CYRANO'S JOURNAL®

26-Oct-07, 01:58 AM

L'affair Robertson: Media Cesspool Dept.

Wayne Simmons: When Criminal Stupidity Meets Terminal Ignorance

HOME

http://www.cjonline.org

Our contributors' latest pieces

A Bad Case of Historical Amnesia:

Mr. Rumsfeld dismisses Mr. Robertson's remark on assassination, saying: "Certainly it's against the law. Our department doesn't do that type of thing."

—The New York Times, 8.24.05

THIS IS A BROADBAND FILE IN FLASH FORMAT. to view the video clips, click on the (>) button. Allow your computer a few seconds to load necessary files.

Clip by Media Matters for America

By Patrice Greanville

On the August 24 (2005) edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity provided the intro for that show by stating that "Pat Robertson caused a bit of a media firestorm this week when he advocated, some say [sic], the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez." But what Hannity cast as a matter in dispute -- whether Robertson actually advocated the assassination of Chavez -- is not, in fact, in dispute. He did. Moreover, the "some" who say that Robertson did advocate Chavez's assassination includes Robertson himself, who on August 24 acknowledged that he had made those remarks, after initially denying it.

In discussing Robertson's August 22 statements and the resulting controversy, guest and former CIA operative Wayne Simmons endorsed the assassination of not only Chavez but also Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and North Korean ruler Kim Jong Il. His sparring partner was the utterly malleable Alan Colmes, the program's "liberal." It's noteworthy that, as in many fixed fights where a real pugilist is paired with a "bum," Colmes found himself in the unusual position of almost accidentally knocking his opponent out—and only by using a bit of "pepper." Such was the ineptitude displayed by Simmons to defend his patriotic drivel. [Transcript follows]

From the August 24, 2005 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: But first, Pat Robertson caused a bit of a media firestorm this week when he advocated, some say, the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Now Pat Robertson apologized for those remarks today, but who is Hugo Chavez? Is he a threat to the United States that must be dealt with?

[...]

ALAN COLMES (co-host): Should we assassinate him?

SIMMONS: Well, listen, if a stray bullet from a hunter in Kentucky should find its way between these guy's -- this guy's eyes --

COLMES: Just by accident?

SIMMONS: -- no American --

COLMES: Who knew?

SIMMONS: Yes, who knew? No American should lose any sleep over it.

COLMES: Let me ask you this. Pat Robertson considers himself a good Christian. We -- some people consider us a Christian nation. Would assassinating a leader of another country be the Christian thing to do?

SIMMONS: Listen, this is not about Christians. I'm a Christian, as well, but I'm about protecting this country and protecting Americans.

COLMES: Do you want him dead?

SIMMONS: Anyone who -- I absolutely would -- he should have been killed a long time ago.

COLMES: By whom?

SIMMONS: And anyone who blames other -- by anyone, Alan.

COLMES: It's against the law.

SIMMONS: By anyone, Alan. It doesn't matter to me who kills this guy.

COLMES: It's against the law.

SIMMONS: He needs to go.

COLMES: We have an executive order, 12333, Executive Order 12333, put in place in the '70s. We don't do that to other --

SIMMONS: The president can -- the president can order that.

COLMES: Well, should --

SIMMONS: It should have been ordered. This guy -- this guy needs to go.

COLMES: Well, if we're going to kill him, aren't there some dictators even a little more dangerous to us? Khamenei in Iran? Should we kill him? Should we kill Kim Jong Il in North Korea? Should we knock those guys off, too...

SIMMONS:Yeah, absolutely. Listen -- listen, this is what's happened, Sean.

COLMES: This is Alan.

SIMMONS: I'm sorry, Alan. This is what's happened.

COLMES: If someone's a target, I want to know exactly who the target is. Don't get people mixed up here. It makes me very nervous.

SIMMONS: I'm sorry about that. OK, look, what's happened here is -- on a very serious note -- things are getting all convoluted and out of control. And what I mean by that is, terrorism is a very, very, very real part of our lives today. This is not something where we have a terrorist dictator that we can go negotiate with.

COLMES: But you want to go kill people. You want to go after a guy who's not an imminent threat to the United States. You want to be in the assassination business.

[crosstalk]

SIMMONS: Come on, Alan. Alan, you know that's not what I want to do.

COLMES: That's exactly what you said.

SIMMONS: I want to protect America. I want to protect America. These are our enemies.

COLMES: How many people should we kill?

SIMMONS: Alan, if I'd have had the opportunity to assassinate Hitler or Mussolini, I would have done it. This situation is no different. [sic]

CODA: I'm sure that many people on the left have wondered what Alan Colmes is doing on the Hannity-Colmes show. He's clearly an intelligent man, but it's obvious that there are plenty of deficiencies elsewhere. Still, what's Colmes' role in this perennially fixed fight? To simply furnish the fig leaf of a "balancing viewpoint" to the torrent of lies and assorted manure issuing from the resident loudmouth, Sean Hannity, a bully, who, like O'Reilly, deploys such a repulsive personality that even Mussolini would look mild by comparison...?

As the exchange with the utterly imbecilic and sociopathic Simmons clearly demonstrates, Colmes is paid to pull his punches. As an educated man, he's potentially capable of a fierce repartee, and some of that occasionally shows. But obviously, he loves those paychecks far more than his principles. Colmes, like many other media creatures, knows the unwritten boundaries of his job. He knows damn well that if he started winning those pseudo-debates...he'd soon find himself beating the pavement for a new job. The fix is in, and Colmes simply plays along.

—PG

WAYNE SIMMONS REMINDS US OF THE CIA'S TRUE COLORS

The Bush administration is so highhanded about its malignant objectives that even the CIA has begun to look good and honorable during its watch. That shouldn't make us forget what this nefarious organization is all about, nor its historical mission to defend to the bitter end the privileges of the plutocracy it receives its marching orders and "ethical framework" from. Wayne Simmons may be a clumsy sociopathic fool, like Robertson, and a useful reminder that loudmouth patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels or certifiable imbeciles...but what he says and represents is very much alive in quarters far more resilient and wily than he, and therefore far more dangerous. While the trademark of Simmons is the bully's bluster, the M.O. of his betters is subterfuge. The interview reproduced below (courtesy of Fox News watchdog News Hounds ) gives us further evidence of how deformed minds see the world.—PG

Wayne Simmons says ACLU and American press are in terrorists' pocket

John Gibson had former CIA operative Wayne Simmons on The Big Story yesterday, 5/31/05, to discuss the report from the Washington Times that Al Queda trains terrorists to cry "torture" when in captivity as a tactic to disrupt the imprisoners.

GIBSON: Wayne, these allegations of abuse, are they part of a bigger plan to hurt the image of the US and its military?

SIMMONS: Absolutely. Look, terrorism 101, if I'm teaching the course I'm teaching you to disrupt the power grids, and the financial districts, the transportation grids, AND to use the press to your advantage. The one thing the AQ and the other terrorists have in their favor is that they have the New York Times and the LA Times, but to name a few, who are helping to facilitate that. That is way beyond the pale.

GIBSON: Does this mean, Wayne, that these incidents of abuse, I'll stop short of calling them torture, didn't occur? just because AQ tells its guys to cry torture, does that mean it didn't?

SIMMONS: I would suggest that it probably didn't. Look we've done tens of thousands of interviews and interrogations, and yet we have a very small, less than 40, I would suggest, of actual proveable incidents where maybe some people went a little overboard, were a little too zealous. But the bottom line is, the handbook, John, absolutely tells you step by step on how to act. The irony is John, if I get captured by Al Queda, who am I going to complain to? I can't complain, it doesn't hold water in any other country "because the terrorists know that they have the press and they have the ACLU in their pocket." There is no other place in the world where you could use those tactics.

GIBSON: Wayne, there is the story that a lot of these guys at Guantnamo Bay were sold to the CIA, and the American Forces, by Afghans. Just grab this guy, turn them over to the CIA, say he's Al Queda, I get the the big reward, go on my merry way, meanwhile some chicken farmers in Guantanamo Bay were interrogated.

SIMMONS: There's lots of different scenarios of things, good things and bad things, that can happen. We're in the middle of a war. That's not justification, it only is a point, that we have again tens of thousands of suspects that we have to interrogate. There will be mistakes made, no one I think would deny that mistakes have not been made (?), but when you have your own press, there is such responsibility that goes along with the power of the First Amendment that is being abused by our own press, that you have to be very very careful. These are incendiary charges that they used and they leveled a couple of weeks ago. People lost their live, John, you know that.

End of interview

Comment: This is a typical right-wing Bu**sh** charge. Any truthful report, if it exposes wrongdoing on the part of the administration or the military, should be covered up "to protect the troops", "to protect America's image", to protect BUSH. The abuse of prisoners is a disgrace and un-American and once it was exposed and there was public outcry the administration said they'd do something about it. It is the DUTY of journalists to expose wrongdoing, not to protect anyone. They are there for US, Wayne. (Except Fox, obviously. They are in the administration's pocket. Front right.)

And we all know, John, that Newsweek has been exonerated for the loss of life Simmons attributed to that blurb.

Amendment: Friday night, 6/3/05, after the regular news cycle had ended, the Pentagon released a report that in essence said that there had been desecration of the Qu'aran at Gitmo

—PG

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pat Robertson's Fatwah and the Emergence of Medieval America By Zbignew Zingh

Listen Up, You Christo-Fascist Bullies — You Apostles Of Perpetual Psychosis — It's High Time Somebody Called You Out By Phil Rockstroh

ANNALS OF FASCIST DEMENTIA: SEAN HANNITY JUMPS IN TO CONTAIN THE DAMAGE

PUBLISHER'S LOG