What a prick this guy is. I listen to his show fairly often and he never ceases to disappoint me. Within minutes of listening he’ll always say something that you can ask, “Hey, did you just say something entirely ironic?” Sometimes it’s just hypocritical. Before you ask, yes, I listen to Sean Hannity. Why? Because unlike a lot of talking wind-bags on the Right I like to actually know what it is I’m talking about before being critical of it.
My father is a staunch Republican. I once asked him to tell me one thing George W. Bush has done right and his flat response was, “Everything”. In a later discussion where I mentioned Michael Moore he said, “I hate him. Can’t stand the guy.” I asked if he’d seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Nope. I asked if he saw Bowling for Columbine. Nope. In fact, he’s never seen anything Michael Moore has ever done. Forgive me but whenever I hear someone railing against say, Brokeback Mountain only to then admit that they haven’t actually seen the movie and, by God, never will, I have no choice but to ignore anything such people have to say on the subject. Any other position they hold also becomes suspect as they’re likely to have applied the same sort of scatter-shot thinking to those perspectives as well.
Anyway, so I listen to Sean Hannity. In fact, I also listen to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and other conservative pundits. I also listen to Al Fraken, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes and watch Keith Olbermann. This gives you a pretty rounded perspective on politics instead of just listening to one side—generally the side you already fully agree with anyway.
Okay, so now before I totally get off the point, let me bring this back to sleeze-bag Sean Hannity. This guy is so full of himself that it’s disgusting. What sort of ego does it take to refer to “Hannitization” and running “Hannitization Tours”? You can hear him practically gushing every time someone calls in to say, “You’re a great American, Sean.” No, Sean, you’re a waste of human tissue and most of the country knows it. You play every game possible with your listeners regardless of facts, regardless of morality, regardless of ethics. You’ve convinced a number of your challenged listeners that you have a clue. For that you should be ejected from this country for lying to so many people while doing so to put forth your own distorted, hateful agenda.
This is a man who starts off most of his recent shows by stating, “I’m here working hard so that on the day after the elections we don’t have to hear the words, ‘Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.‘” He says that every day as if it’s as offensive as me walking up to his wife and calling her the C-word. I don’t know anything about his wife so I can’t say if she is or isn’t but I certainly can’t imagine having to listen to this guy all the time. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that Mrs. Hannity doesn’t mind that her husband isn’t home more often. “Another speaking engagement in Peoria Sean? No problem. Take all the time you need dear. You’re a great American.”
Imagine this guy….. His worst nightmare is apparently having to refer to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. It’s like one of those skits on Whose Line Is It Anyway? where the crowd comes up with a bogus, ridiculous emergency and the cast has to act as if it’s a big deal. At least on that show you know it’s all for laughs. With Sean it’s deadly serious stuff. What on Earth has Nancy Pelosi done that’s so vile as to have driven this guy to this viewpoint? Meanwhile he has absolutely no issues with asking Tom Delay to come visit his show all the time. Hannity had no problem referring to Tom Delay as Speaker of the House. Delay resigned his duty as Speaker and then resigned his seat in disgrace. We still haven’t heard the end of it, yet Sean had no issues what-so-ever with this cretin. Give me a break.
One of his other angles is that we can’t possibly put the Democrats back in control of the House. If that happens the Gates of Hell will open up and the House will be dominated by hearings on the actions of George W. Bush. Imagine that. How can we survive such atrocities? Congress has so many more important things to be doing for this nation, things like debate amendments about flag burning, getting a ban on gay marriage and other similarly impotent, er, important topics.
Then there’s his current fake, and most heinous storyline. He keeps telling his listeners that there’s no doubt about it — weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. He wants apologies from everyone and then keeps bringing on struggling Senator Rick Santorum in a transparent campaign commercial to try to give the story some credibility. He claims he can’t understand why the Right isn’t getting behind this story. He understands why the so-called liberal media isn’t behind it but why not the Administration and those on the Right? Uh Sean, it’s because this story is nothing more than your own wet dream. Has it not dawned on you (and I’m sure it has which is why this guy is so dangerous and needs to be evicted) that when George W. Bush, the Defense Department and even Fox News aren’t behind the story it’s because there is no story? These weapons pre-date the last Gulf War. Also, the mustard and sarin gas that were in them has degraded. You’d probably be in more danger of needing a tetanus shot from a rust-filled cut than anything else. But there’s no stopping this guy. He’s sure if he says it enough it’ll resonate with a large enough group and then, truth be damned, it’ll be a story after all.
The sooner this guy’s time comes the better.
27 Comments
What a prick this guy is…
sleeze-bag…
No, Sean, you’re a waste of human tissue…
Maybe your real issue is with your father.
I like Al Franken and Keith Olberman when they’re following their talents…can’t agree with their politics though. I like Alec Baldwin as an actor…have to scratch my head though when he’s speaking from his own script. Calling them derogatory names though only invalidates any points I have about them.
Thanks Gary. Anything is, of course, possible. I don’t agree with my father’s politics but I think that just made me aware of that sort of “blinders” approach in others.
I have no issues with Alec Baldwin. He’s an actor. I have the ability to decide for myself if he also seems to be an informed person. Are you a politician? If not, what are you doing posting about politics? Doesn’t Alec Baldwin have the same rights you do to speak out on the subject and share his viewpoint?
I personally think Anne Coulter is troubled but I still support her right to saw whatever it is she wants to say. I just don’t have to agree with her. Sometimes she says things and I think she’s brilliant. Other times she says things and I think she’s out of her tree.
It’s when people clearly outright lie about things that I start getting upset. Rush and Bill O’Reilly do it on an almost daily basis. Sean is much more honest and the best of the bunch but he still goes off the honesty wagon from time to time. Al Franken is a much better comedic writer than he is a talk show host. It’s not his calling. However, I also never sense that he’s full of crap when he’s talking.
I guess some would say that I’m a Democrat and thus, that’s why I don’t sense this in left-based radio hosts. However, as I’ve noted, my voting record defies that label.
No I’m not a politician…Are you??
Of course Alec has the same rights to speak out as anyone. I defend that right. I simply disagree with him, and dislike those that use their celebrity to promote their views (on either side). I do take issue with “name-calling” to make a point. I often hear that Rush or Bill lie. Maybe. I haven’t heard their examples or “in context” proof. I don’t think a voting record proves anything one way or the other. I’ll vote against my party based on a candidate’s qualities or beliefs. I also dismiss the often used “if you haven’t seen Michael Moore’s stuff you can’t comment on it”. That’s a narrow and indefensible point of view. I agree with your father. I’ve heard enough of Mr. Moore on TV and radio and read enough transcripts of things he’s written to know I wouldn’t go across the street to see a free showing of anything he’s produced.
Gary, I think you missed my point on the politician comment. You’re not. I’m not and Alec Baldwin isn’t but we all can spout off about politics. The Right makes the guy out like he should be burned at the stake with Michael Moore.
Many people use the tools they have and neither side of the aisle is free of that issue. Michael Moore used his exposure to expose Charlton Heston who was using his success to help the NRA. I just listen to all their points and if they seem to have merit I look into the matter for myself.
On supporting the “blinders” view, wouldn’t you rather speak from a position of experience? If you added up everyone who posts the negatives posted about Michael Moore and then counted how many of them have actually seen anything he’s done, you’d be unlikely to be able to drum up a checkers match.
I listen to shows from people I don’t agree with because when people ask me why I don’t agree with them, I can tell them exactly why instead of giving them someone else’s viewpoint who gave you someone else’s viewpoint and so on.
On lying, the list is huge with Bill and Rush. Rush is lying right now about his drug situation. To act like it’s okay to have drugs in your doctor’s name is BS. It’s not legal and he knows it.
Bill O’Reilly continually claimed Democrats took money directly from Jack Abramoff when a few of them took money from organizations he was involved with. That’s like saying that I’m guilty of murder because I bought something at Wal-Mart and so did Ted Bundy.
He also on one show specifically hoped Al Qaeda would attack San Francisco and then later denied he ever said despite the obvious audio from the show.
Bill continually insists he doesn’t attack guests. Anyone with eyes can see that’s a lie.
It’s amazing what happens when you listen to this stuff for yourself.
It’s also amazing if you got 5 people to “listen to the stuff for themselves” and then questioned them afterwards how many different versions you would get (I’m guessing close to 5).
I agree there’s a lot of “blindered” followers on both sides. I believe everything so-and-so says! Loyalty aside it’s easier than researching it yourself.
My biggest problem with the left is they would rather attack (and find flaws) with the messenger than with the message. My side has less liars than yours so that means I’m right (no pun) and you’re wrong. Does the right ever do this? Of course, usually when they take leave of their values in the never ending game of one-upsmanship.
I find your arguments much more compelling when you drop the personal attacks. I’ll agree to disagree with some of your points.
Well, you do have a point there Gary. You certainly would get a wide variety of viewpoints.
To be frank I think the Hannity blog piece was just me really getting frustrated with the whole BS of it all. I really think the guy, at heart, means well. Back to the point of the post, please explain to me how Nancy Pelosi (note I’m not on her bandwagon) is so horrifying and yet Tom Delay is a bastion of pride?
I will tell you that, to be frank, unloading on Hannity wasn’t my best moment. I stand by the points of what I said but I could have said them better.
One question: (and I think this has a lot to do with how we end up on the sides that we do) You say that the left attacks the messenger instead of the message. Can you give me more detail on that? I really do want to understand it. I also really think that when we agree with a perspective that those who share it cause us to not see other things that the other side can see.
In my view most of the shows on the Right are endlessly filled with little more than personal attacks and what’s left over is saved for instilling fear in people.
I am anything BUT a Hillary Clinton fan. If the Dems put her up for President, they’ve lost. Simple as that. But the shows on the Right make her out like she’s the anti-christ. I’ve never heard ANY of these shows speak of a Democratic Senator and say much of anything positive. Surely there must be one or two who are decent people. I can name several Republican Senators that I’d vote for and have heard good things about on say, Al Franken’s show. What am I not seeing?
I can’t give you direct quotes of messenger attacks as I’m too lazy to make any kind of notes on them. Politicians for the most part aren’t dumb enough to make direct personal attacks of a sitting president, although I do seem to remember John Kerry making some less than flattering comments on our president.
As an experiment do a google search for “bush is a liar” and see how many web pages you can pull up. I’ve seen numerous diatribes on the failures of the present administration with similar sentiment, or “Bush is an idiot”. “Cheney is the one running the whitehouse”.
I believe Mr Baldwin made his point by calling Shawn Hannity “a no-talent hack” .
I’m willing to entertain opinions on policies, platforms, values, philosophies, etc. but the minute someone resorts to “If you believe that you’re an idiot”, I’m out. Convince me don’t denegrate me.
As far as Democratic senators I’d vote for Joe Lieberman any day, and there’s also a southern conservative democrat whose name escapes me that I respect.
You mentioned Tom Delay – Did you know that Texas (where I live) is a heavily Republican state? Did you also know that until recently there were more Democratic state representatives than Republican? How can that be? The Democrats defined the voting district boundaries in my state to their advantage when they controlled the state government (years ago). Tom Delay spearheaded the move to get that corrected. If you want to be attacked the quickest way is to take away power from a democrat.
Frankly I find it very hard to avoid making unflattering remarks of the current President. I liked Reagan and his George Bush Senior wasn’t terrible in my book but GWB has never impressed me even a little. He has always struck me as the rich man’s kid who’s gotten by simply by virtue of the family he comes from. He doesn’t strike me as smart. He doesn’t strike me as street wise. He doesn’t strike me as anything but someone who thinks life is a big board game that he’s playing around with.
Support for this guy confuses me to no end. He belongs to no party. He’s not a conservative in any sense I’ve ever seen and he sure as heck isn’t liberal.
On the Delay issue, the other side of the coin is that Tom Delay changed the districts to prevent Democrats from winning. Frankly, not being from Texas, I can’t be sure about any of that. However, if Texas is so overwhelmingly red how’d Ann Richards get in there just 11 years ago? A woman Democrat? That wasn’t district based.
Heck, you’ve had 47 Governors and only 6 of them have been Republican.
You continue to make my point for me. I have a much different opinion of GWB since I’ve followed him closely since he was a part owner of the Texas Rangers and I can tell you he is very smart. He hasn’t relied on his family for any of his success. Name recognition aside he’s a very hard worker. I’ve found that many people share your perception of him as a person. I could care less.
But, again, my point is I’m more interested in his beliefs/morals, etc. I don’t care about his perception. I don’t like Bill Clinton as a person, but it’s his “politics” and those of similar ilk that I have a real problem with. It may make me feel better to point out all his flaws, but it does nothing to strengthen my position.
Do I agree with GWB on everything. Far from it. The list of things we don’t agree on is not short, but it’s much shorter than the opposition.
As far as Texas politics. Yes as I stated we were once majority Democrat as I believe you will find many areas of the country were. But, as the Democratic party has shifted radically to the left, many have left. The Republican party has almost always been right-leaning, while the Democratic party was more balanced. Thus when you have a conservative whose a little liberal on social issues you get candidates like Ann Richards elected.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think GWB is dumb. I do think he lacks common sense. I also should say that I don’t think he’s at all WISE. He’s been his own worst enemy in my view. He hires people for positions with little regard or ability to see how they will be received. The Harriet Meirs situation was typical. It’s one bad appointment after another. I wouldn’t trust this man to hire a caterer for a kids party.
As far as not relying on his family, I can’t agree there even a little so we’ll just move on.
As far as the aura he puts out, that’s what confuses the non-fan. To us this guy is not genuine. The smirks look condescending. He comes off as swarmy and entirely untrustworthy. Yet fans can’t even fathom how anyone would feel this way.
I remember watching the Bush/Gore debates and thinking, “Did these people who watched these debates and think Bush won have the same channel on I did?” I was literally dumbfounded.
Well, I would view that seeing and addressing the flaws in someone can be about explaining the perspective of that person. I’m also not a Clinton fan personally (I didn’t vote for him) but I cannot view Clinton’s morals up against Bush’s and see what you see. I see two complex people who each have their skeletons and each emerged on the other side. The Right can say what they want about Clinton but when morality-deprived people like Newt Gingrich rip into his persona I want to throw up.
Bob Dole leaves his wife for a model and has something to say about a man and woman who stayed together through thick and thin and raised a wonderful daughter? Yeah, okay.
Rush Limbaugh has to look up morality in the dictionary every time he uses the word and he’s going to talk about the Clinton’s having no morality? Give me a break.
The Right loves to talk about the sanctity of marriage and how we have to do so much to preserve it and yet fail to see the irony that so many of the those preaching this view are divorced and didn’t believe in that sanctity for themselves. Meanwhile they think nothing of ripping into the Clinton’s who had to deal with infidelity and dealt with it personally and STAYED TOGETHER (you can argue why they did but they did which is more than these others could manage).
Thanks for the explanation of Ann Richards. That one has always confused me.
Rich, you remind me of one of my Jack Russell’s when I throw them a toy. They’ll bring it back, but they won’t let go of it. So, it’s yours, squeak away.
I’ll leave you with a couple thoughts.
If you look for flaws in someone you dislike (even half-heartedly)you’ll find them. If you look for good in someone you dislike (with sincerity, and not begrudgingly) you might be surprised. Most of us are fortunate to not have our flaws on public display.
Focus on the message more and less on the messenger. It’s where our future lies. Good fortune!
Gary, you da man! I love the Jack Russell analogy!
I have to give Rich some credit, though – at least he listen’s to Sean before launching into his character assassination. Ever catch O’Reilly on Letterman? Dave said that he believed most of what Bill says is crap. Bill asked for some examples, to which David replied, “Well, I’ve never watched your show.” DUH! Bill asked how he could say what he said then and Dave said that he reads things that are written about him. Bill said, “Come on, do you know what people write about you?” Great interview! But then, that’s the liberal way – get your talking points all lined up with no regard for the facts. And, when all else fails, you can always attack the persons’ character! Incredible.
On the subject of “Dubya,” people don’t like him simply because, they don’t like him! The only thing liberals can agree on about the president is that they hate his guts. If any of them actually took the time to understand the man, MAYBE they would see another side of him – the one that the media refuses to reveal. But then again, in this anti-Christian world we are developing into, it’s understandable that people wouldn’t like a Christian President. I wonder how many people know the story of his coming to faith in Christ, during a walk down the beach with none other than the Rev. Billy Graham.
Finally, on the subject of people using their popularity and celebrity status to promote a political agenda: First, we need to remember that it was Alec Baldwin who walked out of the studio when Sean called in and began to question him. Couldn’t handle the pressure Alec? Second, while I completely agree that we must support a person’s right to free speech, we must NEVER hold that above personal responsibility. What I mean is, we aren’t isolated anymore. Anything said is nearly instantaneously broadcast around the globe via the global media, the web, etc. We need to be aware of this because our internal debates are being seen by our enemies and this most definitely works against us. What was it that members of Al Qaeda said? “We know we can’t beat them on the battlefield. But we will beat them in Washington.” I don’t have the exact quote but the meaning was they would do just enough to stir up dissent and controversy and then we would basically implode. That’s something we must NOT allow to happen. And this moronic rhetoric being spewed by some is just plain sickening! You disagree with the war? Fine. You don’t like the President? Fine. But do not publicly denounce our military as rapists and murderers in front of our enemies! There’s no excuse for this – NONE!
Okay, this got a little out of control! 🙂 Deep breath.
Sorry, 2 more cents…
“If you look for flaws in someone you dislike (even half-heartedly)you’ll find them. If you look for good in someone you dislike (with sincerity, and not begrudgingly) you might be surprised.”
So true. As much as I can’t stand Alan Colmes’ politics, I find him at least, fair. He’s a more reasonable liberal while some are just plain off the wall. Alan is at least willing to hear you out and sometimes, even seems to have his facts straight – sometimes! 🙂
“Most of us are fortunate to not have our flaws on public display.”
Interesting as this was a point of the sermon this past weekend, how there are things that others can easily see that we often cannot. Sometimes our flaws seem invisible to us while we are in fact, broadcasting them to the world. I’m sure my faults are many, though I don’t always take the time to address them. Unfortunately, it’s all too often far too easy to criticise another’s and when we do, we are unwittingly being quite prideful, as we are propping ourselves up by pushing another down. Just tonight, I caught myself calling Colmes a moron – had to change that to, “naive.” He was saying how as the lone superpower, don’t we have a responsibility to bring peace to the world and not war? Fair point, for someone who doesn’t understand the nature of the enemy we face, hence the naivety of that comment.
Happy flying on FSP! 🙂
Gary, I too own a Jack Russell and, like me, he doesn’t just give you control of the item simply because you think he should. You have to win it back with a good approach. My Jack would make an excellent debator.
John, I saw the Letterman show you speak of and I like Dave but that encounter clearly made Dave look really bad, and for all the same reasons outlined. However, you call what he did typically liberal. I see it equally done on both sides.
I’ve also read all about GWB and his being saved. Let me make this simple. The Clintons were far more involved in Church than the Bush’s and yet they got no slack for that. I don’t see why we should overlook GW’s issues because he claims to be born again. Born again people, who mean it, don’t act the way he does. It’s nice that he found God. Not it’d be even nicer if he acted like it.
On Alan Colmes, Alan was chosen purely for marketing purposes. He’s no choice any liberal would have ever made. They take a good looking, type-A personality in Sean Hannity and stick him next to a mousy pseudo-liberal. Hmm. Half the time I see Colmes he’s letting Hannity jump all over him on points but rarely interrupts back.
He’s the bottom line to me on the REALITY of these shows. Democrats have to BEG to get on ANY of these conservative shows and even have trouble getting onto so-called liberal shows. Meanwhile, shows like “Real Time with Bill Maher” can’t get conversatives to show up at all.
That tells me clearly who’s afraid of unchoreographed discussion and who isn’t.
As far as the bottom line with GWB, I look around and find virtually nothing improved since he took office. The world has a lower opinion of us now. The economy is all over the place. No one can agree that it’s good. Every middle class family I speak to is screaming about being squeezed at every angle. Gas prices are insane, and this from the oil President (hmmmm) and just look at the stock market. It looks like a roller coaster in a horror movie from the moment he got into office.
No wonder the Sean Hannity’s of the world have to resort to misdirection.
“However, you call what he did typically liberal. I see it equally done on both sides.”
I would say that yes, both ‘sides’ are guilty of this. It’s just more common on the left – or maybe, the left
has a bigger platform. It’s just been my experience that more often than not, you see a liberal spitting
out information, talking points, etc. but rarely have anything to back it up. Some do and do it well – this
is good and the only time you have true debate. But when you have someone jump out there and just
make a lot of noise – that does nothing, not matter what side you’re on. I oppose that from both sides of
the aisle. Oftentimes, I keep my mouth shut on issues that I feel very strongly about but, don’t have
enough facts to be confident in my position to take a firm stand. What I see a lot of though, is people
who are in the same position as I yet go out there with what little they do have and look like idiots
because they didn’t take the time to do their homework first. That’s all. Get all your ducks in a row, so
to speak – THEN make your point and I’ll give you a fair hearing everytime. Sit back and regurgitate
KoolAid all day and – click! Change the channel! 🙂
“Let me make this simple. The Clintons were far more involved in Church than the Bush’s and yet they
got no slack for that. I don’t see why we should overlook GW’s issues because he claims to be born
again. Born again people, who mean it, don’t act the way he does.”
Case in point: I don’t know enough about the Clinton’s church life so I will refrain from making any call
on that. And no, I don’t think we should overlook a person’s faults – we all have faults. Hey, fellow
Christian or not, if I hear the President say one more time, “Jobs American’s don’t want to do,” I think
I’m going to puke! 🙂
The last statement is actually false – I’m a Christian and I screw up all the time! Someone once said
that the difference between someone who’s been saved and one who isn’t is that the saved person
KNOWS what a wretch he/she really is. A quick look at a few current issues and Bush’s stance on
them reflect his Christian beliefs. Look at embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, abortion
just to name a few. He is right in-line with Christian teaching there, whereas Bill Clinton is opposed –
not sure about the first one. Again, I can’t see inside Clinton’s soul so I don’t know where he stands
personally. Maybe he’s at a different stage as we all are and doesn’t yet realize how wrong these
things are, with respect to the Christian faith. Or, he might just be one of the many playing church with
no idea what it’s all about. I grew up Catholic and for decades had no idea what the heck I was doing
there – “It’s just what you do.” After my, now wife, led me to the Lord, the veil came off and not only did
I understand it wasn’t about being “involved in the church” or doing this or that but about a relationship
with God through Christ but, the Catholic faith I was a part of for so long in fact itself isn’t faithful to the
God it preaches! But that’s another debate for another time. 🙂
“Meanwhile, shows like “Real Time with Bill Maher” can’t get conversatives to show up at all.”
Is that show live or taped? I know some conservatives will absolutely not do a show unless it’s live (Dr.
James Dobson for one), because they don’t want the show to have the ability to edit their comments,
which has been done.
“As far as the bottom line with GWB, I look around and find virtually nothing improved since he took
office.”
Specific points – this I can deal with. Good job! Let’s play! 🙂
“The world has a lower opinion of us now.”
Point of view. First, when you take a stand on something, there are going to be those who will disagree
– that’s only natural. But, who are those who have a lower opinion of us and why? The French?
Remember, they have a growing Muslim population in their country and may fear retribution
domestically if they stand with us. Look at the Madrid bombing. How about other countries in the
Middle-East? They already hated us – no surprise there. The UK is still a strong ally as is Australia,
Japan, etc. Russia, to be honest I never trusted them to begin with (I’m speaking of governments – not
the people). Germany – who knows what’s going on there. The point is if you say the world has a lower
opinion of us because of the opinions of France and Germany, that’s pretty weak. I would suspect that
you would also suggest that the majority of Iraqis want us out of there too, right? Wrong! Talk to
people who have been on the ground talking to the population, candidly. Even before operations began
there, the people were saying that they WANTED the war! They said that we have no idea what it’s like
to live the way they have to live, in fear of their lives day to day and with no power to do anything about
it. The rest of the world is not as prosperous and sheltered like we are. That’s something we all to
often forget. That country is now free to grow on it’s own, directed by it’s own people, not a raving,
murderous madman. And part of the reason is because we now have a President that decided, enough
is enough! After 9/11 he said, “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” Also, “We shall
make no distinction between the people that commit these cowardly acts, and those who harbor them.”
He didn’t say Al Qaeda, or Bin Laden – he said TERRORISTS. Saddam was a terrorist. Saddam
promoted terrorism. No, he was not connected with 9/11 and he was not going out for drinks with
Osama on the weekend either. But he was a terrorist and at the time, deemed to be the one who had
the potential to pose the greatest threat. Hindsight is always 20/20 and now people are saying that Iran
or N. Korea should have been bigger targets. That’s a debate we can have. The point is Iraq is in the
center of the Middle-East region and the theory was that be establishing a democratic nation there, not
only would it rid the world of a major terrorist regime and bring millions out from under it’s oppression
but, as we do not tolerate terrorism, they might learn how to not tolerate it themselves and be a force for
change in the region. Another debate we can have.
“The economy is all over the place.”
The economy is fine. Historically, we have a recession at the start of each decade – I wish I could recall
where I got that from but I do know that it’s fact. however, since then, job growth has continued, and we
are a full year ahead of the planned deficit reduction goal – just out last week.
“Gas prices are insane, and this from the oil President”
Meaningless comparison. The President doesn’t set the market price for oil. The only possible way to
link these two would be to say that the President responded to 9/11 by attacking countries in the
Middle-East with the goal of driving up oil prices. Hello? Not logical by any stretch. Besides, look at
the true opponents of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Who was it that said we must not drill in
ANWR? Who was it that said we can’t build wind farms off Cape Cod because it would block Splash’s
view of the ocean? Yes, hydrogen may be the future but, you don’t just drop one of those babies into
everyone’s house overnight – long term solution. In the short term, we need to ween ourselves off foreign
oil by drilling more ourselves. One relationship I still don’t understand is ours with the Saudis. They are
clearly not our friends but, then again, things are not alwasy what the seem, especially in that part of
the world.
Gotta run – work calls! 🙂
John, first your post came through formatted oddly so it was a challenge to read.
Here’s what I caught that I wanted to respond to. I don’t think you’ll find anyone to the left of Right that will agree that it’s the Left that just repeats the same talking points. I see this from the Right far more often than I do from the left. The White House uses a term and it’s all over the Right-leaning shows immediately and continually.
Second, Dems have to practically beg to get on Fox News. Not so on other news channels. Both can get on. Real Time with Bill Maher is life when it first airs. He begs Republicans to show up but only a few brave ones do. I respect those guys most of all. Without the the show has not choice but to lean Left. It appears as if the Right is not satisfied unless it can control the content and direction of anything they’re involved in. Sounds very much like the current administration (vetted audiences are a complete JOKE and should be outlawed in this country).
On lower world-wide opinion, my job exposes me to people all over the world. I hear from people from many varied countries and it’s crystal clear to me that things were far more positive than they are now. In fact, Bush has a huge hand up there. 9/11 gave us a major boost that, in my view, he destroyed.
Also, your comment about Bush saying, “You’re either with us or you’re terrorists.” First, he didn’t say that. Second, who the hell are we to decide who fits in this world and who doesn’t? We’re not God. We don’t speak for God. I don’t recall him visiting and annointing us as the chosen people. Who are we to say there are only two types of people in this world? Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We are NOT in the country-freeing business. Anyone, in my view, that believes we went into Iraq to free their people from a dictator, is fooling themselves. That’s one of the 2 dozen changing reasons we got and so far we still haven’t heard the real one.
On oil prices I’m simply saying that an oil man should know more than previous occupants of that seat how this business works and should have been able to find some sort of solution to the situation. Instead things are nearly as bad as they were with Jimmy Carter. I never thought I’d live to see those days coming back.
And don’t get me started on the Saudi’s. Frankly I would have rather we invaded them over Iraq.
Also, your comment about Bush saying, “You’re either with us or you’re terrorists.” First, he didn’t say that.
Dude, you can’t even use copy/paste? This was my exact quote:
“You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.”
And the exact quote from that speech:
“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
You might do yourself a favor and read the whole thing: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
It would likely make sense out of the rest of your statment – or not.
“Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11”
Please excuse me for this – NO SHIT! Try to stay awake and pay attention this time, okay? Saddam is a terrorist. He harbored terrorists. He supported and sponsored terrorism. He violated UN resolutions. He fired on our aircraft in the no fly zones after the first gulf war. He absolutely fits the category of regimes that Bush mentioned in his speech above. Why have we not invaded Lybia? After all, Qaddafi was at one point the biggest wingnut out there. I’ll tell ya, because he saw what we started to do to terrorists after 9/11 and wet his pants, thinking he was next. Or maybe, we should just sit back and do nothing.
“And don’t get me started on the Saudi’s. Frankly I would have rather we invaded them over Iraq.”
Now you’re talking! I think there’s some major appeasement going on there. Personally, I don’t like our relationship with them and, though I have nothing to back this up, I fear it has a lot to do with oil. We need it – they have it. I could be wrong, but that’s how it feels.
“Anyone, in my view, that believes we went into Iraq to free their people from a dictator, is fooling themselves. That’s one of the 2 dozen changing reasons we got and so far we still haven’t heard the real one.”
I suppose you’re going to tell me the real reason then? Little sarcasm there – just a tad. 😉
Okay, I’ll probably regret this. Heck, I regret it already but, I have to ask it anyway. And forgive me but, this is going to sound like it came right from Hannity and I know how much you love the guy. This is response to your comment: “who the hell are we to decide who fits in this world and who doesn’t? … Who are we to say there are only two types of people in this world?”
Yes or no – Do you support the people who attacked us on 9/11? Do you support what they did, attacking and murdering thousands of civilians? Do you think that was a good thing?
And before you launch into a long tirade about the type of life they had and who started what and they hit us because we hit them because… let me explain. There is absolute right and wrong in the world. True, some things are conditional but others are flat out right or wrong – absolutely. Hijacking 4 airplanes and crashing three of them into buildings with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible, is wrong. If I have to explain why, I can’t help you. Now what do you do with such people? You can’t throw them in jail or execute them after the fact – they’re already dead! The best you can do is to stop them BEFORE they can caryy out their murderous plans. We now know that there are people like this in the world. The trouble is in finding them before they find us and they WILL find us, given the opportunity. Please, don’t be naive about this. 9/11 wasn’t the first time but, President Bush’s policies are designed to see that it’s the last. Yes, it’s an ugly reality – kill or be killed. But, I’m afraid that IS what it’s come down to. There ARE people in this world whose entire purpose in life is to kill Jews, Christians, Americans, Westerners, whatever. Are they looking for anything? No. I can’t think of a better analogy then from Independence Day. As the President spoke with that alien thing, he asked, “What do you want us to do.” It responded, “Die!” I wish it wasn’t so but, you can’t negotiate with people like this. All you can do is stop them before they attack. Either that or build a wall around and over the US and lock us in and everyone else out. Again, read that speech – it covers pretty much all the points about our “post-9/11 world.” We didn’t ask for this but by God we are going to do everything to see that it never happens again.
Your correct on the quote but even corrected, the point still remains. There are simply not just two choices there. Either you like vanilla or you like chocolate. That’s it. No, sorry, I don’t like either. How about that?
Perhaps a country doesn’t support the terrorists but also doesn’t support our policies and actions. Pretty simple for that, or variations of it, to be possible.
You’re making excuses for Saddam to try and fit the argument. There you sound just like Sean Hannity. There were other “terrorists” we should have gone after if the reasons Bush gave us were valid or true. That we went after Saddam betrayed everything he said.
Months before we went into Iraq Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney all were on record as saying that Saddam wasn’t a threat, that he was marginalized, that he’d been reduced to effectively being the mayor of Baghdad, that he couldn’t do much of anything. Hmmm.
On the “Hannitization” attempt, this is another variation of the vanilla/chocolate debate. Let me describe a road and then tell you that there’s no way to simply diverge from the road. You either go one way or the other and this road exists only in vacuum.
No, I don’t support what the terrorists did. At the moment we’re a matter of a few hundred people short of doing something even worse to ourselves. One we didn’t know about. The other we chose.
I’m not concerned with the terrorists lot in life or their state of affairs. Education is, ultimately the answer, but that will take generations and we don’t have generations to put up with this.
You speak to me about being naive and then use a phrase like, “Bush’s policies are designed to see that it’s the last [time we get attacked by terrorists].”
They’ve already attacked Spain and London and these are allies. Unless you’re going to suggest the terrorists are entirely stupid, they know we have to respond. However, to assume that this will be the last time we get attacked is ridiculous. Remember “the war to end all wars”? Boy, how’d that work out? Not only wasn’t it, but we couldn’t even avoid another World war.
What gets me is how the Right sounds like yesterday’s Democrats. Korea worked out just peachy with an Iraq approach didn’t it? And Vietnam was such a badge of honor for our history. We just don’t learn. We have such an amazing history of being “good” at being the World’s police. Hell, we had enough trouble dealing with our own issues. Now we’re trying to tell everyone else how to live and govern.
Doing everything you can to reduce the potential is a no-brainer. Every so often we’re going to fall into a false sense of security and we need to be roused from it. 9/11 was that wake-up call. However, much like someone roused from a deep sleep to realize they’re late for work, we’re now bumping into walls and heading out the door with socks that don’t match, messy hair and we’ve forgotten the keys and our coffee.
Sorry, but too many people on both sides of the aisle recount, with vivid detail, the absolute insistence of this President and this administration to create the entire Iraq position out of thin air. Paul O’Neill is a lifelong Republican. Have you read his book? He had no reason to lie for the Left. Richard Clarke has been attacked by Rove and company but still cannot be dismissed by anyone who simply doesn’t want to hear the truth. This administration wanted into Iraq in the worst way and it had nothing to do with Saddam being a terrorist.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that our involvement in Iraq and it’s aftermath are going to haunt the history of this country for generations. This President is no Reagan and he will not be remembered as anything but a negative for much of the time you and I appeared on this planet. He almost single-handedly has assured that future generations will look back at us as Neanderthals.
Sorry, but I don’t want my son to grow up under the same umbrella as most Israeli’s do. Their policies are the same as this President’s. Boy, that’s worked out wonderfully for them hasn’t it? I wonder if anyone there can seriously consider a future of peace and tranquility?
“There are simply not just two choices there. Either you like vanilla or you like chocolate. That’s it. No, sorry, I don’t like either. How about that?”
Sorry but, that doesn’t cut it in this case and you know it. If you read the intent of that quote, what is really saying is, “You either support terrorism or you don’t.” It’s not a yes/no/maybe question – it forces you to decide: Do I support terrorism or do I condemn it. No middle ground. You can’t weasle your way out of this type of stance; you must take a stand one way or the other.
If it’s taken as, “You either follow our lead or you become a terrorist then yes, you would be justified in your analysis. However, this is the intent: The US is anti-terrorism. If you are against terrorism, whether you agree with our methods or not, you’re “with us” in that you condemn such actions as 9/11. You don’t have to be a love-slave to the US to be “on our side” on this issue. There are a number of people in the world and if I may, Ward Churchill is one, who absolutely hates this administration and the way it’s handled, pretty much everything. However, does that mean he’s siding with the terrorists? If you’re honest about it, he is not.
“Months before we went into Iraq Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney all were on record as saying that Saddam wasn’t a threat, that he was marginalized, that he’d been reduced to effectively being the mayor of Baghdad, that he couldn’t do much of anything. Hmmm.”
I’d be interested in seeing your source material. On the other hand, we’ve all heard the direct audio of people like John Kerry stating that Saddam was a threat.
I have no real basis for this other than what I’ve read and how it appears but, yes, Saddam was one of a handful of nastys out there that we could have “made an example” of, so to speak. It’s possible he was chosen because of many factors. Maybe Iraq was the most appealing target, in terms of military planning. We were already in the area so, our intel would almost assuredly be up to date. Our people knew the area, again as a result of the first gulf war. Saddam, while being again a terrorist among terrorists, is not the sharpest tack on the wall. Some of the others would have presented a more formidable challenge and we may have had a very long struggle, such as what I believe would have happened had we gone into, Iran for instance. Again, I’m really just fishing here. We can question the reasons for Iraq as the target forever.
Also, remember that Iraq is a deterrent, as you call it. But, it’s also taking the war to the enemy, as Bush said we were going to do. It’s an ugly situation no matter how you look at it. The situation in Lebanon and Israel demonstrates that. What are you to do with a group like Hezbollah who’s goal in life is the eradication of an entire race? It forces you to make a decision that no one wants – kill or be killed.
“Education is, ultimately the answer, but that will take generations and we don’t have generations to put up with this.”
Actually, salvation is the only answer but that’s another discussion. 🙂
‘You speak to me about being naive and then use a phrase like, “Bush’s policies are designed to see that it’s the last [time we get attacked by terrorists].”‘
Of course I wouldn’t be naive to think that we will never EVER see another attack ON OUR SOIL (please be clear – WE have NOT been attacked since 9/11 and have in fact thwarted several attempts) but, we have to do something to strive for that ideal. Again, we can debate the “what” all day but at some point, debate has to give way to action, which the President did – another opportunity for debate, albeit with hindsight. We’re not perfect. Please, try to understand the content of what’s being said and do not put words into my mouth: “However, to assume that this will be the last time we get attacked is ridiculous.” I never made any such assumption. To work your tail off to get a promotion doesn’t insure you’re going to receive that promotion but, if you do nothing, you ARE guaranteed not to receive it.
“future generations will look back at us as Neanderthals.”
Presupposition: Neanderthals are a myth. Yes they existed but, they were just people. Don’t get me started on the THEORY of evolution!
“I wonder if anyone there can seriously consider a future of peace and tranquility?”
On that, we agree but, not for the same reason. One of the great things about Christianity is that, it is based on history. It is trustworthy because we can prove it’s authenticity through fulfilled prophecy. God is outside of our concept of time, which allows Him to see the end from the beginning. That being understood and also proven by well over 600 prophecies all have been fulfilled to the letter, with the only one remaining still in the future, we can trust that what he has given us about that future WILL come to pass. One of those is the war in the middle-east, centered around Israel, His chosen people. This goes back to Abraham, his first son through Hagar, Ishmael, who would become the “father” of the Arabs and Issaac, who would be the father of Jacob, later renamed Israel. Hence, we refer to the Jews as the Children of Israel. It’s not about a slice of land but the people, just as a church is not a building that fills up on Sunday but rather refers to the body of Christ – the believers who gather there. Sometime we have service outside in the yard to remind ourselves that WE are the church, not that wooden building behind us.
Anyway, God promised Abraham that he would have a son and that son he would bless with offspring, etc. He would also be the one who would inherit the promised land, which ended up being the nation of Israel as the world understands it. Abraham disbelieved that his wife could bear a child in her old age (actually, it was Sarai that doubted) and therefore, took her maidservant and had Ishmael through her. When Sarah gave birth to Issaac, he sent Hagar and Ishmael away, as Issaac was to be the true heir. Anyway, as both Jews and Muslims share pretty much the same faith up to Abraham, they split on the two sons – the Arabs believe they are the chosen people and the Jews believe they are. So the conflict began and will continue until the last days when an attempt will be made to annhilate the Jews completely. (Sound familiar?) At that time, God Himself will step in and then, everything changes. Of course, if you (meaning anyone, not you specifically) don’t believe any of this then, well, if it’s true your unbelief will not change a thing.
Sorry, I got way off on this but, we need perspective. I don’t want war anymore than anyone else but I honestly believe the time of peace, as we understood it to be, is over. It used to be there was a struggle in the world, it got resolved and life went on. Not so anymore. Now, pure survival is not as important as standing up for what is right. There is coming a time when we will not be able to hide under our beds and hope everything works out. The issue is being forced upon us and we need to deal with it and I’m really going off now so I’d better put a cap on this.
Back to work! 🙂 Keep that Dash 8 flying!
What the? Laura Ingraham is doing The Factor tonight?
We’ll have to agree to disagree on Bush’s comments. He gave people two option. Either you’re with us or you’re against us. He could have said either you’re for terrorism or against terrorism. He didn’t say that, nor did he correct it when asked about it later. Being with us meant acting in a manner that we decide is correct.
Sorry, don’t buy it, nor does it prevent anyone, but Bush, from making a stand. I stand against terrorists but I reserve the right to also diagree with the way the US handles the situation. Those two are not mutually exclusive positions.
Here’s some video for you on the Powell and Rice positions. You can easily find all this via Google.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv
What would I do with a group whose goal is the erradication of an entire people? Hmmm, maybe I’ll wait until they give those people casinos as a measure of compensation and then laugh about the irony.
“Salvation is the answer”…. Well, now there’s something the radical muslims would agree with you on.
I am always amazed at how easily many Christians are moved by fear to support positions requiring the most violent of solutions. The two just do not connect and history has been absolutely clear on the matter. The more you try and jam your religious views down the throats of the other guy, the more he’s apt push back.
“He could have said either you’re for terrorism or against terrorism. He didn’t say that, nor did he correct it when asked about it later.”
Sad to say, and I think we can all agree on this point, President Bush is not the world best orator! No offense intended but, he stumbles over words like Ford did on stairs. However, I still believe that his intent was the way I explained previously. I can agree to disagree.
“I stand against terrorists but I reserve the right to also diagree with the way the US handles the situation.”
I hear ya and I respect your right to have that opinion. I also believe that the way the President intended that statement, that would count you as one who is “with us.” Meaning, you are against terrorism. Hey, Pakistan of all places is considered an ally in this war yet, they are not rolling tanks into Iraq with us. The Saudi’s are considered an ally in this, though I think we can both agree we have no idea what that really means. Isn’t it true that 19 our of the 19 9/11 hijackers originally hail from Saudi Arabia? Again, that doesn’t neccessarily mean that S.A. is a terrorist producing nation. Hmm, Bin Laden was a Saudi too…
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out when I’ve got some time.
“What would I do with a group whose goal is the erradication of an entire people? Hmmm, maybe I’ll wait until they give those people casinos as a measure of compensation and then laugh about the irony.”
Ummm… okay…
“”Salvation is the answer”…. Well, now there’s something the radical muslims would agree with you on.”
Completely predictable response. Reminds me of the guy on the FsPassengers forum who said, “None of this would be happening if not for religion. Religion is a bad thing.” I don’t have enough space to do this justice. (No doubt, that will be looked as a cop-out)
“I am always amazed at how easily many Christians are moved by fear to support positions requiring the most violent of solutions. The two just do not connect and history has been absolutely clear on the matter. The more you try and jam your religious views down the throats of the other guy, the more he’s apt push back.”
More predicatable rhetoric which doesn’t fly. First, people need to understand that Christianity is not a pacifist faith. The same Jesus who said that when someone strikes you on the one cheek, offer him the other as well (there’s a way overused verse by those who attack Christianity without understanding it), is the same Jesus who spoke through the prophets in Ecclesiastes and said, “There is a season for everything… A time for war and a time for peace…” There are times when it is absolutely required. People forget (or don’t understand) the basic principles of the Bible. God inspired the whole thing. By inspired, it means that those who wrote what they wrote did so as they were led by God. (“Men spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”) Secondly, Jesus, being the second person of the trinity, is God. (“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God.” “And the Word became flesh and made His dweliing among men.”) So when Jesus spoke in what we know as the red letters, He is also responsible for everything else that is written as well.
About salvation, Muslims and Christians have two radically different views on that. Christianty is a faith that give salvation by grace, through faith in Christ and even that faith is a gift. Muslims, like all other religions of the world, believe in a salvation by works; example, jihad. That by killing infidels, they will go straight to heaven.
Another important distinction to be made is whether people who claim a particular faith actually hold to the teachings of that faith. Take the crusades (as this invariably comes up). No where does Christianity ever teach anything about, “shoving religion down the throats” of people – NEVER. We are all called merely to spread the Gospel (Good News) which is that the Christ has come and He has the power to offer salvation from sin. In fact, He is the ONLY salvation from sin and THE way to escape the hell that awaits those who do not accept His grace. But, I’m getting off track.
The call of the Christian is to speak the truth in love. If someone hears the truth and embraces it, Praise God! If they reject it, move on. There is nothing in scripture that says if you preach the Gospel and someone rejetcs it, you are to put them to death. Therefore, anyone who would practice such acts is NOT of the Christian faith. Profession of faith and Possession of faith aren’t one in the same.
Now, a deeper look at the Qu’ran will show a different story. There are passages that teach Muslims to, “kill them wherever you find them,” referring to infidels, translated, “unbelievers” meaning unbelievers in allah and his prophet, Mohammed. Just as there are professing Christians who act contrary to the Bible, there are Muslims who are not following these teachings. We should be thankful that the majority are not! Look up Ergun Caner, a former Muslim turned to Christianity. I’ve heard him a number of times discussing the true nature of Islam, from the perspective of one who was once a Muslim.
Each faith is based on belief in that faith. Each has it’s holy book: the Bible and the Qu’ran. Therefore, the real test for any person is in the credibility of each. If someone told you “A” and you later learned that it was “B,” you’d likely be a little hesitant to take the next thing that person says at face value. However, if a person said, “I have 500 things to tell you” and then told you 480 of them and you checked out each one and they were all spot on, what are the chances that the last 20 would be false? Credibility has been established. I know this could be a flawed argument because a person could lead you down this road with the ultimate goal of earning trust in order to deceive greatly in the end but, this is God’s Word and God by His very nature cannot lie.
The Qu’ran simply does not have the credibility that the Bible has – period. In fact, I saw heard a program a while back on Islam which explained how Mohammed was reported to have given the Qu’ran. (I haven’t checked this out yet so, don’t take just my word for it) He was said to have had episodes where he would fall down and foam at the mouth and other would then write down the words as he uttered various groans. The person doing the program said, “The Bible also talks about people who foam at the mouth only, it speaks of them as demon-possessed.” Hmm.
Anyway, this is going to turn into a sermon and I really need sleep! Good debate. Again it’s true – people CAN agree to disagree. Above all, it’s nice to know we have the freedom to do so.
I keep forgetting! That line: “that just made me aware of that sort of “blinders” approach in others.”
We conservatives call that, KoolAid! 🙂 That’s an odd story, the origin of that term. Anyway, everyone should be able to think for themselves. My wife and I do not yet have any children but when/if we do, I’ve already told her that if there is anything I want to be certain I explain to the the importance of (other than faith in Jesus) it’s to have the ability to think for yourself. Don’t let someone else do it for you. You have a brain for a reason and it’s not to be used as a blank disk that you copy/paste others rhetoric on. 🙂 Even though another person may have a radically different view on an issue than I have, if they have at least taken the time to study it for themselves and not just make a list of common talking points (which is usually quite obvious when you question them point by point), I may disagree whole-heartedly but at least I can respect you at the same time.
However, if you just “drink the KoolAid,” sit back and enjoy your drink. 🙂
How’d I miss this one?
“He also on one show specifically hoped Al Qaeda would attack San Francisco and then later denied he ever said despite the obvious audio from the show.”
Wrong again! It’s amazing how many people take others out of context – and on both sides, I’ll grant that. I just pulled up the audio of that and he never said he hoped Al Qaeda would attack San Francisco. He was commenting on the fact that they wanted to ban military recruiting. If they don’t want the military to recruit in Frisco, then why should the military defend Frisco, should an attack occur there. He was making a point that if they don’t want to support the military, why should the military support and defend them? Maybe he got a little carried away with the rest about the Coit Tower but he was certainly not advocating it’s destruction. People are so quick to jump on every little thing that comes down the pike without considering the context in which it was intended – another reason for us to be more careful when we speak publicly. Like I said before, with this global media we now have, when people talk, the whole world hears. Imagine how are soldiers around the world feel when they hear the likes of Cindy Sheehan call them rapists, murderers and torturers. Hey come on now, I appreciate your son’s service and I am truly sorrow for the lose you have endured, something no parent should ever have to face but, enough is enough. You are denegrating his service AND his sacrifice when you make such comments.
Okay, now I can sleep. 🙂
Bush isn’t the world’s best orator? That’s the understatement of the decade! hehehe
The guy can’t get out of his own way when it comes to dialogue. It’s one key element in a long list of why I don’t think he should be in the office he’s in or trusted by so many to do the right thing. He can’t even choose the words to use and yet so many trust him to choose the right people to lead and to handle the most complex problems of humanity. Go figure.
You’ve chosen to quote from a book. If it would make a difference to you I can quote from some recent books I read. Gary Larson said some funny things in his Far Side compendium.
I would never begin to think that Christianity has a history of pacifism. It’s one of mankind’s greatest ironies. Another large one is that, to the other side, you appear to be very much cut from the same cloth as they appear to be cut to you.
On the O’Reilly quote, I heard him say that one personally. There was no mistaking what he was getting at. In return for not supporting his views, it was okay with him if they got attacked, and frankly, in his view, they had it coming. Nice guy that fellow. Don’t agree with him and he’ll be more than happy when you come down with Mad Cow disease and your sister gets hit by a bus.
Sad, very sad. You really don’t have a clue, do you? I’d ask what the heck you mean by that cute little piece of rhetoric about me being cut from the same cloth but, why bother. You don’t get it and there’s nothing I could ever do to make you see that.
Like I said, sad. But, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
But, before I sign off from this, lonely little blog, here’s a side of the President you’ve likely never seen; will not appreciate and will probably never understand and that IS the really sad part about it all:
(pasted over from an email so, please excuse the format. If it bothers your eyes, good.)
“> For those of us who sometimes find ourselves having doubts about
>our President, here is an excellent piece — worth every minute it
>takes to read it. This story is from Bruce Vincent of Libby, Montana
>who had gone to the White House with others to receive an award from
>the President. He writes:
>
> I’ve written the following narrative to chronicle the day of the
>award ceremony in DC. I’m still working on a press release but the
>White House press corps has yet to provide a photo to go with it. When
>the photo comes I’ll ship it out. When you get done reading this
>you’ll understand the dilemma I face in telling this story beyond my
>circle of close friends.
>
> Stepping into the Oval Office, each of us was introduced to the
>President and Mrs. Bush. We shook hands and participated in small talk.
>When the President was told that we were from Libby, Montana, I
>reminded him that Marc Racicot is our native son and the President
>offered his warm thoughts about Governor Racicot. I have to tell you,
>I was blown away by two things upon entering the office.
>
> First, the Oval Office sense of ‘place’ is unreal. The President
>later shared a story of Russian President Putin entering the room
>prepared to tackle the President in a tough negotiation and upon
>entering, the atheist muttered his first words to the President and
>they were “Oh, my God.”
>
> I concurred. I could feel the
>history in my bones. Second, the man
>that inhabits the office engaged me with a firm handshake and a look
>that can only be described as penetrating. Warm, alive, fully engaged,
>disarmingly penetrating. I was admittedly concerned about meeting the man.
>I think all of us have an inner hope that the most powerful man in our
>country is worthy of the responsibility and authority that we bestow
>upon them through our vote.
>
> I admit that part of me was afraid that I would be let down by the
>moment — that the person and the place could not meet the lofty
>expectations of my fantasy world. This says nothing about my esteem
>for President Bush but just my practical realization that reality may
>not match my ‘dream.’
>
> Once inside the office, President Bush got right down to business
>and, standing in front of his desk, handed out the awards one at a time
>while posing for photos with the winners and Mrs. Bush. With the
>mission accomplished, the President and Mrs. Bush relaxed and initiated
>a lengthy, informal conversation about a number of things with our
>entire small group.
>He and the First Lady talked about such things as the rug in the
>office. It is traditionally designed by the First Lady to make a
>statement about the President, and Mrs. Bush chose a brilliant yellow
>sunburst pattern to reflect ‘hope.’ President Bush talked about the
>absolute need to believe that with hard work and faith in God there is
>every reason to start each day in the Oval Office with hope. He and
>the First Lady were asked about the impact of the Presidency on their
>marriage and, with an arm casually wrapped around Laura, he said that
>he thought the place may be hard on weak marriages but that it had the
>ability to make strong marriages even stronger and that he was blessed
>with a strong one.
>
> After about 30 or 35 minutes, it was time to go. By then we were
>all relaxed and I felt as if I had just had an excellent visit with a friend.
>The President and First Lady made one more pass down the line of
>awardees, shaking hands and offering congratulations. When the
>President shook my hand I said, “Thank you Mr. President and God bless you and your family.”
>He was already in motion to the next person in line, but he stopped
>abruptly turned fully back to me, gave me a piercing look, renewed the
>vigor of his handshake and said, “Thank you — and God bless you and
>yours as well.”
>
> On our way out of
>the office we were to leave by the glass doors on the west side of the
>office. I was the last person in the exit line. As I shook his hand
>one final time, President Bush said, “I’ll be sure to tell Marc hello
>and give him your regards.”
>
> I then did something that surprised even me. I said to him, “Mr.
>President, I know you are a busy man and your time is precious. I also
>know you to be a man of strong faith and I have a favor to ask of you.”
>
> As he shook my hand he looked me in the eye and said, “Just name it.”
>I told him that my step-Mom was at that moment in a hospital in
>Kalispell, Montana, having a tumor removed from her skull and it would
>mean a great deal to me if he would consider adding her to his prayers
>that day. He grabbed me by the arm and took me back toward his desk as
>he said, “So that’s it. I could tell that something is weighing heavy
>on your heart today. I could see it in your eyes. This explains it.”
>
> From the top drawer of his desk he retrieved a pen and a note card
>with his seal on it and asked, “How do you spell her name?” He then
>jotted a note to her while discussing the importance of family and the
>strength of prayer. When he handed me the card, he asked about the
>surgery and the prognosis. I told him we were hoping that it is not a
>recurrence of an earlier cancer and that, if it is, they can get it all with this surgery.
>
> He said, “If it’s okay with you, we’ll take care of the prayer
>right now. Would you pray with me?” I told him yes and he turned to
>the staff that remained in the office and hand motioned the folks to
>step back or leave. He said, “Bruce and I would like some private time
>for a prayer.”
>
> As they left he turned back to me and took my hands in his. I was
>prepared to do a traditional prayer stance — standing with each other
>with heads bowed. Instead, he reached for my head with his right hand
>and pulling gently forward, he placed my head on his shoulder. With
>his left arm on my mid-back, he pulled me to him in a prayerful embrace.
>
> He started to pray softly. I started to cry. He continued his
>prayer for Loretta and for God’s perfect will to be done. I cried some
>more. My body shook a bit as I cried and he just held tighter. He
>closed by asking God’s blessing on Loretta and the family during the
>coming months. I stepped away from our embrace, wiped my eyes, swiped
>at the tears I’d left on his shoulder, and looked into the eyes of our
>president. I thanked him as best I could and told him that me and my
>family would continue praying for him and his.
>
> As I write this account down and reflect upon what it means, I
>have to tell you that all I really know is that his simple act left me
>humbled and believing. I so hoped that the man I thought him to be was
>the man that he is. I know that our nation needs a man such as this in the Oval Office.
>George W. Bush is the real deal. I’ve read Internet stories about the
>President praying with troops in hospitals and other such uplifting
>accounts. Each time I read them I hoped them to be true and not an
>Internet perpetuated myth. This one, I know to be true. I was there.
>He is real. He has a pile of incredible stuff on his plate each day —
>and yet he is tuned in so well to the here and now that he ‘sensed’
>something heavy on my heart.
>He took time out of his life to care, to share, and to seek God’s
>blessing for my family in a simple man-to-man, father-to-father,
>son-to-son, husband-to-husband, Christian-to-Christian prayerful
>embrace. He’s not what I had hoped he would be. He is, in fact, so
>very, very much more.
“
You’ve made it clear how you feel about terrorists and how your religion gives you strength and peace of mind and how salvation is the ultimate answer to life’s problems. Guess what. To many of us, that’s exactly how radical muslim’s sound when they start talking about Islam and how they know they’re right because they’re doing God’s work and how doing his work in the manner they do will bring salvation for them and for all of humanity. THAT is what I meant. When you speak the way you do, you scare the hell out of them in much the same way as they scare the hell out of you.
Frankly both your religions have been killing people in the name of God for so long that I don’t think either side can even see the situation clearly any longer. You believe what you believe, to the death. So do they. They’re just willing to get to the end part a bit faster than you are to make their point.
As far as the log being lonely, as I mentioned, I write the blog for me. It’s my own little corner to vent. I have no desire to see it viewed as anything but that. I know how to market a concept and this isn’t one I’m currently interested in making a bit deal about. I’ve frankly thought about closing it to the public many times.
Do check into the video link I sent. It’s a bit hard to deny what they said when you actually see and hear the words coming out of their mouths and then ask how Saddam went from being a total non-issue and one the administration was belittling to suddenly being this huge Hitler-like demonic terrorist who needed to be stopped at all costs. You’ve been played for a fool by Rove and Co., and I don’t know how you can sit idly by and accept it.
I’ve also seen this post many times. It’s accuracy has been questioned many times and there’s no way to verify the private moments he conveyed. Thus, I can point you to many other accounts that do NOT include pure conjecture as they included other witnesses to conversations were the President was not the beacon of morality that is presented here.
Mark Racicot is also one of the biggest wind-bags on the planet. ANYONE who finds him to be supportable is completely without credibility in my view.
The President couldn’t even manage to tell the truth just recently when asked by a reporter about his best day while President. First, he questionably chose to convey a moment that “happened” at the Crawford ranch and not anything while actually in office. Second, he spoke of catching a huge perch while fishing. He told the reporter he caught a 7+ pound perch when the largest one ever caught, in competition mind you, was just over 4 pounds.
You want to know what Bush is really like? Just watch the video of him with Tony Blair when he didn’t think the microphones were on at the G8 convention.
Yep, that’s a real winner there.