Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Revisionism Hannity-Style
Look, folks, I'm not saying here that Sean Hannity isn't a dude who's capable of charm/affability. But, PLEASE/come on here, some of the stuff that this fellow has been saying of late is just absurd. Take, for instance, that recent Fox special on George W. Bush and Tony Blair, their unique and special relationship, yada yada ( yes, with Mr. Hannity narrating it). My God, by the time that frigging Hannity was done with the damn thing, you'd have probably though that you had just got done watching something on Roosevelt and Churchill, for Christ!........................................................................................................I's like, dude (this is me talking to Hannity now), all that these two frigging clowns basically did was to attack a country that LITERALLY had nothing to do with 9/11. But, even worse than that, they (sorry for the cliche here) took their eyes off of the big prize; letting Saddam Hussein and his despicable minions escape, strengthening the hand of Iran by extending a strong Shia crescent etc.. And, yes, the saddest thing of all is a realization that this whole "victory in Iraq" thing (replete, of course, with its 4,400 dead American soldiers) is ultimately going to unravel, America finding itself back at square one. Frigging square one!!! Yeah, put 'em both on Rushmore, dude.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In his book and on an Oprah interview, President Bush laments bad intelligence and repeats the "The whole world thought Saddam had WMD" excuse. This is spite of dissenters within his staff who were silenced/ignored. The French and Italians warned us the whole Nigerian yelowcake thing was a fraud while the Germans and Russians warned us that "curveball" was a pathalogical liar. So much for "The whole world knew" mantra. Of course this escaped the sensibilities of Mr.Hannity. Moreover, the British have been far more acute in their criticisms of Mr.Blair as opposed to our tepid "let it be" attitude here in the US. I believe that President Bush is a kind and decent man who perhaps believed too much in his Neocon advisors. I think he genuinely believed we were in imminent danger. As for Mr. Insannity, er I mean Hannity, my personal favorite was when he had former PA Senator Hockstra on his program, loudly proclaiming that WMD were found in Iraq...he was waving a document from the congressional intelligence commitee signed by among others, Nancy Pelosi. He failed to mention that the WMD, was in fact degraded ordinance from the Iran-Iraq conflict, circa 1980's. Later that evening, Alan Colmes tried to point out this fact, saying the degraded "weapons" were as dangerous as anything under your kitchen sink. The "brilliant" response from Hannity was something to the effect, "well then, lets put it under your sink." Hannity charming? Hardly. He is far worse than Olbermann... and Olbermann is over the top partisian.
There are a lot of theories as to why Mr. Bush did what he did; avenging his father, surpassing his father (there are apparently issues between the 2), cornering the oil market, putting forth some grand geopolitical strategy, etc., etc.. I agree with you that he probably did have some good intentions but was inevitably pulled astray by those with a far more ambitious agenda (a naivete more so than a sinister intent) - not to mention, group think..............You're right. Not EVERYBODY thought that Saddam possessed WMD (Scott Ritter's name comes to mind, too). But a fair amount of people did. President Clinton apparently did. I remember Defense Secretary Cohen going on "Meet the Press" with a 5 pound bag of sugar saying that this much anthrax could annihilate NYC. The thing is, if in fact Saddam did have WMD, I wouldn't have minded one iota going in there and taking it out. I wouldn't have even minded cuffing 'em around a little. My big problem here was with the occupation. In my mind, you use the Powell Doctrine all the way; narrow, well defined objectives, overwhelming force, and then get the hell out. Manage the problem instead of making it worse.
As for Hannity vs. Olbermann, that's obviously up to each individual viewer to decide which of them is worse. I gotta tell you, though, dude, if I had to have a beer/watch a game with one of them (HAD TO, I'm saying), I might have to go with the innocuous, doltish, and sometimes amusing Hannity over the sanctimonious, self-righteous, and NEVER amusing Mr. Olbermann. I just think that it would be easier to get the former off of his mount.
What Marcus said, when I was hardcore Conservative I remember listening to Hannity and thinking "is this the best we can do?"
Oh, he is definitely a dolt, double b - no doubt about it. I just think that you could possibly talk to the guy and have politics not come up - maybe, I'm saying.
Hey,someone is paying attention to him.....he's knocking down about 30 mil per year.
Kind and decent are NOT the words I'd ever use to describe a mass murderer. bush is a war criminal that should have been tried and executed already.
Will, I think you meant to write that bush allowed OBL to escape, not Saddam.
As for Rusty's comment, it's typical of a Right-winger to measure the worth of a person by looking at how much money they make. Those people paying attention to Hannity? They're even dumber than he is. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid people in this country.
Welcome back, gentlemen.......You're right, Rusty. 30 billion is a very nice chunk of change (Kim Kardashian, yet another member of MENSA, by contrast only made 6 billion). Only in America, huh?.......You're right, wd, it WAS OBL who the Bush administration allowed to escape. As for this other discussion here - is Mr. Bush evil or simply doltish? - I think that we've basically bounced that one around already. Me - I kinda think that he wasn't motivated so much by evil intent as by naivete/ignorance. If there's a God in heaven, maybe he can ultimately sort it all out for us.
Post a Comment