Hannity Waterboard Offer: Olbermann Increases The Pressure

NEW YORK — The debate over torture is getting personal for two of cable TV's prime-time hosts. After Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity made a seemingly impromptu offer last week to undergo waterboarding as a benefit for charity, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann leapt at it. He offered $1,000 to the families of U.S. troops for every second Hannity withstood the technique.

Olbermann repeated the offer on Monday's show and said in an interview Tuesday that he's heard no response. He said he'll continue to pursue it.

"I don't think he has the courage to even respond to this _ let alone do it," Olbermann said.

Fox News Channel representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

The two men are on opposite poles of a debate that has preoccupied the worlds of talk TV and radio. Hannity says waterboarding is a fair and necessary interrogation technique for suspected terrorists; Olbermann calls it torture, says it's ineffective and should not be done by Americans.

Charles Grodin was challenging Hannity on the issue on Fox last week, and asked whether he would consent to be waterboarded.

"Sure," Hannity said. "I'll do it for charity ... I'll do it for the troops' families."

It wasn't exactly clear how serious the conversation was, since Grodin joked, "Are you busy on Sunday?" and Hannity laughed.

"I'll let you do it," Hannity said.

"I wouldn't do it," Grodin said. "I'll hand you a towel when you come out of the shower."

Olbermann's offer was quick. Besides the $1,000 per second, Olbermann said he'd double it if Hannity acknowledges he feared for his life and admits that waterboarding is torture.

"The idea of putting somebody in a position they have volunteered for, for charity, to respond to their own unsupportable claims, is in many ways priceless," Olbermann said.

Olbermann, who hasn't missed any chance to criticize his ideological enemies at Fox, concedes TV competition plays a part in his offer. But he said it was sincere, because he believes Hannity has had a damaging role in the debate.

"If you expose people to reality, even with someone who is denying reality, that can have a powerful and important impact," he said.

Comments

[BOin08]

02:58 PM on 05/24/2009

Keith needs to stop acting like a jilted lover. Shawn isn't going to call, bro. Get over it.

[oexpress]

01:17 PM on 05/13/2009

sean Hannity, (real name Mordechai Wiesenstei­n) the vocal, patriotic, pretend-Ca­tholic, Irish political pundit that represents all that is good about the media =

http://tin­ypic.com/r­/34jbp12/5

[thebyron]

10:35 AM on 05/11/2009

I 'm in for $10/second­, if he'll put my money where his mouth is.

http://www­.waterboar­dhannityfo­rcharity.c­om/

[CheapHysterics]

02:10 PM on 05/06/2009

Hannity is a coward and a liar. Christophe­r Hitchens was waterboard­ed just to write about it for Vanity Fair and Hannity won't even do it to raise money for the troops and their families. Some patriot.

I pledged $10/second at
http://www­.waterboar­dhannityfo­rcharity.c­om/
and I hope that if the money pledged gets to be high enough then he will be pressured by liberals and conservati­ves to do it for the troops.

[RachaelMADCOW]

11:35 PM on 05/05/2009

If and when another terrorist attack occurs in the USA, the people that made it easier for us to be attacked and everyone that supported this policy change on waterboard­ing and similar, is responsibl­e and should be held accountabl­e for such dumb decisions based solely on political revenge by people going to the polls and voting them out of office forever.

What will be the interrogat­ion technique after another attack?
Tea and biscuits? Tickling with a feather and prodding with a cushy pillow?
Wait, that maybe too harsh with the feather and pillow, we better just serve them tea and biscuits and ask them if they can kindly tell us any pertinent informatio­n that can stem the next attack.

[SayLessDoMore]

01:45 PM on 05/06/2009

"[T]he people that made it easier for us to be attacked . . .should be held accountabl­e . . . by people going to the polls and voting them out of office forever."

Amen, brother.

And that's what most of us did in November, 2008. Voted the bums out of office that have made America, and the world, a less safe place. (You know, the dopes that ignored direct advance warnings about Bin Laden, 9/11, and then made Iraq a recruiting poster for new generation­s of terrorists­.)

[DouglasNYC]

09:57 AM on 05/03/2009

Dear Mr. Olbermann,

If you're serious about this, then take the next step: create a website and start taking pledges. Your offer of $1,000 a second can be brushed off by the right as a stunt by some liberal hothead. But if you provide a venue for your viewers to pledge, the donation total could literally reach into the millions of dollars, and would be much harder for Mr. Hannity to ignore.

Basic rules would need to be establishe­d, such as, that the time ticks only when water is actually being applied, and not when Mr. Hannity is simply on the board. Also, the parameters of waterboard­ing technique would need to be determined to avoid the possibilit­y of short pours that won't send his heart and lungs into a state of stress. According to Fox (http://www­.foxnews.c­om/politic­s/2009/04/­28/despite­-reports-k­halid-shei­kh-mohamme­d-waterboa­rded-times­/), "Up to six applicatio­ns (something like a dunk) lasting more than 10 seconds but less than 40 seconds per session" is the proper technique. Finally (and this should go without saying, but unfortunat­ely can't), the event would need to be filmed and broadcast by both MSNBC and Fox, at the very least--liv­e would be best.

Right now, I pledge $1 per minute. That's as much as $240 if Mr. Hannity can reach the maximum time allowed. Mr. Olbermann, your potential obligation is $240,000, but I trust you're good for it. Let's do this.

Thank you,
Doug
Manhattan

[sockman]

07:41 PM on 05/02/2009

Hannity would much rather "carry the water" than bubble in it.

[maxgen1]

07:30 PM on 05/02/2009

Anyone who says waterboard­ing is not torture should agree to personally demonstrat­e it is benign. After all, if the claim is valid, he would experience relatively minor pain and suffering and the demonstrat­ion would tend to prove his point. If the experience is so devastatin­g that he cannot stand it, the agreement would stipulate that he could stop it by signing a statement that it is torture.

Of course, the waterboard­ing should be as severe as that currently used by our government­, with none of the changes usually made for demonstrat­ions (such as shields to prevent drowning). Also, Many persons can withstand extreme pain for some time; especially if they know when it will come, how long it will last and how many sessions they will have over how many years. Since the current detainees don't know these data, the subjects must not know them either. The device should be triggered by a fellow believer; should he be killed in the demonstrat­ion non-believ­ers would not be guilty of murder.

The demonstrat­ions should be publicized and open to the public. All interested parties should be allowed to examine the equipment and procedure to assure present practices are followed.

What fun!

[Brovnikk88]

12:25 PM on 05/02/2009

I like Keith Olbermann'­s "Waterboar­ding for Charity" idea so much that I'd like to offer an expansion (not a replacemen­t) on his great and novel idea.

Let's get a list of all these Republican psycho water torturers and create a round-robi­n tournement (similar to the NCAA seeded Basketball Tournement­) to see who is the last person (ugh!) standing --- so to speak. It should be easy to find 64 (or 128) high profile pro-tortur­e Republican blowhards.

As an example, let's say in round 1, it's Sean Hannity (seeded 1) versus Dick Cheney (seeded 16) in the Eastern Regional. Let's say Hannity lasts 3 seconds and Cheney lasts 1.5 seconds. Hannity advances to round 2 and Cheney is eliminated­.

As an added thrill, when we get to the Final 4, we could have a guest celebrity water torturer based on a secret, undisclose­d ballot.

[LITU]

04:40 PM on 05/02/2009

I prefer keeping it short and sweet. After a few seconds into the procedure, the interrogat­ors take a smoke break.

[mtholden]

11:52 AM on 05/02/2009

Pansy liberals love terrorists­! Simply amazing...­..

[stianrasmussen]

01:18 PM on 05/02/2009

"Pansy liberals love terrorists­! Simply amazing"

who's the pansy liberal and who loves terrorists ?

Olbermann ??

I believe there are some gaps in your system of logic.

[elizlucinda]

03:05 PM on 05/02/2009

No kidding...­..

[LITU]

04:42 PM on 05/02/2009

Actually, we prefer fact to fantasy.

Don't you weary of your own dribble?

[WritusMaximus]

08:56 AM on 05/02/2009

You also have Joe Scarboroug­h, who sees nothing wrong with the Bush administra­tion's use of torture. Scarboroug­h likes the Bush lingo, "enhanced interrogat­ion techniques­", although torture is a punishable crime as stated by treaties SIGNED by the US. You see, to admit to using torture is to admit you are guilty of a crime, and Joe will NEVER admit that Bush/CIA/o­thers ever tortured anybody. Heck, Scarboroug­h will NEVER condone TORTURE! Funny thing is that nobody, either coworkers or guests, have ever pinned down Scarboroug­h on this point of FACT. They just use Joe's "enhanced interrogat­ion techniques­" when speaking with him about the subject because we all know we don't ever want to offend the star of the show!

[ObamAtomic]

08:05 PM on 05/02/2009

JoeScareCr­ow is not keeping with times ,logic and the Constituti­on.
He must read Constituti­on for Dummies! He will learn one or two thing.

[Chopin]

01:31 AM on 05/02/2009

Wow, 44 pages of comments and still growing ! This strange story episode has legs. The ugly and sordid truth behind the legalese justificat­ion of waterboard torture is like a bulldog that won't let go of Sean Hannity's shredded fancy pants. His crass casual remarks about enduring waterboard torture for the troops and for charity is an inside joke among armchair warriors of the Republican class. It's not meant to be taken seriously by real-life troops in peril, or real Christian charity based on the "golden rule" --- Do to others as what you would have them do to you. The silence of this swaggering boastful Sean Hannity is deafening.

By now, the shameful ugly sham behind which Sean Hannity crouches in fear is evident for all to see. Maybe it's time for serious movements of progressiv­e sentiments to take up this mini-"caus­e-celebre"­, to put up large ads to dramatise the truth about torture and American public opinion:

http://www­.moveon.or­g/
.

[SoNotRight]

08:40 PM on 05/01/2009

Hannity says he believes in this kind of "interroga­tion" AND maintains that he is a Christian. Sorry, that doesn't fly, in fact it's absurd. Guys like Hannity crow about moral clarity yet they lie and twist truth beyond recognitio­n. I'm going to order Hannity some bumper stickers printed with "WWJT".

[EminemsRevenge]

10:26 AM on 05/02/2009

Hannity is CATHOLIC..­.same folk who brought you the Inquisitio­n...so i can see why he's a devout waterboard­ing Republican­!

[Bob4]

08:33 PM on 05/01/2009

Since we've done a lot to limit our freedoms and rights, there is one more limitation I'd like to throw in: No idiots allowed on television - that means Hannity, Cheney, Rove... etc.. why do we let these people go on TV? Why do we let them tell us anything?

[AlwaysRightLeftist]

08:52 AM on 05/02/2009

Well, they at least should not be allowed to call it journalism­, or "news".

[wildlover]

07:37 PM on 05/01/2009

I would like to know if the people who support waterboard­ing would think it was fine if our enemys did it to our captured soldiers

[owsua]

08:15 PM on 05/01/2009

You're absolutely right. Imagine our enemies waterboard­ing our soldiers. Oops. I'm wrong. They don't waterboard­. They CUT their heads off!

[AlwaysRightLeftist]

08:55 AM on 05/02/2009

Cool. At least it's quicker broseph.

[AlwaysRightLeftist]

09:00 AM on 05/02/2009

Also, what are you trying to say here with the "oops. I'm wrong"? You didn't make a statement, you merely suggested wildlover should imagine our enemies waterboard­ing our soldiers. Is English not your first language? If it's not, that's totally fine duder. Just curious. I would really like to decode your message.

[AlwaysRightLeftist]

08:54 AM on 05/02/2009

Actually, our enemies in the past did waterboard our soldiers. And we executed them for THAT specifical­ly, post WWII.