Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Rush mocks the Obama Administration, Claims it Invented “Ludicrous Term”

During his Friday, 25 Mar 11, broadcast Rush Limbaugh, the self proclaimed spokes bovine of the GOTP decided he needed to “weigh” in – no small feat for Rush – on the United Nations no fly zone in Libya by mocking the Obama administration for using the term “kinetic” to describe the military action, saying the President’s people had “come up with the ludicrous term”.

“We’re not at war. We are engaged in ‘kinetic activity’,” Limbaugh brayed. “Here we have a headline, this is from the DC Examiner, ‘In the last few days the Obama regime — officials frequently faced the question, is the fighting in Libya a war? And for military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer’s been ‘no.’ Well, OK then, what is it?”

Gee Rush, I don’t know? Why don’t we rely on your extensive military service to explain it to us? Oh wait, you never served in the military did you? No, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III a.k.a. “Rusty” never served.

But when has a lack of knowledge and facts, either institutional or educational ever stopped Rush? And so, he attempted his own “expert” military analysis, “At any rate, this guy, the deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer said, ‘Well, I think what we’re doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals,” Limbaugh said. “‘Which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone; obviously, that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.’

“Folks, this is pathetic. Literally, genuinely pathetic. ‘Kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.’ Kinetic simply means motion. That’s all it means. Depending on movement for its effect, of, relating to, or resulting from motion. So, now we’ve got ‘kinetic military action.’”

There are two things wrong with Rusty’s statement. First, in terms of a military action being “kinetic” – or being set in motion – it would be “depending on motion for its “affect” not “effect”. Maybe you should’ve stayed in school Rusty. Had you done so you would’ve known that you almost always use affect with an “a” as a verb (motion as used here is considered a verb) and effect with an “e” as a noun; once again, so much for being right 99.9% of the time. Second, exactly how is this pathetic, the use of the term “kinetic” when referring to military action? In order for the no fly zone to take “affect” we, the United States and our allies, had to put the Navies and their planes into motion, allowing the no fly zone to be put into effect, thus affecting the air and ground forces of Qaddafi.

Rusty then quoted a statement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday in Moscow as he spoke with reporters about the Libya operation, “I think as we are successful in suppressing the air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline. I assume in the next few days.”

Limbaugh went on to conclude, “KMA, kinetic military activity, has replaced WTF. Winning the future — I’m sure you thought it was something else. Kick my — has replaced — what the — kinetic military — OK, so I guess we’re to assume it’s not a protest anymore, it’s a kinetic assembling action. It’s not a riot, it’s kinetic thuggery action. It’s not a vacation, it’s kinetic leisure action. It’s not golf, it’s kinetic ball-striking action. It’s not dancing, it’s kinetic food action. It’s not sex, it’s kinetic Lewinsky. It’s not — I’m not drunk, I’ve been engaging in kinetic adult beverage action. It’s not an election, it’s kinetic voting. It’s not radio, its kinetic Limbaugh action. Whatever. It’s just — kinetic means motion. Military means armed forces, action means motion. Kinetic action, moving motion. And these are the smartest people in the world. Well, the reason they can’t say it is because they don’t want to say what it really is.”

Yeah, that’s right Rusty; the President doesn’t want you to say what it “really is”. OK, whatever that means? So, why don’t you try to explain it for us?

“You know, we all know what it is, but they don’t  want to say it, they don’t want to go on record as saying what it really is because they’re actually trying to pretend it isn’t anything,” Rusty said. “It’s — and it’s not really a military intervention, it’s kinetic military action. That’s why they’ve come up with this ludicrous term. Right, that’s why they don’t want to call it a war on terror because the Muslims don’t intend to occupy us, they just blew up the World Trade Center. Of course, you might get some argument on that from certain people.”

By the way, for the record Rusty, during a Presidential press conference on 11 Oct 06 President Bush used a certain word to describe military conditions in Iraq; do you know what word that was Rusty? Let’s take a walk down memory lane and see.

A reporter asked, “I’m just wondering, two months ago, Prime Minister Maliki was here, and you talked about how we had to be nimble and facile in our approach. And my question is, are we being nimble and facile in the right way? Is what General Casey telling you the most effective advice? Because it would seem in the two months since Prime Minister Maliki was here, things have only gotten more bloody in Iraq.

President Bush answered, “No question, Ramadan’s here. No question, we’re engaging the enemy more than we were before. And by the way, when you engage the enemy, it causes there to be more action and more kinetic action. And the fundamental question is, do I get good advice from Casey? And the answer is I believe I do. I believe I do.” [Federal News Service, 10/11/06, accessed via Nexis]

And guess who else used a certain word Rusty? Why none other than your pal the former Secretary of Donny Rumsfeld during an 18 Jun 03, Defense Department operational update briefing, “Security throughout the country is indicated here. Green is what’s characterized as permissive. That’s not to say perfect, but it’s permissive. The yellow is semi-permissive and the red area in Baghdad and then in the area north towards Tikrit is considered not permissive or semi-permissive. There are now some 8,000 police officers back at work and 2,000 on patrol. And in those pockets, you’ll recall that when President Bush indicated that the major military activities had ended, we said very explicitly that that did not mean that the — that was the end of kinetics; that there would continue to have to be significant efforts to root out the remnants of the regime. That’s been going forward, and it’s been going forward in recent days, particularly, in ways that have been quite helpful. [Federal News Service, 6/18/03, accessed via Nexis]

And oh snap, Donny used it again while discussing Afghanistan during a 6 Feb 04, interview on an edition of FOX PACs’ Special Report, “The bulk of the problems are along the Pakistan border. And that is where the kinetics, for the most part, are taking place,” Don said. “And it is entirely possible that that would be the last sector.” [Fox News, Special Report, 2/6/04]

But wait Rusty, there’s more, in a 5 July 05, interview on Hot Talk with Scott Hennen, Rummy said, “Well sure. I mean to the extent people say things that give encouragement, and if you’re engaged in a test of wills as we are here, this is partly a battle on the ground using kinetics, and partly it’s a test of will as to whether or not we’ll be willing to continue to aggressively help the Iraqi people defeat this insurgency, depends on support from the American people. It depends on support from the international community. It depends on confidence level on the part of the Iraqi people. Which side’s going to win, they say to themselves. Do we want to support the Iraqi government and the coalition, or do we wait and see maybe they’re not going to have the staying power?” [Federal News Service, 7/5/05, accessed via Nexis]

But hey guess what Rusty? Military leaders regularly use that special word to describe military campaigns too; for instance when yours’ and Hannitys’ personal hero GEN Tommy Franks used it during a 15 Aug 02 Defense Department briefing, “What I prefer to do is think about the amount of energy that is devoted to what I call kinetic work in some provinces and places inside Afghanistan, where there is much work left to be done, and then work which is much more humanitarian, if you will, in nature, that goes on across 10 to 12 additional provinces in Afghanistan. [Federal News Service, 8/15/02, accessed via Nexis]

Hold on to your formerly nicotine stained fingers Rusty because Franks isn’t the only military officer to use it. BG Stanley McChrystal during a 23 Mar 03 Pentagon news briefing said, “Well, sir, we can see whether or not we hit targets, in many cases. And we’re still gathering that. But we’re running an effects-based campaign that is partially kinetic, partially non-kinetic, partially information operations. And so what we judge effectiveness by is not just whether there’s a hole in the roof of a building, but whether or not the function that that element did before ceases to be effective. [CNN, 3/22/03, accessed via Nexis]

Are you ready for more, big guy? Are you ready for more proof as to why you’re an idiot? OK then, on with facts.

LG Raymond Odierno used our special word on 17 Jan 08, “”We have not done a kinetic strike in at least six months. It might even be longer than that. I think it’s even longer than that, but it’s been a very long time. I track every one of them and they brief me weekly on that. [Political Transcript Wire, 1/17/08, accessed via Nexis]

Of course non-military types have also repeatedly used the term. Why, as a matter of fact, you – Rusty – withheld from your listeners that Byron York, in the very 23 Mar 11 column you sited said, “Kinetic” is a word that’s been used around the Pentagon for many years to distinguish between actions like dropping bombs, launching cruise missiles or shooting people and newer forms of non-violent fighting like cyber-warfare. At times, it also appears to mean just taking action. [The Washington Examiner, 3/23/11]

From a 20 Nov 02, Slate article, “In common usage, ‘kinetic’ is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, ‘active, as opposed to latent.’ Dropping bombs and shooting bullets — you know, killing people — is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy’s communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are ‘non-kinetic.’ (Why not “latent”? Maybe the Pentagon worries that would make them sound too passive or effeminate.) Asked during a January talk at National Defense University whether ‘the transformed military of the future will shift emphasis somewhat from kinetic systems to cyber warfare,’ Donald Rumsfeld answered, “Yes!” (Rumsfeld uses the words “kinetic” and “non-kinetic” all the time.) [Slate, 11/20/02]

In trying to drive home his misguided, uninformed, litany to his generally equally misguided and uninformed listeners, Rusty closed with, “All of this is nothing more than one of these intellectual exercises to excuse Obama, give him a pass. It really isn’t war. Democrat presidents don’t like using the U.S. military. If the truth be known, liberals actually are happier when the U.S. military loses.”

Really Rusty, Democratic Presidents don’t like using the military? Which Democratic Presidents would you be referring to? Woodrow Wilson? Franklin D. Roosevelt? Lyndon Johnson? Bill Clinton? Barrack Obama? News flash Rush! They all used the United States military. And what’s wrong with a President not wanting to rush into a war? To not want to place our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in harms way? Difference between Democratic Presidents and most of their Republican counterparts is that the Democrats try to use up every possible avenue before the killing and maiming begins, wherein some Republican Presidents have almost gleefully sent our young men and women off to war. So, maybe in that sense you’re right, Democratic Presidents really don’t like “using the military”. But hey Rusty, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

And WOW Rusty, did you really mean to say this, or is your drug addled mind no longer capable of rational thought? “If the truth be known, liberals actually are happier when the U.S. military loses”? I’m not sure if you’re just plain stupid, or if you’re crazy. You are a certifiable jackass Rusty. You’re no longer the spokes bovine of the GOTP, you’re now the official talking spokes jackass of the GOTP. And you no longer bloviate, now you bray. This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, and it belongs right up there with comments by progressive commentators who claim Republicans hate the environment. You’re right Rush, Liberals hate America, and want it to fail. Grow up, or move on.

Rusty, the truth (something I’m sure your ten perpetually ham sandwich stained fingers could never find, even with a flash light) is first, this is a military action; an honest to goodness United Nations sanctioned military action, unlike Bush/Cheney’s “war” in Iraq; second, the term kinetic has been used frequently to describe this very type of military action, and is a perfectly suitable word to use here; finally, you Rush Hudson Limbaugh III are either an ignoramus or a charlatan, and probably both. You’re not right 99.9%, but are frequently never right. You hate the President, and I believe a good part of that hatred is due to your southern Missouri upbringing. Yes, Rusty, I think you’re a racist. Your previous comments to African-American callers and about African-American athletes are well documented and stand as a witness. You’re inability to ever base your comments on facts is shameful, and your deliberate misleading of your listeners, whether they’re gullible little sheeple or not is criminal. Rusty, one day in all probability your name will be mentioned in the same breath with Father Coughlin, and Joseph Goebels, not a place any self respecting broadcaster would ever choose to be. But who could ever accuse you of being a self respecting broadcaster?

(Many thanks to hard working folks at Media Matters for supplying the background information)


Tags: , , , ,

If “The Islamic Brotherhood” Takes Power In Egypt, “Then It’s World War III”?

According to FOX PAC talking circus performer, Bill O’Rilley (aka Bill the Clown), “If the Islamic Brotherhood takes power In Egypt, then it’s World War III”. Really Billo? It’s World War III? How do you people at FOX PAC sleep at night? Between your gloom and doom 24/7, and lying through your teeth for 99.9% of that time, how can you sleep?

It appears FOX PAC is wishing and hoping that Egypt not only becomes President Obama’s Iran, but that it also becomes the next world war. You’ve got Reverend Beck proclaiming this is the real Archduke Ferdinand moment he’s been warning us all about (we’re up to the seventh so-called moment since President Obama took office), and now Billo the Clown is proclaiming it becomes the third world war if the Islamic Brotherhood take over the government in Egypt. But, have you noticed? Not one of the gloom and doomers at FOX, not Rush, nor any of the right wing talking bovines or politicians who have been, and continue to be, so critical of the President have offered one concrete suggestion of what he should have done, or of what he should do know.

I understand the right-wing crazies got used to the Bush Doctrine (well, all except Sarah Palin who doesn’t know what that is) and I’m sure their solution would be to invade Egypt, or at the very least start bombing Cairo and Alexandria if the Islamic Brotherhood takes over; how sad for them we now have a President who doesn’t share their view that America can, and should, preemptively invade or bomb anyone we choose.

Besides talking to Mubarak on the phone and giving him advice that he really needs to step down, that the United States gravy train is not running any more, what more can the President do? And, oh, a by-the-way right wingers, Mubarak is a dictator. You know, the same kind of person you yelled and screamed had to be pushed out of Iraq. “But he was our dictator!” “He was our kind of guy!” They would all no doubt collectively shout. But, what can the President do, that he isn’t already doing? We – as a people – would never stand for another nation interfering in our internal affairs. We – the United States – do not own the world, even if it’s true we are the only true super power in the world today, we don’t have the legal the authority, or the right, to tell other countries what to do, or to invade and bomb because we can. We, like the rest of the civilized world (basically anyone not glued to FOX PAC, and listening to right-wing talk radio all day) must watch as these events unfold, and then see what has filled the vacuum in Mubarak’s absence.


Tags: , , , ,

America is a Muslim Country?

Is America a Muslim Country? Yes and no; it all depends who you listen to. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, then the answer is yes and no. Yes because that’s what he claims the President said; and no because that’s what he says.

Wednesday morning during his daily blab-fest, Rush said, “Obama said that the United States could be considered a Muslim country. There are 1.6 million Muslims in this country, less than one percent of the population. Now what is going on? I mean, he lies about something that is easily demonstrated to be false. This is an out-and-out lie.”

Well, it really isn’t a lie Rush. Why isn’t it a lie? Because President Obama didn’t say that.

Greg Sargent of the Washington post had this to say about what the President allegedly said, “Hard-core rhetoricians will note that Obama was employing an obscure tense known as the ‘conditional,’ and an arcane rhetorical device known as a ‘hypothetical.’ He said that if you were to take the number of Muslims in America, then one could see America as ranking up there with other Muslim countries — in numerical, hypothetical terms.”

So, what did President Obama say?

During an interview with French television station Canal Plus, President Obama said: “[I]f you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

So, how many Muslims are there in the United States? It depends who you ask. Estimates vary greatly from 1.5 million Muslims in the United States to more than 12 million.

Now working with the lowest percentile figure – which Rush favors – in countries in the world with more than 2 million Muslims, the United States comes in at #56 out of approximately 195 countries in the world. fifty six divided by 195 = 28%. So, even using Rush’s numbers America is in the top 28% population wise of Muslim nations worldwide.

If we take the middle estimate of 6 million Muslims in the United States, in countries in the world with more than 6 million Muslims, the United States comes out at #35 of 195 countries. Thirty five divided by 195 = 18%. So, using the middle number we rank in the top 18% population wise of Muslim nations worldwide.

If you take the top estimate of more than 12 million Muslims in the United States, in countries in the world with more than 12 million Muslims, the United States ranks 22nd worldwide. Twenty two divided by 195 = 11%. Using the top figure we weigh in population wise in ther top 11% of Muslim nations worldwide.

We have either the 56th largest Muslim population in the world, or the 22nd.

The President didn’t lie, as Rush has tried to say, we’re either in the top 28 percent or the top 11 percent of Muslim population, either would surely place us as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

What’s the issue? Bigotry. Rush is once again showing his disdain for Muslims and for the religion of Islam. Rush cringes at the thought that we might have a large Muslim population. It scares him. He needs someone to blame. That’s how right wing extremism breeds new followers. It worked for Hitler. Here in America in the 21st century instead of blaming Jews the right wing blames illegal aliens and Muslims for the country’s ills.

Beyond his bigotry and racist views, fact of the matter is Rush doesn’t have anything of substance to attack the President on, so he just keeps on throwing everything he can hoping something will eventually stick.

Good luck with that.

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 5, 2009 in Foreign Policy, Politics


Tags: ,

What’s in a Handshake? Or Presidents Meet with Bad People?

The rightwing talkers have their knickers in a knot because President Obama shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Oh no! Disaster on a global scale! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

Grow up people. World leaders shake hands with each other; they may even appear to be palling around with each other. It doesn’t mean they’re selling us out.

During his Fox “News”’ The O’Reilly Factor, on Wednesday night, host Bill O’Reilly once again demonstrated the fact that he doesn’t know jack about history, when he falsely claimed that President Richard Nixon never met with Chinese leader Mao Zedong, and hence never shook his hand.

While discussing President Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Fox News political analyst Alan Colmes asked O’Reilly, “What do you, ignore somebody standing right next to you? Do we — because he touched him, put his hand on his shoulder, shook his hand? Do these people have a problem with Mao and Nixon?”

O’Reilly responded, “It was [Chinese Prime Minister] Zhou [Enlai] and Nixon. Mao was not involved.”

If I had been Alan Colmes I probably would have started my response, “Bill, you ignorant slut, once again you’ve proven you don’t know any more about history than you know about homeless veterans.”

In fact, Mr. Wizard, President Richard Nixon not only met with Mao on February 21, 1972, and horrors, he smiled at him, and he even shook his hand.


I now understand why Alan Colmes couldn’t continue working every night with these guys. After attempting to communicate on an intelligent level with Mr. O’Rielly, Colmes said, “And now, I know that you people often think you — when I say “you people,” I mean, you — probably think that dictator DNA got off on him, and he’s going to come back and infect the United States because, look, he touched the guy.”

O’Reilly – aka Mr. Wizard – asked Colmes, (referring to the shocking handshake between President Obama and President Chavez) “…what did you find worthy about it?”

Colmes’ reply was the kind I’m usually shouting at O’Reilly, whenever I can stomach watching him, “Well, first of all, this shows — first of all, what do you, ignore the guy? When George W. Bush was at the UN and asked, “Will you ever — will you talk to Ahmadinejad if you’re in the same room?” “No, I won’t talk to him” — like a 5-year-old.”

Have any other Presidents ever shaken hands with dictators, and, you know, smiled?

Well, let’s have a look Billy.

nixon-palling-with-brezDick stop palling around with Leonid!


Dwight David Eisenhower! Stop having fun with Nikki right now!


Holy stop touching that Russian Bat Man! Truman and Churchill both touching Joe, and liking it!


Not Gerald Ford too! Oh the humanity! The humanity!


And what’s this? The Gipper and Gorby shaking hands? The leader of the Evil Empire?


OMG! Bill! They’re even palling around!

One last imagine to consider:


Yes Bill, that’s our former U.S. President George W. Bush, smiling and shaking hands with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Musharraf is the self-proclaimed president of Pakistan, having come to power through a military coup. He’s a dictaitor. But, we can pal around with him because he was willing to help us defeat the Taliban. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even when they let my enemy move into their country to escape being attacked.

Grow up Billy.

1 Comment

Posted by on April 24, 2009 in Foreign Policy


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: ,

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: ,