Lanny Davis was unusually terrific and muscular on Hannity last night as he battled Sean Hannity and conservative Stephen Hayes over Fox’s faux Benghazi scandal. Must see!
Before you get too enthused about Davis, let me point out that he is a paid contributor to Fox News who is more often interested in sucking up than in advocating for the left or Democrats.
For example, in July 2008, right after he went on the network’s payroll, Davis said, “Democrats are looking at Fox as a fair and balanced network."
On The O’Reilly Factor in 2011, he talked up George W. Bush's torture and surveillance policies in the role of killing Bin Laden – while distancing himself from them at the same time: “We have to give credit to George Bush and those that use these techniques for getting information that directly or indirectly led to the death of Osama Bin Laden. I don’t think there’s any way to deny that. I have also written doubts about violating written law against torture and we’re between a rock and a hard place. But we have to give credit where credit is due. George Bush’s enhanced interrogation techniques as well as the terrorist surveillance program – both of which I had legal doubts about – were effective.”
He also praised John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for V.P. in September, 2008 by saying, “She has certainly made a favorable impression on me as smart, politically savvy, tough-minded, and charming.”
However, Davis is a long-time friend and supporter of Hillary Clinton. He has decided to set up a “truth squad” outside the upcoming Benghazi hearings where, as BuzzFeed reported, “volunteers will give reporters and lawmakers fact sheets, or booklets of facts — depending on what he decides to have printed.”
None of that diminishes how excellent Davis was last night.
For example, Davis asked, “True or not?” as to whether the protests in Cairo, which the CIA said triggered the protests at Benghazi, were based on an anti-Islamic video.
Hannity started to blither, “Lanny, Lanny, stop with your aggressive ‘I love Hillary’ crap because it’s not gonna work here.”
Davis smiled and said, “Is that your answer…. personal insults, Sean?”
You may recall this was the same question Fox reporter Ed Henry dodged, too. He developed a suspicious memory lapse to avoid answering when White House spokesman Jay Carney posed it.
Later, Davis asked, “Does anyone disagree that the Cairo protests were triggered by the video?”
Of course, nobody did.
But Hannity interrupted to ask Hayes a question - and, conveniently, change the subject. When Davis refused to be silenced, Hannity said, “Lanny, I know you’re obsessed with the Clintons and you can’t control yourself. Calm down.” It was clear Hannity felt he had lost control of the segment.
Davis shot back, “I think you’re obsessed with interrupting and you can’t be polite and allow me to finish. …You can hurl your personal attack words, Sean, but tonight’s one night where when you talk over me, I’m not gonna allow you to talk over me. …You do that all the time.”
If only Davis could be as feisty and effective in his other appearances!
Enjoy this very satisfying set of smack downs below!
(image above via screen grab)
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/0/20120912135823.html#axzz30NtEERX1
Here is Ansar al Shariah’s statement that confirms Clinton’s statement. The terrorist group who we now know was partly behind the attack in Benghazi admitted that it was the result of the video! What Clinton said was not made-up by the State Department! It was created by the actual terrorist group that appears to have led the attack.
FOX news can spin this any way they want, but the facts speak for themselves. The video did play a role in the attacks and it was all propagated by Ansar al Shariah. The State Dept. was simply responding to what information they had at the time.
Here’s another good article that proves Hannity is completely wrong about the locals on the ground at Bengahzi:
When debating a conservative about Hannocchio ask them why he backed away from Cliven Bundy in his hour of need. They will say Hannocchio was wrong in abandoning Bundy. You will follow up with this statement, “Why would you follow a man who dumped Cliven Bundy? He is using Benghazi story to make you forget about Bundy.” They will think about that statement and say, "You know. You are right. You follow up by saying, “You should tell your friends and colleagues about him throwing Bundy under the bus.” They will say, “I will make sure to remind my friends about his mistreatment of Bundy.”
Remind conservatives everyday of Hannocchio’s diss of Bundy through social media, in person, radio, and at town hall meetings.
Hannocchio plans to go after Clinton with bogus attacks and invented scandals. All of it will backfire when the masses learn about Hannocchio’s dark secret that would make the Bundy fiasco look like a Boy Scout picnic.
Excuse us while we finish our short story about a confused young man who seeks the companionship of prostitutes after being caught peeping in a woman’s bedroom.
This is all “asked and answered” nonsense. My favorite part is the implication that this somehow turned the election in 2012. As though nobody was discussing this very issue on Fox News and in multiple debates in front of the public. If this was the “masterstroke” of the Obama Campaign in 2012, then how do they explain that the Obama Campaign was openly discussing this matter over the two months leading up to the election. Fox News’ take on this assumes that somehow the whole issue was hidden from the public and that’s blatantly false. Which means that Fox News actually thinks that its viewers can’t even remember what happened less than two years ago, let alone longer. Do they really believe that everyone’s memory is that short-term?