Years behind the left and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Sean Hannity is just now beginning to complain about the the government being too intrusive. Hannity pretended today not to know the government is already collecting our calls and emails, but he was in a snit to hear that Democrats have proposed new telecommunications rules that would require providers like AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and others to retain text messages for two years in case they are needed by law enforcement.
Hannity erroneously suggested this could violate our First Amendment rights (he surely meant the Fourth Amendment) but the idea he would suddenly be alarmed at the invasion of privacy rights is baldly hypocritical because Hannity helped usher in these changes throughout the War on Terror.
From the Patriot Act to the AUMF and hair-trigger invocation of War Powers, our rights have been steadily eroded since President Bush made bold moves to prevent a second terrorist attack on his watch. Hannity cheered these moves along, like a weasel in pom poms. Hannity supported Bush wholeheartedly in December 2005 when we found the NSA was conducting a massive warrantless surveillance operation in direct violation of the FISA law meant to prevent abusive Nixon-style eavesdropping.
Here is stunning video of Hannity going far beyond his tacit everyday support for Bush’s controversial NSA surveillance program by ignoring the issue and suppressing debate or dissent. In the 2006 clip, Hannity actually tells Dick Cheney he is surprised the country is divided over the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance, asking Cheney if he is as surprised Americans don’t just roll over for it all.
Per Bush’s former press secretary, Hannity was “helpful” as Karl Rove and the Office of Strategic Initiatives sought to dupe the public with color coded terror alerts, false threats of imminent attacks and daily fear mongering for over a decade. Bush’s ham-handed response to 9-11 clearly traded civil liberties for greater security – but reports flooded in of government infiltration of everything from eco-activism groups to senior sewing circles.
Hannity was the PR arm of the Bush administration, “selling” war, terror and fear to the public every single day with provably wrong claims and according to Scott McClellan, undisclosed White House-provided propaganda:
Matthews: So, you wouldn’t use Brit Hume to sell stuff for them, but you’d use some of the night time guys?
McClellan: Yeah, I would separate that out, and certainly I, you know, they’ll say, that’s because they agree with those views in the White House.
[...]
Matthews: Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out?
McClellan: I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House. [...] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.
Matthews: So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople.
McClellan: Well, certainly.
Notably, Bill O’Reilly, the top “night time guy” at Fox made it a point to insist he had NOT received talking points from the White House, demanding an apology from Scott McClellan. But more notably, Hannity did not.
Suddenly, following the 2012 election, seeking arguments to weaken President Obama, Hannity seems to be taking up the cause of our privacy rights. As Hannity has tried to push the economic collapse of the economy that happened under Bush off onto Obama, we now see Hannity trying to paint Obama as the fearsome Big Brother, rather than Bush’s “Brother” who inherited and embraced the surveillance programs.
Particularly following the abrupt ruin of the career of CIA Director David Petraeus in discovery of embarrassing email correspondence, Hannity seems to just recently have found religion on this – or perhaps a healthy paranoia.
Though it’s never too late to join the bandwagon of citizens who actually understand the US Constitution’s guarantees of individual privacy, it’s lame for Hannity to whimper about this now, now after saying nothing about tens of thousands of improperly issued National Security Letters, illegal surveillance of innocent Muslims in NJ or the Department of Defense illegally spying on Planned Parenthood and peace groups.
Hannity knows we lost important civil liberties long ago. But now facing four more years of Obama, now facing the fact that authorities have every email he (and everyone else) is sending, he is getting a little worried.
Hannity is right that retention of our texts is disturbing – it’s illegal, it’s immoral and wastes taxpayer resources. But where the hell was Hannity when these same companies turned over private phone records to the feds? Where was he when they got retroactive immunity despite widespread outcry? Where was Hannity when NSA whistleblowers went public with the details of the mega-macro-data collection operation called Stellar Wind?
Hannity was nowhere, because he was helping Karl Rove and George Bush strip our privacy rights away under fake threats of terror strikes from Iraq and radical Islamist sleeper cells. But just like on immigration, Hannity has had another post-election loss flip-flop.




28 Comments

Well, I’m going to welcome the little pants-pisser to the right side on this.
Yeah, it’s odd to see him scrounging for new ways to detract from Obama. He would do well to take a cue from progressives, but the trouble is, he’d indict himself.
A great example of this was when Ryan Grim of HuffPo and Michelle Malkin actually agreed Obama should be impeached for holding and interrogating Libyan militants, but then Hannity said he wouldn’t mind secret CIA interrogation annexes because “there’s a war on terror going on”.
Oh, so all that illegal spying stopped with Obama, then. Good to know!
Great post.
Hannity seems to be attempting to reinvent himself as a populist for a new generation, both with this and his “evolution” on immigration.
But I can’t think of anyone who has been a more slavish authoritarian. Nice try. The only constant seems to be his own self-interest.
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t read this very post and think HYPOCRISY right here. Bet you voted for Obama???
Working for the right to detain American citizens in America indefinetly with no charges (it was the Obama admin that asked that bill to include Americans in America, per the Senator in charge of the bill) AND he claims the right to assassinate American citizens with no due process.
If you didn’t vote for him, how many here did??? It’s likely a majority, and not a small one either.
And I’d bet good money I could look at this site and look at the writing of, oh, say TBogg, and find some bitching about Jose Padilla during the W administration, and Obama does even more by encoding the President’s right to detain any American anywhere with no charges, just like Padilla was for so many years.
Yet Obama is “better than the alternative” especially regarding SCOTUS appointments. Right. Because what we need is a President who claims Presidents can assassinate and/or detain Americans with no due process of habeas corpus rights to be the one making SCOTUS appointments.
The majority of this country apparently have no clue just how precious and precarious these rights are. They didn’t just happen, they happened after hundreds of years of fighting for them. And now everyone is OK with just giving them away. At least if it’s a D in the White House they’re giving them away to.
Yeah, hypocrisy is abundant on both sides.
I think you would be surprised at the number of us voted other
candidates. Painting with a pretty broad brush. (No harm intended.)
Since when is there a “journalist” at “Fox News?” (Don’t tell me, let me guess. Um…Since never? What do I win?)
Next, he and his fascist friends can start complaining about all the MIC weaponry that they so happily funded for the government, which is now slowly but surely being turned on The American People.
I cannot stand Hannity, nor any of his cohorts in distortion. That said, the left, professional left and progressives of any stripe have no seat at the table with Obama LLC. Rachel Maddow, Larry (call me Lawrence)O’Donnell at MSNBC, Jennifer Granholm at CurrentTV nor any number of so called liberal media types will report on the diminution of Constitutional rights. So I hope Hannity and the other trolls at Faux News ream Obama LLC and Congress big time. Maybe Faux News illiterate troops can do what we can’t.
Bingo. I’ve long asserted that, were the political winds to shift in such a manner as to make the wingnut AM radio (and television) model no longer viable, the Hannitys, Limbaughs, Becks, etal of the world would change their shtick in about a New York minute.
His mother must be so proud. /s
He hatched.
I wrote in Rocky Anderson, although he wasn’t on the ballot in Indiana. I could not bring myself to vote for Obama.
I didn’t vote for Obama, in part bc he’s carried forward & enhanced greatly, these dastardly programs, which definitely rob all citizens of our civil liberties.
PTOUI on Hannity! What a tool, but they all are.
Per shoto:
more like a NY nanosecond, if I my “fix it” for you.
It pains me that so many conservatives are so fixated on their tinpot despotic “gods” bc it’s clear that each & every one of them is a charlatan of the worst order, who will stop at nothing to make a buck.
The same can be said of those who blather for the so-called “left.” I no longer watch or listen to any of ‘em. Waste of time.
bah humbug.
Good post, however. Utterly unsurprised. Hannity is engaging in Orwellian-speak. Now that the Kenyan Ursuprer is doing it, it’s all “bad” and should be “stopped.” Spare me the ersatz b.s.
>>
hannity = hypocritical self-promoter
obama = hypocritical self-promoter & president
any reportage at FDL re: NSA’s Bluff Ridge data storage facility in Utah…really seems to be a bi-partisan affair, all this unconstitutional data collection
woo hoo! the lesser evil
from the Financial Times >
ex-NSA whistle blower describes – “A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks.”
It’s a heavily-fortified $2 billion megacenter that is expected to be up and running by September 2013. It will encompass all forms of communication, including the contents of private e-mails, cell phone calls, Google and Wikipedia searches, and many other personal data items — parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, etc.
see ya’ll in Gitmo! (& hope you look good in safety orange)
Don’t be confused. Hannity’s job, as always, is to promote corporatism and its erosion of what we erroneously call our civil “rights.” Hannity is a partisan hack in this regard, and here he is only using the opportunity to bash his make believe enemies, the Dems, in standard kabuki theater fashion.
“Hannity erroneously suggested this could violate our First Amendment rights (he surely meant the Fourth Amendment) . . .” etc.
Don’t be too hard on him. He is only a character actor reading from a teleprompter. Because of his enormous ego and thoughtless, unwavering obedience, he is occasionally permitted to utter a few garbled phrases off script.
Indeed. But it is not just FOX. All of the “news” networks have commentators instead of journalists. That’s the whole point.
“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” –H. L. Mencken
And, as you and Shoto mention, the pay off for these folks is the benefits of demagoguery, not the doctrines.
Why would you call someobody out for hypocrisy when they switch to the right side on some issue? To deter them from switching to the right side in the future? It makes no fucking sense. And really, people around FDL ought to just shut the fuck up when it comes to hypocrisy because there is fucking plenty of it to go around. How about a supposedly progressive blog that every fucking morning pays fealty to New York Times? Is that progressive? It’s full bore bullshit is what it is. How’s that for fucking hypocrisy? Why is that? How can you pretend to be progressive and look to the core instrument of the corporate so called “main stream media” every morning? And how about a commitment to free speach that is paper thin and that results in countless bannings of posters who seriously care about the truth? FDL fails again. We have known for a long time what side Hannity is on. In FDL’s case, it is far from clear. Don’t think that I have spoken my mind. This is just what you allow me to speak.
eblair, there are diverse voices here at FDL. Personally, I have never been censored by them at all and I can point to many great anti-Obama pieces. David Dayen rips the President a new one constantly with highly critical reporting on the financial mess, just as one example.
They (Jane?) promoted this piece from MyFDL to the main FDL page. Though no site is perfect, I am very, very curious to hear what you consider a good source and also what kinds of topics you have had banned here.
I didn’t vote for Obama and why in the world would you assume that?
I love the quote, ottogrendel. I’d never heard it, and will stick it away for later use. Thank you. ;o)
Well, I didn’t really assume it, I just thought it would be a good bet, perhaps better than 50/50 odds (I certainly don’t think there was ANY chance you voted for Romney). So I would’ve lost another bet.
Here’s the thing. I hung out here for most O’s first term. Also, too, I gathered an email informal “group” of voters that started out as a pledge to vote against our D Senators if we didn’t get a real health care (and we didn’t), but from that, almost everyone sort of gravitated to pledging also not to vote for Obama later after seeing the horrible things (like ending habeas corpus).
But then a funny thing happened after Romney became the R nominee. Suddenly there was a real face and person to look at, and about 25% of my group admitted they went ahead and voted for Obama (and I’d bet good money it was really higher than that, they were the only ones admitting it).
And the exact same thing happened here. You should’ve heard all the claims of “not voting for Obama” and “not voting for any more fake Democrats) and then after Romney and all his batshit craziness was out ther for all to see, well, again, a sizeable chunk of folks didn’t live up to there claims here either.
Point is you can’t tell by what people say, because I could (but I won’t) find definitive quotes from FDLers saying there was no way in hell they would vote for Obama and then definitive quotes from those same people later in the cycle justifying their LOTE vote. So I didn’t assume you had, I just thought it might be a good bet.
And I’m sorry to everyone else. I know I shouldn’t be here, but the other blog I read is down (for the last week) and every time I read hear I can’t help but comment (no self discipline. I’m not going to become a regular here again because unlike most of America, I do NOT forget, and every one of those “progressives” here that did vote for that SOB OWNS everything he does, especially when he signs the bill that cuts social security benefits. And I wouldn’t mince any words about making sure they own it. Especially for the idiotic reason of the SCOTUS. Because yes, it IS idiotic to say having someone that fought for and signed ending habeas corpus AND claiming any President can assassinate anybody anywhere without due process is the right guy to be nominating Supreme Court justices. He shouldn’t be nominating small claims court judges, must less Supreme Court ones.
Oldfatguy, you are an astute observer of how complex electoral politics have gotten in the last cycle, but I think you’re missing the bigger long term vision of the founding fathers.
First off, if you are a progressive, you have to face the reality that you don’t have the votes or support or party strength or funding to win the White House. The last election was great for Tammy Baldwin, so we can safely say a real progressive got into the US Senate this time around. Liz Warren may not be as liberal as people think, but will do wonders to fight banks nonetheless.
But the Presidential race has to be run and won from the middle, so no one is going to be happy, but the country will elect someone to run the country as we preserve order. This is how the framers wanted it, but in practice, the winner must compromise to the point of sometimes sounding incoherent. You have to admit Obama understands this – he never was a liberal in the first place and had CFR membership long before we ever heard of him. The most valid complaints are those that hold him to his own campaign promises, or to the letter of Constitutional law, but no one should have been surprised at the Afghan surge or drone strikes against non-citizen combatants (if only there actually were).
Your friends are not uncommon in supporting Obama come election time. There were over 57 million Romney voters and no viable third party candidates. This isn’t rocket science and in fact it’s the exact opposite, a game of anticipating what extremely low-info voters will need to hear to get out and vote. If you think it’s bad so many Obama voters are hypocrites, just be thankful they’re clear eyed some of the time.
Getting to the nitty grit, you or I will not see real change or justice unless there is an overwhelming tsunami of public pressure. The NDAA is totally illegal, but you couldn’t find one person out of fifty out on the street who has any idea what it is, what is says or what it means.
That’s why it’s so important to get control back of the broadcast airwaves. Whatever your issue is, the big hurdle is not whether your ideas are right or wrong, it’s whether anyone has ever heard about them. Talk radio is providing the bulwark against open debate on basic issues of public concern and it’s more pervasive than TV.
Most people don’t even realize Rush and Sean are owned by Bain Capital and it’s partners, as well as almost every other right wing imitator in every small town market. They might know about Rupert Murdoch, but probably don’t know about the Kochs, ALEC, Rove and all the billionaires that are sure to get their messages out over the air and suppress yours.
If you think MSNBC or WaPo or NYT holds back on Obama to curry favor, maybe, but it’s more likely the executive ownership causing this than the correspondents. If you follow Maddow closely, she has been very tough on Obama’s policies on Afghanistan, on detentions, and even covered the NDAA. Maddow hasn’t stayed on it night after night, but can safely say she covered the story earlier than most (Dec 2011) and is probably the only TV host to do so, followed by Jon Stewart. And she still got invited to the White House anyway, head held high.
The TV stations have to strike a balance between viewers, journalistic integrity, ratings, sponsorships and making political enemies, but MSNBC has been topping Fox’s ratings consistently in key demos, only since the election, so they might just now be starting to flex their progressive bonafides a bit more.
Before the election, there was much discussion, here and elsewhere, about third party voting if a person still believed Obama was the lesser evil but had a realistic assessment of his flaws. Those who lived in solidly red or blue states could have voted third party in large numbers and still not jeopardized the election of their preferred evil.
Many reasons were given why a substantial third party vote may have been a useful building block for the future, including facilitating future ballot access and public financing, bringing attention to different approaches to policy, possibly sending a message to Congressional Democrats that the left had somewhere else to go.
I won’t speculate on the motives of the millions of people who chose not to do any of that. However since you mentioned “preserving order” (arresting protesters, prosecuting whistleblowers, continuing the domestic drug war and endless international war, eliminating habeas corpus?), I would say that if that was a common motive, then, in addition to that being horrifying in itself, these Dem voters won’t be allies in fighting for anything worthwhile going forward. We should have a pretty good idea about that soon as the fiscal cliff hysteria plays out.
Jill Stein here.
I understand very well every word you’ve written.
What perhaps you, and certainly those millions of progressives that voted for Obama don’t understand, is the theme of political power.
Just because it takes 60 million votes to win doesn’t mean it takes 60 million votes to turn an election around. With a solid block of just 5 million vote (certainly there 5 million real progressives out of 300 million people), you can wield political power nearly the same as any of the biggest of political donors.
But you can’t ever wield that power if you’re not willing to actually do what big time donor do, withhold your support when they go against your wishes.
There is no political reason that this country doesn’t have single payer health care, a real and vibrant safety net, a public school system that the world looks up to that includes post grade 12 years, and a dignified and secure retirement that is a guarantee.
All of those things would be labelled as “radical” by today’s standards, yet all of those are currently or will be eventually supported by a majority of American citizens. So it’s not politics that stops it, it’s people using money for political power simultaneously while voters refuse to use their politcal power.
I never realized until the last few years that progressives actually don’t want political power. In fact, seem afraid of it.
Not me. Also, too, there are lines in the sand that any person, of any nationality, should NOT be willing to cross. Habeas corpus is the most BASIC human right there is. Without it, there are NO others. No person, anywhere, anytime, that believes in the concepts of freedom and human rights should EVER voluntarily give something as official as their own real vote to support ANYONE or ANY PARTY that believes in taking that right away.
And Obama and the Democrats have PROVEN they believe in taking that right away. A bridge that is far too far for any sane person.
OH, and are you sure you didn’t vote for Obama? Or just don’t want to admit it?