Hatch clarifies ‘nobody with brains’ comment

Just to follow up on a post from earlier this week, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) insisted over the weekend, without proof, that “nobody with brains” denies that Saddam Hussein “was supporting al-Qaida.” The comment seems to have been dogging him ever since.

For example, several experts have chided Hatch for his nonsensical claim. Michael O’Hanlon, a terrorism expert at The Brookings Institution, Hatch “went way too far and indeed the body of evidence was that there was no substantiated link.” John Pike, director of the national security think tank GlobalSecurity.org, put it even more succinctly: “I guess I don’t have a brain, then.”

Tuesday, Hatch started backpedaling.

On Tuesday, Hatch said he may have misspoken at the event, and he was speaking of conditions in post-Hussein Iraq and the terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

“Saddam clearly had a long history of supporting terrorists, but I was not talking about any formal link between Saddam and al-Qaida before the war,” Hatch said in a statement. “Instead, I pointed out that the current insurgency in Iraq includes al-Qaida, under the leadership of al-Zarqawi, along with former elements of Saddam’s regime.”

I realize it must be awkward for Hatch, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get caught repeating such obvious nonsense in public, but as defensive spin goes, this was pretty weak.

Hatch’s defense is that he was referring to “conditions in post-Hussein Iraq.” That’s simply not true. Consider the full context from the original article on Hatch’s remarks.

“It’s about bringing effective changes and establishing principles of democracy,” Hatch said following his speech. “If we can be successful (in Iraq), that will put pressure on all of the Arab states. It will be a rise in freedom and a demand for liberty that has never existed in some of those states.

“And, more importantly, we’ve stopped a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. Nobody denies that he was supporting al-Qaida.” In a clear attack on Democrats, Hatch added, “Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.”

Hatch was lying and he got caught. I can’t think of a compelling defense, but as it turns out, neither can Hatch.

Poor Orrin,

Isn’t he going to burn in hell. Don’t the Mormans acknowledge the ten commandments.

Okay, so he was not under oath. But really, isn’t a statement “that [Saddam] was supporting al-Qaida.” bearing false witness?

Please keep up the pounding CB 😉

  • you’ve pointed out his defense. and it’s on the first page of the republican playbook. any inflammatory lie is, once questioned, followed by a lie about what you actually said, thereby justifying the initial lie, with the expectation that people won’t go back and check the original and that they’ll remember the inflammatory lie rather than the hair-splitting attempt at retraction.

  • Nobody should expect intellectual/moral consistency from Orrin Hatch.

    Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.

  • Does it matter?
    The right-wing media will use his discredited quote to keep the yahoos in a fog. The right-wing media doesn’t care about the truth.
    Anybody remember the fairness doctrine?

  • “Hatch was lying and he got caught. I can’t think of a compelling defense, but as it turns out, neither can Hatch.”

    They don’t need a defense, as we’ve learned. I’m
    surprised he even tried to weasle out of it.

    They play strictly to their base now. They’ve learned
    that 40% is big enough to beat the 60% who won’t
    rouse themselves to kick this sick cancer infesting
    this country out, largely because the Dems haven’t
    spine enough to lead the resistance.

    Sorry for the mixed metaphor. I’m in a bad mood
    after seeing what South Dakota did. Could that
    set a red state precedent for passing whatever
    kind of unconstitutional legislation they want?

  • On behalf of the three other confessed Utah Dems I know, I apologize for my state’s senior senatorial idiot. Hark, Utah tried this same legislation back in the 90’s and ended up costing the Rethugs the attorney general’s office for two terms (I heart Jan Graham!) and the taxpayers a few million when it was ultimately ruled unconstitutional. Spreading the meme that Rethugs are wasting taxpayer dollars on legislation they know has already failed to pass constitutional muster in the reddest of states might not be a bad idea.

  • What hark said. Dems should be all over this, but NOOOOOOO…

    Why the hell can’t Dems simply stand up and say “Hatch is a proven liar. The proof is posted at (democrats.com or whatever)”. Don’t debate it. Just repeat the web address.

    The American people are SICK of politicians who can’t pronounce simple words like “the L word”. That’s how we got Dumbya. They hate mealymouth goobers like Kerry. They want straight talk whenever possible.

    So repeat after me, Democrats. Orrin Hatch is a LIAR.

    Of course Orrin objects. To this, say “Spin all you want. Is anyone surprised when a liar tries to cover up his lies with more lies?”

    See how simple that is? Saying anything else only reinforces Hatch’s claim that this is some kind of misunderstanding.

  • Hey, turns out the UAE definitely had significant contacts with and supported Osama bin Laden (see 9/11 committee report). But I am sure Orrin is OK with with this deal. Bomb the snot out of and destroy a country that had little to no contacts with terrorists but hand over your ports to a country that actually did.

    Would make a great Guinness commercial blooper. Brilliant!!!

  • Comments are closed.