Video: Colmes Sticks Up For Reuters' Decision Not To Explain Hajj's Archives

So-called FOX News liberal Alan Colmes feverishly defended Reuters’ decision not to explain some 920 photographs Adnan Hajj took while working for the wire service. In fact, he not only takes up for Reuters, but serves as an apologist for Hajj. The following exchange took place between Colmes and Media Research Center‘s Tim Graham on tonight’s edition of Hannity & Colmes:

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: I only have a moment here. First of all, Reuters removed all the archives of this guy [Hajj], this guy was wrong if he did what Reuters claimed he did. He said he was working in a dark area, he couldn’t see the light, he claims he was trying to remove ash from it. I don’t know if it’s true or not; but Reuters said “it doesn’t meet our standards,” the guy was let go and they removed his archives. Didn’t Reuters give the proper response here?

TIM GRAHAM, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER: Yeah, you’re sounding like your friend Ellis Henican, who said a couple of hours ago —

COLMES: Thank you, I appreciate that.

Graham, who was interrupted in his explanation, responded to Colmes using the co-host’s lousy liberal logic:

GRAHAM: Look, if I hit you with my car and totaled your car and I said “well, you can’t question my driving ability now because I’m excellent at apologizing,” the average person doesn’t buy that. The fact of the matter is, that when you go on the internet, people were looking at this over the weekend and the first question they had was “this is so absurdly not, obviously not real”.

Colmes had nowhere to go but to say he agreed with Graham’s analysis.

The importance of this segment is not Colmes’ view, but the overall liberal viewpoint. Always apologizing for those who have obviously done wrong and not taking up for the right side. Imagine if a pro-Israeli photographer (okay, just imagine if there were such a thing) ran an obviously doctored photograph of Tel Aviv in ruins, do you think Colmes, a Jew and non-supporter of Israel, would take up for him/her? I think not.