RSS

Monthly Archives: April 2009

Tea Parties Responsible for Market Recovery?

Just when I was beginning to wonder how curious it was that six weeks into a market recovery no one on the right had given any credit to President Obama, especially after continuously laying the blame at his feet for its seemingly endless downward plunge for the past 3 months; remember when Hannity, on opening his FOX  PAC program on 6 Mar 09, said, “And our headline this Friday night: Welcome to Day Number 46 of Obama’s Bear Market. Now, that’s what some news organizations are calling it tonight as the Dow Jones industrial average actually finished up about 30 points today at the end of a disastrous week.” And he concluded, “According to Bloomberg News, the Dow has now dropped faster during the first six weeks of the Obama administration than any other administration in at least 90 years. But is that a surprise after weeks of talking down the economy?”

Well today opening her FOX PAC program Bulls and Bears hostess Brenda Buttner cleared up what is responsible for the upturn when she said, Call it a tea party rally. Wall Street’s sure partying, up six weeks in a row. The bulls came out about the same time these guys started to shout, saying no to big government, big taxes, and big bailouts. Will that keep investors saying yes to stocks?” Buttner finished, “After months on its back, the market comes back the same time Americans fight back against big government. Is that a coincidence?”

Now we all know why conservatives couldn’t give any credit to the President. They’ve been waiting for anything, and I do mean anything, else to explain it. It was the Tea Parties!

The next phase of this will occur on Monday, when it will begin with Rush, and then Hannity, Ingraham, O’Rielly, Beck, when they’ll all begin to echo that the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – as the Tea Parties were described by FOX PAC commentator Geraldo Rivera Thursday – are what’s really responsible for the new found confidence in the stock market.  It will all become crystal clear. The economy couldn’t possibly be responding positively to anything a democrat liberal could have done! It can only respond negatively to democrat efforts. If it is going to move upwards, it can only do so due to something happening on the conservative side. The Tea Parties! Aha! They spontaneously began on the GOP side!

Pay attention now as I describe how the conservative talk jocks will try to validate this claim: A group of village idiot types – we’ll call them Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – are attempting to claim that “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – we’ll call them Tea Parties – are responsible for the stock market recovering.

Sir Bedevere – aka Rush – arrives on the scene, and asks them why they’re claiming this.

The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – first say that credit couldn’t possibly be given to anyone with the middle name Hussein, but then grudgingly have to admit he didn’t give himself the name.

The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – then make some more outrageous claims (Hannity says that the economy couldn’t be rebounding from anything that someone who palls around with terrorists could have done; while O’Reilly claims that there’s no doubt attending a church of a left wing extremist would definitely cancel out anything positive a democrat president could do; and then Beck shouts that he turned him into a newt – though he later ‘got better’).

Sir Bedevere – aka Rush – then talks the village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – through the ‘logic’ for checking that it – “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – you remember, the  Tea Parties – are responsible for the stock market recovering – and after some false turns and lots of dim stares, they all come to the following basic conclusions.

First, “Groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – the Tea Parties – burn (actually they combust). This one is fair enough, though the idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – suggest trying to actually burn the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – as way of testing this.

Second, Wood Burns. Hence “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – or Tea Parties – are made of wood. How do you check that “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea parties – are made of wood? Try building a bridge out of it, Hannity suggests – but Bedevere – aka Rush – points out that you can also make bridges from stone.

Third, Wood Floats. Bedevere – aka Rush – gently leads them to this point, and asks them if they know anything else that floats.

Fourth, Ducks Float. The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – actually have a lot of trouble thinking of something else that floats – Beck shouts that really small pebbles float! But it is Arthur (Buttner), who has just arrived on the scene, who says: ‘A Duck!’ (Stunned amazement and dramatic music.)

Therefore… The logic goes: that if “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – weigh the same as a duck, then they’re responsible for the stock market recovering, and they can burn the president. So they put the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – on a set of scales with a duck, and wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles, they weigh the same

At this point we cut to a commercial: Scene opens with an egg being held over a red hot frying pan, cue voice over: “This is your brain.”

Egg is broken and dropped into red hot frying pan begins to fry, cue voice over, “This is your brain on conservative talk radio; any questions?”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 19, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

One More Thought on Texas Quitting the Union

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 17, 2009 in National Security, Texas

 

Tags:

Can Texas Secede from the Union?

Even though Texans will shake their fists and declare, “Oh yes we can!” In a word? No. In fact in three words, Texas vs White.

In Texas v. White (1869) the United States Supreme Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas, and all the southern states, had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case because, in the court’s opinion, the Constitution of the United States did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.

Case closed. Texas cannot legally secede from the United States.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 17, 2009 in National Security, Texas

 

Tags:

Obama Concerned He Ordered Shooting?

C’mon Rush, stop being a bloviating jackass, just for once. I understand you’re a bigoted, white, male, conservative Christian, and thus can’t help yourself. But c’mon, making statements that the President was preoccupied in church on Sunday because, “he was worried about the order he had given to wipe out three teenagers on the high seas. Black Muslim teenagers.”

You, Mr. Limbaugh are a racist. You’re not funny, at least to anyone who doesn’t share your extreme right wing ideologies, and the stations sponsoring you really should consider dropping your raving, bigoted views.

By your statement you’re implying the President of the United States would be concerned by the fact the pirates were killed, because they share his race, and by your half witted commentaries of the past, his religion?

As a 20 year veteran of the United States Army it sickens me when I hear your commentaries, and think about what the world thinks of our country. And it further sickens me when my fellow soldiers hear your bloviations and think they’re funny, or take them as some kind of legitimate commentary. You are not an asset to either your country or to the GOP, and it’s long past time for you to either grow up, or move on.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 14, 2009 in Foreign Policy, National Security

 

Tags: ,

Obama’s Choice to Use Force No Big Deal?

Isn’t it refreshing to have an American President who doesn’t respond with a sledgehammer to the annoying little pricks of the Somali Pirates? The pirates boarded a United States Flagged vessel. The same pirates were driven from the ship by its crew, taking the ship’s captain hostage.

The United States didn’t respond by paying any ransom, like everyone else dealing with these pirates has done. The President allowed the Navy to move Seals in, and when the opportunity arose, three head shots and a wounded pirate later, American Captain Richard Phillips was free.

We didn’t invade Somalia. We didn’t sink the boat along with the hostage. We acted with common sense and with the appropriate force necessary to end the ordeal.

President Obama has acted quickly and decisively; and he has pledged to end the rise of piracy.

Unfortunately, sending in the Seals, and freeing our fellow American was treated not only lightly, but also derisively, by the head of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh.

During his radio program this morning Limbaugh stated,“President Obama rose to the occasion and saw to it that the Somali merchant marine organizers would not get away with the same tactics that the domestic American organizers get away with.”

Limbaugh further joked about the rescue on Tuesday, April 14th, classifying the Navy Seal’s operation as, “Obama’s “brilliant high seas maneuver” in wiping out “three teenagers on a life raft.”

Not to be outdone, Limbaugh’s faithful sidekick, or butt-boy, Sean Hannity also had to take his swipes at the President over his decision to take out the pirates. During his April 13th Fox News Program, Hannity, he went after reporters who credited President Obama’s decision, “(he) was legally required to sign on to this. There was no great decision here, in other words…So in — so I’m seeing the media praise him or overly praise him for something he legally was told by his team he had to do. So the slobbering love affair continues.”

So, let me get this straight, an American President sends in our military – in this case the United States Navy – to do what no other country to this point has done (taking out the pirates) and El Rushbo thinks it’s amusing? He thinks it should be joked about? And Sean Hannity thinks the President had to do this? That he had no choice? Some how trying to paint the picture that he wouldn’t have done it otherwise? These are the men many conservative Americans listen to and adore?

So, Rush, no matter how decisively President Obama acts; no matter what he does to protect American interests; no matter how effective the operation may be, it will be a joke to you. American sailors did what they were trained to do, as directed by our President, and it was funny?

And Hannity, you really believe the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, had to sign off. That he had no choice in the matter? You are either a bigger fool than anyone has ever thought, or once again, you know what you’re claiming isn’t true. So, you’re either an idiot or a liar.

Wake up ditto-heads. Put down the kool-aid and start really listening to this guy. If you do, you might realize he’s not the person you really want to be shaping your party’s views and opinions.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 13, 2009 in Foreign Policy, National Security

 

Tags: ,

Where have the flag lapel pins gone?

Who said the following about wearing a U.S. flag lapel pin?

“Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack…And to politicize once again the war to this extent. Well, who cares about the war? Are you proud of your country? Do you believe in America? Do you believe that America has been, continues to be the greatest force for good in this world?” 

“I think it’s, you know, the greatest gift God gave us and continues to be a force for good.”

If you said Sean Hannity; you win!

Notice anything missing from Hannity’s lapels?

Does this show us what you – Sean (I’m a Great American) Hannity – really thinks of our country? Doesn’t it demonstrate how you really feel about the Constitution and the sacrifice our brave soldiers? Don’t you care about the war? Aren’t you proud of your country? Don’t you believe in America? Don’t you believe that America has been, continues to be the greatest force for good in this world?”

But wait! Hannity isn’t alone in this; during his October 27 2008 broadcast, Rush Limbaugh – the leader of the GOP – criticized candidate Barrack Obama for not wearing a flag on his lapel, “Obama, ladies and gentlemen, calls himself a constitutional professor or a constitutional scholar. In truth, Barack Obama was an anti-constitutional professor. He studied the Constitution, and he flatly rejected it. He doesn’t like the Constitution, he thinks it is flawed, and now I understand why he was so reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pin. Why would he? I don’t see how he can take the oath of office” because “[h]e has rejected the Constitution.”

Notice anything missing from El Rushbo’s lapel?

Does this mean you’re “anti-constitutional” Rush? Could it mean that you have rejected the Constitution?

Bill O’Reilly also chimed in on this “controversy”, saying about Candidate Obama, “I didn’t take Obama’s lack of the lapel pin as anything other than he’s either too lazy … to put it on, or he doesn’t want to put it on.”

billoreilly-port

So Billo? Which is it? Are you just too lazy? Or do you just not care? You just don’t want to put the flag on?

Not to be left wanting, during a broadcast where he was discussing Barrack Obama’s lack of flag wearing, Neal Boortz said, “I think that maybe the reason he doesn’t wear a U.S. flag on his lapel is because the U.S. flag — regardless of what he thinks — the flag of this country irritates a lot of Democrat [sic] voters.”

NealBoortz

Neal? Where’s your flag pin?

Does this mean that the flag of this country irritates a lot of Republican voters? Or Libertarian voters?

Surely the guy who just loves America so darned much he cries just thinking about it will have…

Congressional Leaders Honor Fresco Painter Of The Capitol Constantino Brumidi

Sniff…?

Of course no discussion on patriotism or on loving the Constitution and what it stands for would be complete without a comment from that Pilar of Constitutional Liberties Karl Rove, who once questioned President Obama’s patriotism on not wearing a lapel pin, stating, “I think it speaks to the values of the candidate.”

Mortgage Bankers Hold Nat'l Conference in S.F

Wait a minute! Where’s your pin Karl? Isn’t this a question of your values?

Mr. Speaker! Mr. Speaker!

Where’s your flag pin?

But surely the former GOP presidential candidates will…

No.

Nope.

Nein.

What about the newbies in the GOP presidential circle?

Don’t see your patriotism Bobby.

Sorry, that’s not a flag Eric.

Governor Huntsman? No flag pin?

graham

Lindsey! Where’s your patriotic spirit?

sarahpalin_a

Oh no! Say it ain’t so Sarah! Where’s your big gaudy flag pin you were sporting just a few months ago?

large_sarah-palin-flag-pin

Oh, there it is, along with your blue star mother’s pin you were wearing before your son deployed. Trying to appear even more patriotic were we? Oh well, never mind you’ve still got that whole family values thing working for you.

I think what this demonstrates is, if we are going to proclaim other’s allegiance to our country based upon if they are wearing a lapel pin, or not, don’t you think those casting the first stones should be wearing one? Or that those who represent the political party which thought this was a legitimate campaign issue should always be wearing one too. After all, if they truly loved their country…

Makes you wonder about everything else they claim to care about doesn’t it? Or it should.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 13, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: , ,

Is the Defacto GOP Leader an Extremist?

limbaugh-leader-gop-21

How can you make such a claim that Rush is an extremist? Well, not only is Rush the closest thing to being an extremist, but so are most of the right-wing radio knuckleheads out there. You name them, Hannity, O’Rielly, Ingraham, Beck, they have all made fanatical claims about President Obama, and where he is “leading our country”, all while wrapping themselves in the flag, and carrying the cross for the religious right of America.

Hannity – to use his own familiar tactic – has had close ties to self-described neo-Nazi Hal Turner, who was once a regular caller to his show, having been given the “special” number to call-in without waiting. Now of course Hannity has claimed to have distanced himself from Turner when he learned who he truly was, but – to use Hannity’s own words against President Obama – “…you have to seriously wonder about these so-called ‘former’ ties.” Hannity should answer fully his relationship with Turner. How long has he known him? Where did he meet him? Why was he allowed to part of his radio program for so long? When did Hannity first learn of Turner’s neo-Nazi leanings? What was he thinking by being so closely tied to Turner?

They have supported the United States’ “pre-emptive” invasion of a sovereign nation all in the name of “national security”, gee sounds like Germany vs. Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. Why not invade Cuba; or how about Mexico? No, no, we have to advocate invading Iraq, and even Iran. If these fascists had things their way, we would already have boots on the ground in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, basically anywhere Islam is practiced.

They have supported the torture of prisoners, while joking about it, with euphemisms like, “Club Gitmo”. It’s all OK though, because these “prisoners” aren’t really people. They’re terrorists. So, we can torture them all we want. One of their favorite rants was, “What if someone had your child, and wouldn’t tell you where they were? Wouldn’t you use whatever force necessary to find out?” American soldiers don’t torture prisoners! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a small number of officers and NCOs’ authorized it or allowed it to happen. But these right-wing jocks all supported it. In their Extremist America torture is OK.

They have supported the Patriot Act, one of the single most heinous legislative acts by our government designed to usurp the rights of the nation’s citizens, again while proclaiming “national security”. Sounds a little like Nazi Germany in the 1930’s doesn’t it?

They, and a lot of “so-called” Christian conservatives, deride the President and claim he’s going to take away our guns, leading to panic in Pittsburgh where we tragically lost three of our finest; the blood of those three valiant police officers is also on your hands! You preach fear and panic, you earn the praise of your devoted listeners, and you also earn the blame and shame when one of them kills because of your words.

When have they said wild or provocative things about guns?

How about this little sound bite from El Rushbo’s just this past Tuesday, April 14, 2009: It started off when a caller begins ranting about doing things based on the Constitution, “We’re the people that want to go back to the Constitution, that, you know, really love our freedom and understand that it’s being taken away, and therefore, we pose an enormous threat to the government. We’re the people buying guns and storing ammunition and preparing for the time where we have to fight the government off.”

Rush replied, “Wait a minute, though. I understand the point you’re trying to make, but that’s not extremism…They don’t get to define the terms. We are not extremists. Those of us who want to protect the founding of this nation and preserve it as we were born and grew up, we are not extremists. They are the extremists. They’re not right about this.”

Maha Rushdi, this is extremism and you are propagating it and supporting its continued growth.

Not one of them – Rush, Hannity, O’Rielly, Ingraham or Beck – has ever worn the uniform of our nation’s military. Not one of them has ever placed all that they hold dear upon the altar of freedom. But hey Hannity holds concerts to help out, all while advocating U.S. soldiers being deployed into the chaos and quagmire of Iraq!

Concerts won’t bring back the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers or sisters you helped to send there Hannity. I know you’re supposedly a good God-fearing, Irish Catholic, but indulgences don’t apply Sean me boy, you can’t buy your way out of it. Their blood is also on your hands. You – as well as Rush, O’Rielly, Ingraham, Beck, etc., all advocated for this war, you fully supported it, and the blood of all those who died in it is on your garments.

These so-called, self-promoted, “great Americans” are neither great, nor American. They do not support the Constitution, or its Bill of Rights. They continue to support policies from an administration that was openly advocating the wire tapping of churches and mosques, and the searching of homes in America not only without warrants but conducted by the U.S. military!

They openly espouse the failure of our country’s policies, and gleefully hope that President Obama will fail. Are they Patriots? I think not. Are they Great Americans? I think not. Are they Lovers of freedom? I think not.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 13, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: ,

When Fascism Comes

limbaugh-2

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying the cross.”                                                                                                  -Sinclair Lewis

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 11, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags:

President Obama to Start the Draft?

There is an ongoing rumor floating around that President Obama was going to restart the draft. Where did this rumor start? I’ll give you one guess.

If you said Rush; you win!

It was just after last fall’s election that El Rushbo started this rumor flying. Just one more attempt by the ex-post-facto leader of the GOP to spread fear and panic amongst his listeners.

Rush said, “For those of you just tuning in, let me give you the story again.  Barack Obama says he’s gonna create three million new jobs, 80% in the private sector, which means 20% will be government jobs.  That’s 600,000 government jobs.  Where is he going to be able to do that real quick?

“Where could you do this in a matter of months?  I said you could reinstitute the draft.  And why not institute the draft if you’re Obama, who is a Democrat. Democrats believe that people who live in the South and in poor economic circumstances have no way out of those circumstances other than join the military.  Don’t you remember?  People who join the military are not patriots; they’re stupid, they’re uneducated, they’re economically depressed, they live in these little hick town shacks like Obama’s brother, and they have no chance to get out other than join the military.  And that’s why they do it, not to protect their country.  These people are besmirched and impugned by Democrats in the Drive-By Media, and I was simply saying since that’s what they already think of them, why not institute the draft and spare them the trouble of having to sign up?”

Yep, Rush claims the President is going to reinstitute the draft for the purpose of creating 600,000 jobs in the government. Once again Rush must have been talking with the part of his brain that’s tied behind his back. You know, the part loosing oxygen. That’s how ludicrous this sounds. So, if the President is going to reinstitute the draft, why pull out of Iraq? Why begin cutting military spending? You need to give that tied up part of your brain a little more air Rush.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 8, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags:

Obama press kit downgrades US-UK relationship?

During the April Fools Day edition of his Fox News show, Hannity, Sean Hannity attempted to criticize the White House press kit on the United Kingdom claiming the Obama Administration had downgraded our view of the UK, saying that the UK was “once referred to as our closest ally, to, quote, ‘one of the United States’ closest allies.’” Hannity also claimed the press kit: “read more like a children’s book.” Taking issue with the statement that the U.K., “was, quote, “slightly smaller than Oregon.'” Interestingly Hannity failed to report that the exact phrases he was criticizing were used in the State Department’s “Background Notes” issued during the Bush administration.

Hannity began his attacks saying, “And tonight in “Hannity’s America”: School is in session on board the White House press charter yesterday, as it traveled to the G-20 summit in London. Now, according to the Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, White House staffers distributed press kits to members of the media that was supposed to help inform them about their destination. But instead, it read more like a children’s book.

“Like the description of the U.K., which said it was, quote, “slightly smaller than Oregon.”

Work with me Sean, the official CIA description of the United Kingdom and Ireland, from the CIA Fact Book (the CIA Sean, and all you ditto-heads out there, is the Central Intelligence Agency) reads, “Slightly smaller than Oregon”.

To further clarify, the CIA describes its use of “Area – comparative” in its Fact Book as,“…an area comparison based on total area equivalents. Most entities are compared with the entire US or one of the 50 states based on area measurements (1990 revised) provided by the US Bureau of the Census. The smaller entities are compared with Washington, DC (178 sq km, 69 sq mi) or The Mall in Washington, DC (0.59 sq km, 0.23 sq mi, 146 acres).”

Ok Sean, now let’s compare the sizes of the two: the state of Oregon’s total area is 255,026 sq. km, and the United Kingdom and Ireland have a total area of 243,000 sq. km. Now I don’t know Mr. Wizard, but it would appear to me that the UK is, how should I put this? Oh, I don’t know, slightly smaller than, oh say, Oregon?

What phrase should the United States Government use Sean to describe the total area of the United Kingdom and Ireland?

How about this: “The United Kingdom and Ireland have a total area of 243,000 sq. km, about 2,000 times larger than Akrotiri”.

Akrotiri Sean, and all you ditto-heads, is one of two areas in southern Cyprus of which the UK retained full sovereignty and jurisdiction by terms of the 1960 Treaty of Establishment that created the independent republic of Cyprus.

Oh, and by the by Mr. Wizard, this phrase was also used by the Bush Administration in its description of the total area of the UK in its “official” background notes. When, you might ask, did the Bush Administration use this description? Well let’s see, just a few times really, July 2001, June 2002, April 2003, November 2003, April 2004, October 2004, May 2005, August 2005, May 2006, February 2007, August 2007, January 2008 and golly gee, as late as July of 2008, pretty much throughout the entire Bush Presidency. But you already knew that, didn’t you Sean? Or is your so-called “reporting” really this sloppy?

Having supposedly proved his point on the “size” of the UK, Hannity then attempted to attack the administration’s “downgrading” of the UK’s relationship with the U.S., “It seems that the Obama team has downgraded our view of the country, once referred to as our closest ally, to, quote, “one of the United States’ closest allies.”

So, saying that the UK is “one of the United States’ closest allies” is bad because it implies we have a lot of close allies?

Hey, and guess what Sean? The Bush Administration’s State Department used a slightly similar phrase in its “official” background notes on the UK; it described U.S. and UK relations: “The United Kingdom is one of the United States’ closest allies…”And what is the “official” Obama Administration’s State Department’s statement in its background notes? The United States State Department said in its March 2009 background notes on the UK:  “The United Kingdom is one of the United States’ closest allies…” Wait a second, that’s not just similar to what President Bush’s State Department said, it’s identical! Now to be fair however, the Bush Administration only used this phrase a few times; July 2001, June 2002, April 2003, November 2003, April 2004, October 2004, May 2005, August 2005, May 2006, February 2007, August 2007 and January 2008. But, as stated above, you already knew that, didn’t you Sean? And if you didn’t know it then you’re so-called “reporting” truly is sophomoric at best, and pathetic at worse.

Continuing his sniping, similar to an annoying little kid down the block, Hannity took a swipe at the short biographies listed in the press kit, “And even the bios included were a bit, well, liberal with the facts. Hillary Clinton’s didn’t mention that she ran against Mr. Obama for president, but instead says only that she, quote, “campaigned for the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

Sean, I think unless a reporter just arrived here from, oh let’s say Pluto, they already know that Secretary of State Clinton “ran against Mr. Obama for President”. Sean, exactly which bio were you reading from by the way? The one listed by the State Department says, of Secretary Clinton, “…in 2007 she began her historic campaign for President. In 2008, she campaigned for the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and in November, she was nominated by President-elect Obama to be Secretary of State.”

Now let’s see, it says of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “in 2007 she began her historic campaign for President”; and President Barrack Obama began his run for the presidency in January of 2007. Wait a minute! That would mean they ran for the presidency at the same time! Even against each other.

You’re really reaching now Sean.

In finishing his little rant Hannity tried to take one more punch at President Obama’s foreign policy saying, “Another brilliant foreign policy move by team Obama. You know, they’re truly hitting the reset button on all of our relations with countries all over the world. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not a good thing.”

As compared to the wonderfully successful eight years of the United States’ relations with countries all over the world under the “leadership” of Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld? Actually Sean, hitting that particular reset button, is not just a “good thing” it’s a great thing. Our “relations” under Team Bush were strained at best, and the “diplomacy” of running around the world brow beating not only our enemies, but also our friends, was not diplomacy at all; and the Bush Doctrine of invading other sovereign countries because we could was a foreign policy nightmare.

By the way, did Team Bush ever get Bin Laden? No, but we managed to kill almost 90,000 innocent people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9-11 attacks, spent nearly 660 billion dollars invading a sovereign country that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, lost 4,263 American service personnel and left another 31,000 wounded invading the same country that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks.

You, Sean Hannity, are a shameless, gutless, lying fraud. You are one of a number of propaganda mouth pieces for a political party that is grasping at whatever straws it can grab in a pathetic attempt to regain any amount of political power possible. You – in spite of what your misinformed listeners think – are not a great American. Great Americans don’t promulgate lies, and misrepresent facts.  

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 3, 2009 in Foreign Policy

 

Tags: ,