Hannity repeatedly attacked Reid as "a propaganda minister for our enemies"
On the April 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for his remark during an April 19 press conference that "the [Iraq] war is lost." Hannity said to former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp: "I think [Reid is] a propaganda minister for our enemies. He's emboldening our enemies, and he's taking away the morale of our troops. They're out there fighting that war, and he said it's lost." Kemp replied: "[T]here's got to be a penalty for saying dumb things," adding: "You know, talk is cheap. But once you say something, you can't buy it back." Neither Hannity nor Kemp noted Reid's subsequent statement during the press conference that "the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically." As Media Matters for America has noted, numerous media outlets have similarly ignored this portion of Reid's remarks while highlighting his assertion that "the war is lost."
On the April 23 edition of the program, Hannity also claimed that Reid is "serving as a propaganda minister for America's enemies" and selectively cited his statement that "the war is lost." Hannity further argued that Reid "should resign for this -- for emboldening our enemies in this particular case, for demoralizing the American soldiers there."
As Media Matters documented, following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to Syria in early April, Hannity repeatedly claimed that she had "allow[ed] herself to be used for propaganda purposes" by meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus.
From the April 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Here we're at war. Harry Reid and his friends send these guys to war. He declares to our enemies that we've lost the war. I don't know what it could do to the morale of the troops. What do you think of that?
KEMP: I was in Congress when Vietnam War was going on, and this is exactly what happened in early 1970s. They cut off -- they cut the legs off from underneath the troops in the mission.
I think, having sent General [David] Petraeus into Iraq with a mission, the surge of troops, I believe, to bring pacification to Baghdad and Anbar province so we can work out some political solutions, some diplomatic solutions that I think [former Reagan foreign policy adviser] Jeane Kirkpatrick would have supported. This totally negates that. And I think Vice President Cheney was exactly right in saying it's going to be vetoed. It should be vetoed, and it's the wrong course at the wrong time.
HANNITY: It is pretty disgraceful. I mean, I actually think Republicans should demand he resign. 'Cause -- and tell me if I'm wrong. I think he's a propaganda minister for our enemies. He's emboldening our enemies, and he's taking away the morale of our troops. They're out there fighting that war, and he said it's lost.
KEMP: You know, in a democracy, he can say anything he wants on the floor of the Senate. And I wouldn't call on him to resign. I would call on people in Nevada to --
HANNITY: They could force him.
KEMP: -- not to force him to resign. But there's got to be a penalty for saying dumb things. You know, talk is cheap. But once you say something, you can't buy it back.
From the April 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
KAREN HANRETTY (Republican strategist): Harry Reid -- Harry Reid has a responsibility legislatively that these other men do not. They have not been elected to office. He has a responsibility for ushering through a bill that is either going to provide funding or not provide funding. And that is the sole distinction --
JANE FLEMING (Democratic strategist): We're providing funding, Karen.
HANNITY: Hang on. Let me -- let me explain.
HANRETTY: But why? Why, Jane? Why are you providing funding if the war is lost?
HANNITY: Hang on a second.
FLEMING: We are providing funding --
HANNITY: No, they're not.
FLEMING: What we're saying is that we are providing funding for the troops. We put every dime in there that the president has asked for. What we're also saying is that we want --
HANRETTY: But why? You don't believe in the president. You think he's a liar. You think he's disingenuous.
HANNITY: All right. Hang on a second, Karen. Let me get in here --
HANRETTY: You've always thought that --
FLEMING: I think President Bush hasn't listened --
HANNITY: Let me explain the difference here, Jane Flem --
HANRETTY: You think he's a liar --
HANNITY: Let me explain --
HANRETTY: and yet you're playing politics with him.
HANNITY: Karen, help me out here. Let me explain the difference -- is that Harry Reid is the No. 1 Democrat in the United States Senate, who voted to send these troops into harm's way. And he's serving --by saying that America lost while these troops are still fighting here. He's serving as a propaganda minister for America's enemies here.
FLEMING: No, he's not.
HANNITY: -- and Harry Reid should resign for this, for emboldening our enemies in this particular case, for demoralizing the American soldiers there --
FLEMING: Sean, give us some examples of how this is emboldening our enemies.
HANRETTY: Well, maybe -- maybe this --
[crosstalk]
FLEMING: -- always says that, and you always say in this emboldens the enemy --
HANNITY: That's right.
FLEMING: -- and it demoralizes our troops.
HANNITY: That's right.
FLEMING: Give us some concrete examples of that.
HANNITY: If you're -- imagine -- put aside your liberal talking points for five seconds --
FLEMING: No. You put aside your talking points, Sean. You always say it.
HANNITY: Put aside your liberal talking points --
FLEMING: Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
Hannitty is a propoganda minister for the Republican party and the Bush administration, his rubberstamping/cheerleading of anything and everything they do is his most important function in the world. Nobody does it with more bravado and consistency.
That being said however, Reid was way out of line in declaring the war "lost". It is demoralizing for those still fighting and transparently politically motivated for his restless base. Bring the troops home NOW if they've already lost.
What demoralizes the troops is being sent to fight a war started with lies and deception. Fighting without the proper equipement. Being told you are going home on Monday then on the way to the airport being grabbed and told Aprils fools, stopgap we are going to need you here a few more months. Stars and Stripes published a poll that says more than 70% of them want all the troops home within a year. Rhetoric used to do that very thing wont demoralize them just because you say so and you say so only because it fits your propaganda needs. YOU dont have amazing mind reading powers and have no way of knowing this is true. Just that it sounds good for propaganda purposes and that it sounded good when Rush or whoever said it.
If you can't defend what Reid said, then just say so. This is not a discussion about armor or proper equipment.
If you'd like that topic introduced here, then take it up with the moderators.
Nice try, though.
Solon rarely needs me defending him, but I feel compelled to call you on this one, just in case you somehow escape his lash. The issues he raised fairly and fully deflate your own attempt to cater to the political stance you have adopted, that Reid and the Dems are either dishonest in arguing in opposition to Bungle's indefinite extension of the massacre in Iraq, or lacking the political courage to do the right thing to end our participation in the massacre. Truth be told, that war was lost even as it was (by Bungle's benchmarks) won.
Our continued presence exacerbates conflict that we cannot suppress, and adds to the tragedy of our own wasted standing, manpower, and financial strength. However, unless we (Dems) can gather enough Republicans to overwhelm the Repugnants in the Senate, we cannot even over-ride a veto; so, how, exactly, are we to "Bring the troops home NOW if they've already lost."?
Impeachment may be one way, but that takes many months, and even more Republicans than now exist in the Senate; how should we proceed in the interim, except to tell the truth, Rupugnants be damned.
I'm still waiting to see what the Dems will do with the results of pulling the troops out. Do they realise that the killing in the Middle East will exponentially increase if we leave? Do they realize that the entire region could be in danger, which will adversely affect all Americans when oil prices skyrocket. Do they realize that if we leave that terrorists and their blind hatred of America will follow us to America? Does anyone REALLY think that things will get better over there if we leave?
The left is screaming to get people home, but nobody wants to deal with the consequences of doing so. We are trying to establish control and stability over there, if we leave more women and children will be murdered by radicals. Then, will you expect America to go back in and help them out again?
The reason we are in this mess now is that we were not allowed to fight like we were trained. We couldnt blow up mosquese with Al Qaeda leaders in them (along with stockpiles of munitions) because it was politically incorrect to do so. Lawyers, not generals, were making battlefield decisions. THIS has led us to where we are today. Our troops can't shoot first, they can't fight. How the frick are we supposed to win a war under these sort of rules?
Welcome to the 21st century pal! In this day and age, the US is reinventing what WAR really is. Our society is one of free thinkers and due process.
We don't believe that an entire population backs the ideology of a certain government. Hence we don't CARPET BOMB any more. With the advances in our military's technology, it allows our military to take care of the INDIVIDUALS we are at war with. I highly doubt the US will be at War with an entire country ever again.
For a population of millions of people to go against our way of thinkging (or provoke us in such a way to declare War) is utterly impossible. We are at the point in time where communication between societies is so great and free thinking is now so wide spread that Ideologues don't have the same power they once did over their populations.
Only countries with strict media control have the possibility to influence a populations opinion in such a way. Evidently these practices are no longer as effective as they once were. If we go to war with Iran, we'll be attacking a country that has nearly a 20% approval rating of their government, maybe even less. Does this allow us to bomb civilians as we did in Germany? I think not.
We will be attacing a Government which has kept itself in control much the same as Saddam did. It is impossible to win a war with the same practices we won WWII.
I can guarantee you that the UNited States public would NEVER allow the use of atomic/nuclear weapons upon a country that has not provoked us with equatable military force.
The reasons "we are in the mess we're in", BEGIN with that liar in the White House; extend through the liars constituting the entirety of the Administration; extend through the liars of the Corporate Media Oligopoly which refused even to acknowledge the demonstrated lies of the liar-in-Chief and his Administration's liars, which ignored the idiocy of trying to occupy a sizeable country of millions, with 100,000 troops, ignored the red flags that went up with unguarded munitions, including RDX; extend through the Repugnant Congress that should have known better, but couldn't resist the siren call of partisanship, and so joined in the lies; and culminate with (least and last), the "rules of engagement" (which deny the Marines the authority to murder innocent civilians when P.O.'d about an IED) set by those eminent "commanders on the ground" who could stomach working for a CIC who had ignored all the input provided by his Generals, all the objections to implementation of torture as the first choice in dealing with Iraqis, and any substitute for conscience afforded to baser creatures such as he.
Do you realize that your post was a long list of baseless assertions. YOUR opinions stated as fact, things you CANNOT know? Do you realize that you rightwingers have been WRONG about every prediction you EVER MADE ABOUT IRAQ? Do you realize we would have to be idiots to base our politicies on what YOU THINK will happen when you have been wrong right donw the line about EVERYTHING? Your CONTINUED delusions about what MIGHT happpen in Iraq cannot be what we base a continued presence on?
And then more about how our big problem in Iraq is we just arent killing enough innocent people. Somehow I dont think that is the problem
Terrorists will follpw us home? Please, nothing is stopping them coming over in advance of our soldiers. In fact, it would make more sense for a strike to be carried out while our military is deployed overseas. No, we're not fighting terrorists over there, we're an occupying force presiding over a civil war.
And spare us your concern for Iraqi civillians, you would obviously love to see them slaughtered if only our soldiers were allowed to fight the way they were trained. There will be chaos when the U.S. withdraws but the people of Iraq certainly love their country enough to quell the violence and restore order.
Skyrocketing oil prices? That just goes right to the heart of the left's plan for a green economy that would free us from the bonds of dependence on foreign oil. Energy independence is national security.
Honestly, nobody trusts Republicans to do anything anymore.
I agree with Solon... Show me some proof that Democratic attempts to bring the troops home and/or Reid's statement demoralize our troops.
If I was in the military I would find it demoralizing to have been sent on a fluctuating mission with questionable foundation. I would find it demoralizing to have served multiple tours of duty. I would be demoralized if the duration of each tour of duty eas extended from 12 to 15 months. I would have been demoralized from the start had I been sent without the necessary personal and vehicle armour. Who has actually demoralized our troops? For Sean Hannity and others to accuse Harry Reid of demoralizing our troops is nothing but empty political rhetoric without anything to back it up.
I wonder if you have even spoken to someone who is serving in Iraq or has served in Iraq. These fine men and women believe that they are trying to help the people in Iraq. This is their mission, and while they are in harms way they need the support of all Americans.
Comments like those Reid make only tell the ememy that they need to wait us out. I would have to review past history, but I do not think there has ever been a leader in the middle of a war tell the ememy that we have lost.
What I find most despicable is that Reid is using the war as a way to try to pick up additional seat in the Senate. To play with our brave men and women's lives for political gain is a reason to call for his resignation.
Yes, I have spoken to people who have served in Iraq. It's a mixed bag insofar as political or patriotic motivation... but, generally, when speaking frankly they complain a lot about how the war has been handled. IMO, that is demoralizing to our troops.
I have spoken at length with my own son, recently freed of stop-lossing and multiple extended tours (he served 8 years). His exit strategy, (which I questioned, and still question) was to sign up for the National Guard - some distinction as to the nature of the enrollment which I did/do not understand, relieves him of being "called up"? I have spoken as well to many members of his various units. Almost universally, by year three, they expressed opposition to the conduct of the war, to the rules of engagement, to the belief that they were serving as anything more than gasoline on the fire. This from a group that earlier had adamantly supported their CIC, no matter how often I had pointed out his tendency to lie a lot - no, consistently? - no, without exception. This from a group who really liked the Iraqi kids who hung around them for the occasional treats; and who bragged often to me about the things they had done to make the kids safer. This from a group that had earlier been idealistic and enthusiastic about their mission.
What changed? Well, the promised up-armoring of transport did not materialise; we scrounged funding for body armor, only to have Command insist that unless the right guys made a profit on the armor, it could not be used, despite testing better than the crap they couldn't even get; their buddies who were wounded stayed in touch as well, and they heard about difficulties dealing with Veterans Administration and such silly stuff as being charged for "lost equipment" that was removed from them by medics prior to transport; they heard about delays and difficulties getting disability payments - one disabled vet had to move in with his brother, due to a more than four-month wait with no paycheck issued, from which even to begin the deductions for that "lost equipment". One was detached from rehab, and reassigned to active duty, catching the plane to Iraq while still on crutches, and lacking the re-training that was mandated. The ones who had escaped injury kept getting stop-lossed and extended and called back from the policy year-at-home between tours; they found out, on their leaves at home, about the billions that had been lost - nearly $20 billion of our money and Iraqi money the CPA was "safeguarding" - all the while they were paying tourist-trap and higher prices for an occasional soft drink. They saw guys making $150-$200,000 per year for doing "support" tasks, while their own wives and kids were in some cases, forced to rely on food stamps and charity.
Is it any wonder they are a bit disillusioned about this little crusade? Demoralized, maybe? Reid's comment, so far as I can tell, reflects exactly what most of them appear to think about the prospects of the situation improving so long as Bungle reigns.
I honor your son's service he is a true American hero - although I doubt he would call himself that.
But a lot of the problems with the military readiness that you speak of would come from your hero Bill Clinton, who slashed the military, who hated the military, and Bush gets the blame for his action.
Donald Rumsfeld devised the neocon "war on the cheap" strategy employed in Iraq despite warnings from many knowledgable sources, including the US Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki. The reasons for invading Iraq were questionable and the planning was atrocious. Don't blame Bill Clinton. At the end of the Cold War it was believed that maintaining the same level of military force was not necessary and fiscally imprudent. Your statement that Bill Clinton "hated" the military is typical unfounded right wing, Limbaughish rhetoric.
That's just ridiculous. Bush has had six years to right the ship and he has falied. Our military is broken.
Well, let's see - my BROTHER IN-LAW, who is serving his 3RD ROTATION in Iraq, finds it quite demoralizing to still see enemy mortar rounds randomly hitting inside the protected interior of the camp. He finds it demoralizing to keep returning to Iraq. He finds it demoralizing to not know what victory is. And he definitely finds it demoralizing to hear snot nosed republicans who never served telling him what he should be feeling.
He is a hero sorry he feels that way. I believe him to be in the minority.
"and that it sounded good when Rush or whoever said it"
It's nice to know that you read the thread. (Rolls eyes)
Yeah, because Hannity is the ONLY one saying that Reids comments demoralize the troops. Depressing to see that as usual a point this obvious has to be pointed out to you.
What demoralizes troops is not being able to shoot the enemy until you are first shot at. What demoralizes the troops is not being able to engage the enemy the way they were trained. Imagine that you are a chef... you get sent to do your job somewhere, but when you get there you are asked to wash dishes and hand out bags of potato chips. I think your job satisfaction would be pretty darned low. Our troops are capable of winning, but our political correctness is preventing this from happening. THIS is the problem... Bush didn't create this environment... the left and the lawyers did.
Sure...OK...blame the media, liberals, and now the PC movement as to why we're "not winning, but not losing" the war.
Yeah again your assertion that our big problem in Iraq is we just arent killing enough innocent people in Iraq.
What demoralizes the troops is being sent to a war started with LIES, being told you go home in Jan then told WHOOOPS, we are keeping you until April. Being there four years and STILL not having the proper equipment. Its sad to keep seeing you harp on this BS. We gotta KILL, KILL, KILL, them all and let God sort them out didnt work all that well in Vietnam and it doesnt look like a winning strategy in Iraq.
the statement that troops are demoralized because they cant shoot without being shot at first is ludicrous thats rule of engagement is there to prevent what the british call "blue on blue" and americans call "friendly fire" you have to assertain who is shooting and if it is in fact "at you" i bet pat tillman wishes the rangers who killed him followed the rules
***NEWSFLASH***
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
ARE DEMORALIZING OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ!
A newly released NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll shows that 55% of Americans polled do not believe the war in Iraq can be won.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070425_NBC-WSJ_Partial.pdf
It is not just Harry Reid, it is the propagandist American public that are demoralizing our troops in Iraq by saying the war is a lost cause. The treasonous, defeatist American public are giving aid and comfort to our enemies and should be forced to... uh, resign!
Sean Hannity is right... in the delusional, bizarro world of right wing politics, that is. Does Hannity have a grip on reality? Does the White House?
Oh, BTW... the same poll shows that 56% of Americans polled agree with the Democratic Congress that a deadline should be set for troop withdrawal in Iraq. Just a minor point that Bush and Cheney might have overlooked... that is, the will of the American people.
Anybody got Hannity's cell number to break the news... just thought he might be interested in attacking the American public for emboldening the enemy.
Yeah. But he has a bad habit of never returning phone calls.
tommy's old habits die hard. he was a bit of cheerleader for this war at one time, attacking people who expressed a different opinion.
Sean Hannity is an enemy of America... and he's a spineless liar.
This exchange is pretty telling;
FLEMING: What we're saying is that we are providing funding for the troops. We put every dime in there that the president has asked for. What we're also saying is that we want --
HANRETTY: But why? You don't believe in the president. You think he's a liar. You think he's disingenuous.
It's either that the righty's don't get it, and won't shut up for a minuter to have it explained, or that they do get it and make sure they shout down anybody trying to finish a sentence of truth.
Stoopid or liars, take your pick.
Yikes, tough choice.
Are you sure the two are mutually exclusive? I just can't decide...
You need to put in context of Hannity's audience:
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/imagefull.php?ImageId=681&TabId=8&entrant=1
What has he lied about?
Note the search feature...
So you're saying he's stoopid?
I can't argue that.
What has Hannity lied about?
You're joking, right? The list would take all night. But, for starters, how about the myths which Hannity persists in perpetuating that Saddam had stockpiles of active weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion and that he was in cahoots with AlQaeda? I guess Hannity knows his viewers and listeners are very, very gullible. Hannity is not just an occasional mis-speaker of the truth... he is an habitual liar.
If you believe that he did not you are a fool. There is plenty of evidence that he did have stockpiles. What about the convoys or Russian truck going into Syria before the war.
This will not be printed in the media because it goes against their main agenda as well as MMFA, which is to blame Bush for everything.
Read the book - The Greatest Threat -Author Richard Butler (head of the UN Arms Inspectors). There is plenty of proof in his book. You will never want to believe this because it does not serve your agenda.
My believe the weapons are in Syria and will eventually resurface, hopefully not when they kill thousands of people.
Oh I SO love the a dog ate my WMDs defense, its so...desperate. How exactly would they be able to do that under our constant surviellence with satellites and overflights? Why would Syria take them? Is your contention REALLY that Saddam was such a threat due to his WMDs that he GAVE THEM AWAY when he knew for certain that we were coming to destroy his regime? You do KNOW that Duelfer and Kay both said in their reports NOT that they cant FIND the WMDs but that there hadnt BEEN any since the mid nineties. Exactly how would WMDs that didnt exist get moved ANYWHERE. Scott Ritter was ALSO a weapons inspector and he said there werent any stockpiles. The only reason to believe this bunk is because you want to. Its the faith based approach to WMDs. I know what I WANT to believe. Show me the OPINIONS why its true and keep the FACTS about why it isnt away. Good luck with that.
How about calling Reid a propaganda minister for our enemies?
Who was he helping with those comments? Can I ask you a question? Why do you hate our country so much?
The troops. Trying to bring Bush to within shouting distance of reality. Let me ask you a question why are you such a bone ignorant moron?
"FLEMING: Just because you say it doesn't make it true."
HAAHaaahaaaa... Silly naive females.
That being said however, Reid was way out of line in declaring the war "lost". It is demoralizing for those still fighting and transparently politically motivated for his restless base. Bring the troops home NOW if they've already lost. - tommy / Wednesday April 25, 2007 06:05:21 PM EST
Tommy,
Will you run that by us again. In case you haven't heard the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias are not going to kiss, make up, hold hands and unite together as Iraq Nationalists.
No amount of troops or the amount of Iraqis that our troops kill is going to change the very reality that the country of Iraq is in chaos. No amount of troops will have the Iraqis coming out to bring us flowers and candy.
Tommy what we lost is winning hearts. Face the reality; We Lost the War on Winning Hearts in Iraq.
Well, Tommy, then you must think the TOP MILITARY BRASS are out of line because THEY HAVE SAID THE WAR IS LOST, also...
Harry Reid said: "And as long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course - and we must change course." This sounds very much like an accurate assessment of the situation. - much like what polls indicate most Americans have already concluded. So why has every major new outlet only reported the small phrase "the war is lost", not even quoting the complete sentence mind you? The media in this country is about as hopeless as the war they were all cheerleading a few years ago.
Thank you for providing context. Once again, this puts the lie to the old "liberal bias in the MSM" canard. I was surprised thar Reid himself in subsequent interviews did not provide this context.
One of the most effective ways to lie is to tell half the truth - then shut up. Every media mouthpiece who did this is a right-wing tool - and a liar. I am sooo sick of this #%#@!!!!
The fact that you think the main stream media is right wing tells me how far gone you really are.
Heres the thing. I appolgize for making a point that I have made before several times but I think it an important one. As usual when talking about this kind of issue, its nust not that simple as to just see the media as left wing or right wing. It would be more accurate to see it as serving power and reflecting elite opinion. Oversimplifying that usually shakes out as being liberal on social issues and conservative on economic and foriegn policy issues. That is why both sides can show examples of media bias that support their accusations of media bias. If you think about the CEO of Ford Exxon or Merril Lych. Most likely, making a generalization, that guy wants his gay son to be treated fairly his daughter to be able to get an abortion if she chooses. Wants them to have the freedoms the Constitution provides. They also want their tax cuts and laise faire and the government to make sure they have access to those markets and resources by any means necessary. If you notice thats pretty much the overall view you get from the media. Now it isnt monolithic, and there is room for SOME variation. However overall if you dont internalize THESE values you wont get the promotions to be in the necessary position to be writing editorials or spouting your views on major TV networks. The liberal/conservative dichotomy isnt what defines the media
Gone far enough to observe the media and engage some critical thinking skills.It's a hike, but the views great.
Yeah, thanks. BTW - how many major media outlets are owned by poor people? Maybe Murdoch is too liberal for you. Which "liberal" media outlets editorialized against the Iraq before the fact? I'm sure you know plenty of websites where your nonsense is taken seriously - you don't really think anybody here except other trolls will - do you?
Reichpublicans need to get it through their heads that in WWII they were doing the exact same thing they are denigrating liberals for, and guess what? In spite of them, we won that war. In spite of them, our troops had high moral because they knew what they were fighting for. In spite of them, our president could implement gas rationing, talk the populace into making sacrafice, etc. etc. etc. and he had the full support of that populace. Reichpublicans screwed the pooch on this one because they can't sell pooper scoopers on a farm if they tried.
I will say this--the war IS lost (of course that depends how you define lost of course) and you know, who among those chastising Mr. Reid will when this is over admit "Well he was right and I was wrong." Anyone?? Bueller... In addition, how many troops on the ground over there think the same thing?? Anyone BOTHER to ask them??? Like that statement is going to destroy them? If that's the case, how much MORE morale has been destroyed by Jessica Lynch in Congress yesterday asking her government POINT BLANK-why did you lie about me??? Read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" or any of a number of tomes about Viet Nam, and it will always come out that the generals, corporals and privates ALL knew a war was lost long before those who started it. As has been said, 1)Reid statement is and was and continues to be taken out of context and 2)he's right even if you leave out the context part. Who wants to bet?
So based on your statement I take it you believe in genocide. If the US pulls out now, there will be massive deaths in Iraq, just like after we left Southeast Asia.
We are fighting terrorist in Iraq, not the Iraqi's. In 2003 a neighbor of mine came back from Iraq, his comment: we are really there because it is better to fight them in Iraq versus fighting them here. If we leave now we give the terrorist a base that in the end will only make it worse of the rest of the world. Read the book "The Looming Tower" if you want a history of what radical Islam is really about.
My comments below, in a new post.
By the way: If these hypothetical terrorists do build camps and establish territories, don't you think it will be much easier to bomb them and stop them in their tracks than it is now, by running around the streets of Baghdad waiting for them to take pot shots at us so we can shoot back?
Just a thought.
"...we are really there because it is better to fight them in Iraq versus fighting them here."
Which only shows that even some Iraq veterans are capable of drinking the Kool-Aid... Where is the proof that we will be fighting AlQaeda in the streets of Cleveland when we leave Iraq? Show me the opinion of one unbiased expert who says that. The canard is political rhetoric carefully crafted in the bowels of the White House to justify and unjustfiable war. The Iraq war is not the war on terror. AlQaeda is incidental to the civil war in Iraq we have unleashed. We are wasting our assets, human and material, in Iraq. Spend the money to fortify our defenses and intelligence gathering capabilities instead; and enlist world-wide support in fighting global terrorism. And, BTW, why haven't we killed the real leaders of AlQaeda hiding in Pakistan.
You hit it on the head, Irony.
During the Viet Nam War, the right wing talking point was that "we're fighting the Communists in Viet Nam so that we don't have fight them on the beaches of Santa Monica".
Last time I checked, the Communists still had not established a beach head.
Then again, the parking situation in Santa Monica is so bad that a mass invasion is all but unthinkable.
A talking point view of the war. We ARE fighting the Iraqis. The Pentagon has made that clear. If WE had been invaded what would WE be doing. Its niave in the extreme and self serving to rightwing propaganda to just assert we are fighting terrorists. We invaded the most secular country in the region. They were not a country of Islamic extremist terrorists. As for your attempt at reading the future why in the world would I take another prediction by the rightwing seriously when you guys havent been within miles of getting ANY of your previous predictions right? Your crystal ball is cracked get rid of it. Stuff your predictions they have proven themselves worthless. We dont KNOW what will happen. What we do KNOW is the Iraqis want us gone so to say we need to stay there to help them when they want us to go is ludicrous on the face of it. Even IF the fight them there so we dont have to fight them here meme had ANY validity, which CANNOT be shown. It has no MORAL justification. It would be like starting a war with the Mafia then fighting it at your neighbors house so HIS family gets killed instead of yours. However the meme has NO logic behind it. NOTHING about us being in Iraq is stopping terrorists from hitting us here. It took 20 guys and some planning to do it last time. Noting about the war in Iraq precludes them from multitasking a hit here. It is enflaming MORE and more Muslims. Radicalizing more and more people in the region. Would someone be more likely to commit a terrorist act before or AFTER their family was incinerated by a bomblast in front of their eyes? I think the argument that staying in Iraq would be MORE likely to cause them to commit terrorst acts here is at least as logical.
I tend to agree with you in general. But, unfortunately, that logic works both ways to some. for whatever reason there has been no further terrorist attacks here since the start of the Iraqi occupation. The administration hides behind that fact and it is relatively futile to attempt to disprove. The sad thing is that we as a populace have been given different rationales for our invasion each time the wind blows in a new direction over there. My only disagreement would be that now that we are there a totally new geopolitical situation has emerged, which I think forces us to at least have a militarly presence in Iraq for a long time.
The idea that we HAVE to fight them over there or else we'll be fighting them here has already been disproven by some of our closest allies. England and Spain were both hit with massive terrorist attacks. One country with full and utter support for the war (Britain), and the other being so effected by the attack, right before major elections I might add, completely changed it's voting prediction from a democratic government, and voting in a Socialist government (the terrorists won that battle in Spain).
On top of that, the proven best way to combat terrorism is investigations, policing, and intelligence (just ask Isreal). Look at all the evidence we DID have in our possession before 9/11. We had an idea something would take place, just didn't put all the pieces together quick enough. Which is a problem that can be resolved through opening the path ways of communication between the NSA, CIA, and FBI, which still to this day has not been done.
The shootings at Virginia Tech University is a direct example of how we as a people in the United States are NOT safer from terrorism in the post 9/11 world. If this guy Cho wasn't just a lunatic, but a religious fanatic as well, we would be looking at our SECURITY situation in a totally different light.
I must add that it is impossible to PROVE that we have not been attacked in the United States because we have such a large presence and are fighting "the terrorists" in Iraq. The idea that the War in Iraq is the only way we're "fighting terrorism" is laughable. You understand how much money they pump into the Home Land Security Department? This money is used for investigating possible terrorist threats. How do we know that it's not the effort of the agents in the field investigating terrorist threats that's actually keeping us safe? There is no way to tell. What has been proven though, and I'll reiterate, is that the the War itself WILL NOT protect us.
Britain was the only major backer we had in this War, and they were hit really hard. After that happened, Scotland yard was able to stop another terrorist attack from taking place through investigations and good old fashion police work. What did the WAR have to do with that foiled terrorist plot? Remember the Richard Reid Shoe Bomber? How did our presence in Iraq help foil that terrorist attack. And Al Queda admitted they sent HIM!
Anyone who asserts that there is only ONE enemy, that we're fighting ONE group of individuals who are all cooridinating they're motives, agendas, and planning with each other is obviously not paying attention or researching what is actually going on or how this works. Multiple groups have hated the US for a long time. This is simply their time to SHINE
Well I disagree that staying there will help the geopolitical situation in West Asia for the same reason I dont think beating a hornets nest with a stick is the best way to calm it down.
"The Looming Tower"-- I recently heard Hugh Hewitt cite this as one of the greatest and most important books of all time. I've listened to Hugh Hewitt occasionally over a few years, and I can't recall him being right about anything yet.
"If the US pulls out now, there will be massive deaths in Iraq..."
There may be massive deaths in Iraq if we leave now. There are massive deaths in Iraq now... and we're incapable of stopping it. What is abundantly clear is that there is no military solution, only a military quagmire. We could be there another ten or fifteen years, still with no results. The only solutions are political and the Iraqis aren't going to start taking that seriously unless we hold their feet to the fire by setting deadlines. And, BTW, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the rest of the Middle East don't want to see the escalation you predict will happen if we leave. They need to step in and help start brokering political deals among the factions within Iraq too.
Does the magnitude of Bush's f*ck up by invading Iraq ever occur to you? Why should we now trust Bush's leadership by going along with his so-called plan. Bush has no clue what he's doing... and as a result our troops are dying, and will continue dying until reality prevails in our approach to extricating ourselves from Iraq.
And, please, spare us the rhetorical bullsh*t about being in favor of genocide. We could just as easily ask you if you are in favor of the endless, senseless slaughter of American troops.
It is a ridiculous notion to compare the events in Southeast Asia after our departure to what could possibly happen in the middle east. I'm not sure anyone has called for complete withdrawel, we allo know that would be disaster. As far as Vietnam is concerned, like or not they are a better country since reunification. The events in Camodia to which I assume you refer when you talk of mass killings, were an ongoing process anyway. I guess we could have escalated the war further and lost about 50,000 more lives. We would still be there fighting guerillas who did not want us there. Vietnam was able to stop the killing fields and to insinuate that what happened In Cambodia was a result of our leaving is ludicrous.
I think that was an insightful and accurate synopsis of the situation.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Give Hannity his rabies shot, and Hanretty is plain frustrated by reality. I know she can't be getting help from Hannity as he seems so repressed that seeing reality would make him explode.
I wonder how these damaged souls ever got a forum on the national stage to voice political discourse in which they reduce to distortions, rude slights, insults, and screaming!
The Fairness Doctrine would insure the Fair & Balance that the public airways deserve, not a landscape of media moguls with their fist on the message!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
What war? Invasion/occupationi/colonization. There is no war, neither has there ever been. How can you "win" an occupation when the indigenous population do not want you there? Even if you murder most of them, the remaining ones will still fight. It has never been about win or lose, but about right and wrong. We were never attacked or threatened by Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was no different from Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939. Did they "win" that one? Both were waged on the false pretext of lies. In the sense that you can never "win" an occupation nor effectivly colonize with the technology available today to the freedom fighters of any occupied country, it was "lost" well before it was even begun.
Bingo.
But just don't expect that to be a talking point on any of the "news commentary" shows. When you only have 7.5 minutes to debate the world's problems, it's more important to scrutinize Alec Baldwins phone call to his daughter than waste time with semantics.
Am I mistaken or did Hammity NOT answer the question, oh, he did by saying put aside the liberal talking points...translated "QUIT TALKING IN TRUTHS."
And for Mr. Kemp, having been a grunt in Nam, I, a lowly Spec 4 knew that the war was LOST. Are you Republicans that dumb? I always thought that name calling was just back and forth fun but I've come to believe that those that follow, without questioning, the path of our present leaders and their mouthpieces are just being DUMB...sorry, it is the kindest choice of words that I can think of.
IT IS SOOOO SAD. This "war" isn't lost, IT HAS BEEN LOST FOR YEARS. And will become Loster and more Losterest the further we take it. That isn't incorrect English, I think it was a qoute from our President.
there will be massive deaths in Iraq, just like after we left Southeast Asia.
Just like when we entered Iraq.
We are fighting terrorist in Iraq, not the Iraqi's.
Some Iraqis are terrorists. Terrorism is a technique and strategy. Iraqis are using it to fight each other in the hopes of gaining power in a country that is without an established government because we destabilized it when we invaded.
...because it is better to fight them in Iraq versus fighting them here.
Very good. You've memorized well. Now, can you answer a single, possibly stupid question? What is it that compels "terrorists" to fight our military "over there" instead of just hopping on a plane and coming over here to kill civilians if that's what they want to do anyway? It would greatly bolster your "fight them there instead of here" argument if you could just answer it. But that seems to be the one part of the "there vs here" argument that's always ignored.
Hannity: Here we're at war. Harry Reid and his friends send these guys to war.
A war sold to the American people and our Congress with lies and deception. What I see now are those deceived trying to right the wrong that has been done.
Then to perpetuate the lies; we have our military leaders feeding the American public, via the American press more lies.http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/04/army_tillman_lynch_070423w/The supporters of this war and this administration need to pull their heads out of the sand and face up to reality. They continue to enable those liars and thieves and as long as they remain in power more of our military will pay the price.
Had Enough, Vote Democrat in 2008!
Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
Surrender is not an option
They declared war on 9/11
and so on...
These are the meaningless chants I run into with Repub co-workers and acquaintances. I make the points and ask the questions that other posters naturally responded with here.
The ensuing conversation is very close to Abbott & Costello's Who's on First, with the purveyor of talking points getting angrier and angrier at being asked who "they" are.
"There's got to be a penalty for saying dumb things." - Jack Kemp
Apparently, that penalty consists of getting millions of dollars a year for a syndicated talk radio show & propaganda program on Faux News.
We should all be so penalized.
Thanks for posting this story. Have to contact Sean Hannity and thank him for doing such an outstanding job detailing liberal hypocracy. This pontificating blowhard (Reid) has degenerated to such a level he makes the kook fringe of the ultra-liberal far left wing (almost) look human. About time the moral bankruptcy of the left gets a face!
you sir have won. the most meaningless generalized phrases packed in to the fewest lines on this thread. pick up your prize at buy a brain.com.
"Have to contact Sean Hannity and thank him for doing such an outstanding job detailing liberal hypocracy."
-----
"Hypocracy" means government by syringe. You seem to favor government by Kool-Aid.
I guess it is no accident that your handle is based on someone who is sleeping with their teacher. Perhaps you will learn something via osmosis. One can hope.
No its time for the moronic, intellectually and ethically challenged rightwing to beg, borrow or steal some brain cells. Your ignorance is monumental.
Look, there is a bright side to this particular story, we now have one of the greatest quotes to ever come out of a right wing pundent:
"But there's got to be a penalty for saying dumb things"
Ah, if only that was true, morons like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and O'reilly would be off the air waves for good.
They Don't Do Truth (Corrections Made)
Did I just hear Hannity say: "Put aside your liberal talking points?" Coming from a person who has nothing to say outside of the Druge Report, Hannity's whole show and existence depends on talking points. In fact, every point coming out of the Republican play book is a talking point, and I would bet I cannot be proven wrong.
This is got to be the darkest time in Republican history. This is the time of truths, and the Republicans don't do truth. Every now and then, one of them will awake from their Parties "Pollyanna" like world long enough to put one reality in front of another one. However, any brief spell of reality or bipartisan politics will be met by their bases strong sense of control, for which they call unity.
I recall the brief period in which Graham, Warner, and McCain , all Republican Senators, had a momentary real perspective on what Bush's torture bill would do to this country's reputation. I mean brief because the very next day they were leading the charge in taking away a proud tradition of treating people fairly. A tradition the world became to expect and use as a model for others to follow.
The time is up for the bunch of them. I can smell the day when I don't have fear their senseless logic, like "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." or we will lose creditability if we don't win this thing." Now, the lies sound stupid and I hope the world will see it that way.
Joseph
You are right Tommy,
Sean Hannity is a propaganda minister for the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. If he weren’t, Hannity would never had special access to fly over to Iraq with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; exclusive interviews with Bush, Rice and other GOP mouthpieces; private invites to special events hosted by conservative Republicans, etc.
Media hacks like Hannity must kiss the behind of these powerful people in order to get the “inside scoop.” Unfortunately, those of us in the news media have to play the same game of “You scratch my back, I scratch your back.” Hannity knows the game very well.