Did Jon Stewart And Stephen Colbert ‘Damage Our Ability To Fight Terrorism?’

Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert “damaged our ability to fight terrorism.”


“Every night for whatever number of years, seven years, six years, Comedy Central, Stewart, Colbert, you name it, Bush lied. The mainstream media, every day, every week, Bush lied. What did that do? In the minds of young skulls full of mush, it turn around the Iraq war into a joke, number one. It turned Bush into a joke. It turned the country into a joke, and it told everybody that everything we were doing over there was illegitimate because we had no business being there, that there was no terrorism.”

But the issue is that the U.S. attacked the wrong country after 9/11.

Is Rush Limbaugh hypocritical?

Limbaugh claimed that “John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are guilty of criticizing the president,” referring to President Bush.

Cenk Uygur, host of TYT Network, gives his opinion on it.

TYT Network

‘I Am Not Charlie’: Cracks In The Unity After Paris Attacks

The outpouring of sympathy after the deadly “Charlie Hebdo” attack has touched many in France, but according to Reuters, some people either detect a bit of hypocrisy or feel uncomfortable about supporting a satirical weekly that antagonized many.

Skepticism has emerged from surviving Charlie Hebdo workers who reject some of the support for them as insincere.

Also, some find the weekly magazine offensive.  Still others question the human rights records of the 40-plus world leaders who took part in Sunday’s unity march in Paris.

“There are so many big words being said about freedom of expression and democracy. But where was the support (for it) before? There wasn’t that much proof,” 26-year-old math student Nalo Magalhou said.

An #IamNotCharlie hashtag has also appeared on Twitter.

Though a fringe minority has praised the attacks that killed 17 innocents, more significant is the body of people who say that while they condemn the attacks, they still cannot bring themselves to support a newspaper that mocked religions.

“It would be too easy (to say) I am Charlie,” Belgian blogger Marcel Sel wrote on his website, according to Reuters.

Horrified by the attacks he unreservedly condemns, he also said it would be “cowardly” to pretend he is “Charlie” while he had harshly criticized some of its cartoons on Islam in the past.

Zakaria Moumni, a 34-year-old Franco-Moroccan draped in the French flag at the Place de la Republique rally point for Sunday’s march has a different reason to think there are cracks in the facade of unity.

“Some heads of state and government simply should not be there when they crack down on freedom of expression in their own country. It’s hypocritical,” said the former Thai boxing champion, who says he had been tortured in Morocco and had received support from NGOs such as Human Rights Watch when jailed there.

Morocco has rejected accusations of torture and last March filed a legal complaint in France against them.

For veteran Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Bernard Holtrop, the problem is with some of the paper’s new “friends.”

Holtrop, famous in France under the name of Willem, said he was happy if people worldwide marched to defend freedom of speech. But asked about support from Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders, he said: “We vomit on all those people who are suddenly saying they are our friends.”

“We’ve got a lot of new friends – the pope, Queen Elizabeth, Putin. I’ve got to laugh about that,” he said. Willem says he is alive only because he does not like going to weekly staff meetings and was not in the Paris office when two gunman erupted and killed his colleagues and two policemen.

David Duke And Michael Smerconish Discuss Steve Scalise

CNN’s Michael Smerconish sat down for an exclusive TV interview with former KKK grand wizard David Duke to confront him directly about whether Steve Scalise attended one of Duke’s group’s conventions.

Duke is a former Louisiana state senator and former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

Steve Scalise, the House Majority Whip, publicly admitted that in 2002, he attended a white supremacist convention organized by Duke’s European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), which is classified as a hate group.

The man who told The Washington Post he asked Scalise to speak took it back after one day and said that Scalise didn’t attend the event.

Duke honestly could not say for sure whether Scalise attended that 2002 conference, saying that he was out of the country at the time and the people he spoke to gave him contradicting accounts.

Duke also gave Scalise some words of praise this week, but on CNN he made it very clear that he isn’t a supporter of Scalise, nor the other way around.

He also reiterated his threat to other politicians that he will name names of those who have worked with Duke in the past if they continue to pursue the subject with Scalise.

CNN / Fakk Warr video.

Fox News On Gas Prices

According to sources, Fox News has officially criticized Obama for making gas prices too cheap, whereas when gas prices were higher, Fox New would complain about gas being to expensive.

Kyle Kulinski video.

Republicans Will Go For The ‘Hypocrisy’ Angle

Republicans will go for the “hypocrisy” angle with Hillary Clinton…and it will be easy to do.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly comments on it.

O’REILLY:  “…if Hillary Clinton runs for president, how can she even mention income inequality?

“Mrs. Clinton gets paid about $200,000 for a speech. And she flies to the venue in a private jet. And you know what; there is nothing wrong with that. Bill and Hillary Clinton have a unique position in the world and many people want to hear what they have to say. Mrs. Clinton also has a new book out for which she was paid more than $10 million — again, nothing wrong with that. Publisher believing it will make money selling Hillary’s book. That’s capitalism.

“But it also takes away a big issue that the Democratic Party is pushing in order to retain political power — inequality. For her book alone Mrs. Clinton is making more money than most Americans will make in their entire lifetimes. So, if you want an example of income inequality, I believe Hillary Clinton is the poster lady. In fact, she didn’t even write the book. Others did. She provided notes, guidance, point of view, but she did not put the words on the paper — again, nothing wrong with that.

“So, if I’m reading this correctly, Mrs. Clinton might want to think about running for president on the Republican ticket. She is obviously worried about taxes, obviously a hard worker. And she is making Romney- type money in the free marketplace, is she not?

“Also, she doesn’t feel guilty about it. She is a one percenter. She has far more cash than most Americans even dream of having.

“Now, if Mrs. Clinton does run as a liberal Democrat and does start spouting income inequality, ‘Talking Points’ will be offended. If you really believe that capitalism is distorted, a bad thing, because it provides the opportunity to make millions, then you can’t be vacuuming up the money. That would be hypocritical.

“If the Clintons want to give the money to charity, that’s another story. But at this point, Bill and Hillary are living very well — giant homes, private jets, every luxury — again, nothing wrong with that. They earned it.

“FINALLY, A PIECE OF ADVICE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: if Hillary is your nominee, stow the income inequality stuff. It’s not going to play with the folks.”

It is not clear what “folks” he is talking about.  However, he makes it clear that he believes that a wealthy person who talks about income inequality is – de facto – a hypocrite.

Does the O’Reilly piece give a sense of what is to come? Will pointing out “income inequality hypocrisy” become a conservative talking point?

Never mind that some of the wealthy seem fine with paying more taxes and consider it “paying their fair share.”  Never mind that they want health care for all.

But does O’Reilly have a point?  Will Republicans go for the “hypocrisy” angle?

Inquisitr states:  “If she runs for president, Hillary Clinton apparently plans to make income inequality a cornerstone of her campaign. The Clintons reportedly have a net worth of $100 million to $200 million, much of it from $200,000 a pop speechmaking before corporate groups.”

The Guardian states:  “But the mantle of class warrior has always fit poorly on Hillary’s shoulders…The missteps on the $225,000-a-speech Hard Choices campaign echo that fundamental problem with Hillary’s first run at the presidency: she is an insider who claims to be an outsider.”

Will Hillary be able to take up the cause of income inequality?  Equally important, will she be able to fend off attacks and charges of hypocrisy?