The next time you hear Sean Hannity or anyone else complain about “reckless rhetoric” from the left, please be sure to remind them of Hannity’s shockingly vile and inflammatory attacks on the Obama administration over Fox’s most important news ever, Benghazi.
It’s hard to describe this video in its full disgusting-ness. But it’s based on the premise that an email from Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes to then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice is some kind of smoking gun. Why? Because Rhodes advised Rice, before she went on the Sunday talk shows immediately after the Benghazi attack, to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
I highly recommend David Corn’s article in Mother Jones on the subject. In it he not only explains the latest developments for those not obsessed with finding any means necessary to bring down Barack Obama’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Sadly, Corn also explains why the right’s “Benghazi Fever” is incurable.
Or maybe all you need to do is take one look at the hostility on Hannity’s face as he stands in front of a hideous graphic blaring, “OBAMA'S PAID LIAR." Hannity sneered:
Tonight I’m calling out the man who will do and say absolutely anything all in an effort to advance the political agenda of the 44th president of the United States.
Hannity’s really in no position to be calling anyone else a liar. This is the guy who insisted he never questioned President Obama’s patriotism (and we provided several instances where he did), who insisted he never uses the kind of inflammatory language he accuses liberals of using (and Jon Stewart found examples proving otherwise), deliberately ignored the words of General Tommy Franks to baselessly insist that Democratic criticisms of the Iraq war had “emboldened our enemies” and relentlessly promoted Donald Trump’s disreputable birtherism – while pretending otherwise. That Hannity also pledged to be waterboarded for charity to prove that it’s not torture – more than five years ago.
So where does this guy get off complaining about Jay Carney’s “little petulant and condescending manner?” That was shortly before saying about Carney: “Hey, remember Baghdad Bob? He’d be proud.” Followed by “This presidential mouthpiece, he’s either delusional or a really well-trained pathological liar” and “Mr. Propaganda.” Charming.
“Now it matters in America when a president and members of his administration lie and lie and lie repeatedly,” Hannity said sanctimoniously. Apparently when news anchors lie, not so much.
Hannity went on to host Jay Sekulow and Democrat Lanny Davis for a debate. You may recall Sekulow from Sestak-gate and Petraeus-gate. They were the impeachments that didn’t happen. I’ll bet nobody except a few diehard News Hounds fans can even remember what the supposed “crimes” were.
Davis did a decent job arguing down Hannity but Davis failed to call what should have been loudly condemned. “You’re entitled to your opinion… I don’t believe Jay Carney lied at all” Davis said, as if Hannity was an honest broker in a debate. Thereby giving it credibility and acceptability.
Surely the fact that Slanthead has been totally persona non grata at the White House all these years has fed his paranoid mind (Was Hannochio ever invited, by his FNC colleagues, to the White House Correspondent’s Dinner?).
But I think his hate for, and overwhelming fear of, Obama really goes all the way back to the moment Obama first announced his candidacy; Hannity saw his darker skin and felt his stomach churn!
What I find more curious is Slanthead’s sudden passion over Benghazi. He hasn’t exactly been one of the more hysterical wing nuts over this issue (until the last few days, that is). Maybe it’s his tanking ratings?
The Stop Hannity Express encourages all the masses to ask every conservative, 24/7 these burning questions: “Why did he dump Cliven Bundy”? “How do you feel about that betrayal?” Keep reminding the conservative masses on all social media, and Facebook pages setup by Bundy supporters.
Hannocchio’s conservative audience were angry that he dumped Bundy, and he lost a few long time listeners and viewers. To stem the tide he brings up Princess Sarah of Alaska, and Benghazi hoping his conservative audience would forget about Cliven Bundy. It’s a shrewd move, not only by this aging cafeteria Catholic, but by the third-rate Fox “News” producers.
Hannocchio’s hate for President Obama started when the president refused to sit down for an interview with him. Hannocchio has not been invited to the White House since Obama’s been in office. Ever since then Hannocchio has been out for blood. He can’t take rejection very well. Perhaps a childhood problem.
Hannocchio’s odd behavior is not new. He’s been this way before he was a big name in radio and television. This hack has major issues which could be linked to narcissistic personality disorder.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568
Nixon trainee Ailes hired this clown, and only he has the authority to release him. Ailes is 100% responsible for anything that Hannocchio says and does.
NOTE TO HANNITY
You are an embarrassment to the family name.
I remain perplexed by Hannity’s latest strategy which appears (to me) to be suicidal. This sort of blatancy didn’t work for Glenn Beck who said the awfulest things but tried to do so with humor. Watching Beck was sometimes like being at a circus in my youth, when clowns could say the most outrageous of things. I’m sure they have cleaned up their acts.
Hannity’s delivery is ugly to watch and worse to listen to.
But what sort of fascinates me is that even Hannity, stupid as he is, knows perfectly well that spokespeople, especially White House spokespeople, aren’t in the loop and are only there to say what their bosses want them to say.
So even Hannity basically felt he had to pull his punches and only go after Carney and not his boss.
It’s just that karma is a bitch. His ratings show that others have finally come around to the realization that he is no longer relevant. The only question that remains is when will Roger Ailes succumb and do us all a favor and drop the hammer on him.
The last time someone was this openly trying to see how volatile he could make a situation, it was Glenn Beck. And we all know that the only reason that didn’t end horribly was because all the attempts were stopped- If they weren’t, he would have been the first of these hosts answering for a massacre. I’m kind of afraid of Hannity being where that luck runs out.
Specifically, how many times have Sean Hannity and Jay Sekulow been caught on camera openly musing about the impeachment to come, or the impending doom hanging over the Obama Administration over this or that non-scandal? I’m willing to bet you could already fill at least five minutes with this stuff – none of which has proven to be anything by Hannity and Sekulow’s hot air.
I’ll give Davis points for trying to stand part of his ground and forcing Hannity to allow him to finish his statement, but Sekulow still tried to cut him off and also tried to see if he could distract Davis from his point by shouting nonsense at him. I agree with you that Davis should have opened with “I reject the entire premise of your opening, and I ask you how you would have reacted to someone making comments like that about the George W. Bush presidency.” At the same time, Davis appeared to be focused on a single point – that the Benghazi language in the memo is directly pasted from CIA talking points – and I think he felt he should stay on that single point or he wouldn’t get anywhere.
