Hannity: Is the world better off with or without….
Published by Mike Stark March 23rd, 2006 in Sean HannityEarlier in the show, he was discussing the Christains that were rescued today. More to the point, he was questioning whether or not coalition forces should expend resources to rescue people that were going to be ungrateful and didn’t appreciate the mission.
Ha. For a second there, I thought he was talking about the Iraqi people.
So I called him. You’ll notice the quality of debate I got. Instead of discussing the poll that showed Iraqi’s don’t appreciate our presence, he denied that it exists… suggested that purple fingers were indicative of coalition appreciation. What a maroon!
Also, earlier in the show, he was singing the praises of Joe Lieberman again… During the part of the call in which he begins to lecture me about “most democrats” I was screaming into the phone that he must be talking about “his butt-sucker, Joe Lieberman”.
He obviously didn’t let it out on the air.
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Once again Hannity asks his inane question “Would you rather Saddam Hussein stayed in power?”
Just hit him back: “So Sean, are you glad that the World Trade Center got destroyed so the US could be made a safer place with a post 9/11 mind set?” “What, you’d rather Saddam stay in power and 3k US citizens live?” “I see, 3k dead US citizens bad for safer world, 30k Iraqi citizens good for safer world”
You get the idea. I’m really gonna try to use this line on him tomorrow. He’s a chicken hawk. He knows nothing of true sacrifice.
PS: A poll question you’ll never see posted on wingnut websites - “Have YOU done enough to support the war on terror?”
Maybe a better response is to ask if we should invade every country with a dictator in place…”Sean, since the end justifies the means, do you think the world would be better if we attack Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il and Muammar Al-Qaddafi?”
Or maybe…”It’s obvious how much better off the Iraqi’s are now, so when do you think we should liberate the people of Iran, Libya and North Korea?”
Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein in power?
Sean loooooves this question. He barks it all the time, demanding “YES OR NO!”
By absurdly stripping out any context or consequences, he hopes to force you to “agree” with him.
Would the world be better off with a magic pony? Yes? Wrong, the magic pony is evil and strapped with IEDs. No? Wrong, the magic pony saves Christmas and liberates the world.
So back to the original question: What if the Chinese had removed Saddam from power with nuclear weapons, setting off WWIII? Would the world be better off? Would you rather Saddam still be in power?
Why are individual graves such a big improvement over the mass kind?
Isn’t it funny how so many other wingnuts fall back on that same “yes or no” question when everything else they’ve said has fallen apart under closer scrutiny? It’s like it’s the Holy Grail or something…
But if you REALLY wanna see their heads explode, point out to them that Saddam was the Repugs’ pet dictator back in the day, and had he not invaded Kuwait (and annexed all that oil!), he’d be their boy still.
When confronted with that question is just say “No.”
No, the world is not better off with Saddam out of power.
No, the US is not safer with Saddam out of power.
Iraq is way worse off, even than it was with Saddam in power.
The plain answer is NO. It’s that easy. It’s not nuanced.
Just say No.