terrorists, nor do they want us to interrogate Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard. Put those two together for me.”

Gingrich, of course, obliged. “Well, I think this is beyond politics, Sean. This is a matter of historic survival. If the British were as constrained as our friends on the left would like us to be, I’m not sure they would have intercepted and stopped these terrorists before they destroyed the airplanes today. The terrorists, by the way, had they been successful, might well have killed more people than died on 9/11, depending on which aircraft they were on. The fact is that we have enemies who are gonna use every possible device to kill us, they say so openly every day. Five years after 9/11, we have no evidence that we’re winning this war.”

From there, chickenhawks Hannity and Gingrich started accusing Democrats – including veterans John Kerry and John Dingell – of military cowardice. First, Hannity adopted the military “expertise” of non-serving Karl Rove. “When Karl Rove said that Democrats have a pre-9/11 mentality, Mr. Speaker, and that they’re deeply, profoundly and consistently wrong on the issue of this war on terror… What does it mean about the Democratic Party heading into this election? A lot of people think Republicans are in trouble.”

Gingrich answered, “First of all, I think had the Connecticut primary been next week, after the events of today, the odds are very high that Senator Lieberman, who after all only lost by four points, might well have won the primary as people realized how accurate his assessment of the world is. Mr. Lamont represents the weakness, appeasement and surrender wing of the Democratic Party. He has no solution for the problem of Iraq except to run. He has no solution for South Lebanon except to hope that Hezbollah will be nice. He has no solution for Al Qaeda except to give up the Patriot Act and not go after terrorists in the United States. And so I think that the country is going to be faced with a great, historic choice and my guess is that in Connecticut the odds are very good that Senator Lieberman will now win the general election as an independent because I think the left wing of the Democratic Party’s not big enough to win the general election.”

Hannity asked if other congressional races will be affected by either the bomb plot or the Lieberman race.

Gingrich replied, “That’s part of it but if you look at, for example, Democratic Congressman John Dingell who’d be a committee chairman, saying that he can see no difference morally between Hezbollah and Israel, which he said on television in Detroit, if you look at the degree to which people like Al Gore (Comment: Which congressional race is he in?) and John Kerry would withdraw from Iraq almost immediately, no matter what the consequences to the Persian Gulf, I think that it’s far more than just Ned Lamont, that there is in fact a weakness, appeasement and surrender wing of the Democratic Party.”

Alan Colmes asked if conservatives William F. Buckley, Jr. and George Will, who also “want out” are appeasers too. “Are the 70% of Americans who don’t agree with Bush’s Iraq war policy, are they all appeasers? Lamont is in sync with most people in the United States on this issue.” He noted that no Democrats had advocated leaving Iraq "tomorrow," and, he added, "It’s not cut and run after three and a half years.”

Gingrich said, “Most Americans know that America leaving the Persian Gulf will be a disaster for the world and an Iran with nuclear weapons dominating the Persian Gulf will truly be a menace to every democracy on the planet. And most Americans I think are in fact more responsible than is the left wing of the Democratic Party about the reality of the world.”

Perhaps Colmes would have reminded Gingrich that it was the Republicans who told the American people that we’d be out of Iraq in six months and that the removal of Saddam Hussein would bring increased peace and stability in the region. But his time was suddenly up, despite the fact that, unlike the first Gingrich segment in which Colmes got the same amount of time as Hannity, Colmes received approximately one-third Hannity’s time in this one.