fun w/hannity
Published by Mike Stark May 10th, 2006 in Sean HannityThis was just an all-round fun call to make.
Hannity has three musical acts lined up for his Freedom Concert coming up this Fourth of July. He was hinting at who they were by playing short clips of their music today (I guess it makes wingnuts feel really, really, extra-smart when they figure out silly puzzles designed for children… Who knew??)
Anyway, I pretended to guess at their identities: Neil Young and Pearl Jam… If I had been quicker on my feet, I might’ve guessed the third to be the Dixie Chicks or Harry Belafonte, but that’ll hafta wait till next time I guess…
Anyway - It was just about three years ago that Rummy said that the insurency was a bunch of “dead-enders”. Two years ago, Bush ran for re-election caliming we had “turned the corner”. Last year, Cheney said the insurgency was in its “last throes”.
How much longer will Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly believe these guys?
As I told Hannity, “I’d rather slam my junk in a car door than serve under” this leadership.
15 Responses to “fun w/hannity”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
you’re wrong. i’m right. i can’t make you think i’m right. so there. nah nah nah boo boo. stick your head in doo doo.
Also at the freedom concert BLACK EYED PEAS!
What you gonna do Mike with that Junk - with all that junk slammed in Sean’s trunk
I’m a-thinking ur gonna get Sean drunk - then beat down that right wing punk
Junk in the car door.
That sums up listening to Rush. SLAM, SLAM, SLAM.
Mike,
What is your secret? I try calling hannity (so I can have a little fun with him), but I can never get through! How are you able to get through every day?
I would have liked to have heard what Hannity had to say after he muted your phone. Why are his follow up comments about you cut short on the tape? (I’m sure they were predictable “He hates America and wants it to fail” tripe, but it’s entertaining to hear this desperation)
You did well with the question and exposing the preposterous statements of the artchitechts of this debacle in the desert, and really, when the smoke clears, its the idiotic statements of the neocons that do them in, including their cheerleaders like Hannity.
the only way to defeat the insurgency is if the entire sunni population were to die. thats the military goal we’re working towards. that or make the sunnis come to terms with the shia majority, but ethnic death squads (on both sides) and etc make me pessimistic.
Nice work Mike , keep it up . have you seen the dvd ” the yes men ” ? its for rent in some stores and at the yes men site also . take a look .
kln;klnsca May 12th, 2006 at 2:53 am
Nope the military has no interest in ethnic cleansing. The goal is already achieved. The goal is to control the Iraq resources. No matter who’s in government or who’s fighting who, the resources are the in the hands of the US government and their businesses. civil war is good for that reason cause it keeps them from killing military. as far as ethnic cleansing is conserned. it doesn’t matter who. their is no difference in the US eyes as long as the resources are controlled. Ex. remember that the same admininistration was in bed with saddam himself AND the taliban. they are also in bed with saudi arabia. the only difference between then and now is who serves the US interest.
odanny wrote “I would have liked to have heard what Hannity had to say after he muted your phone. Why are his follow up comments about you cut short on the tape? (I’m sure they were predictable “He hates America and wants it to fail” tripe, but it’s entertaining to hear this desperation)”
I heard the call on the radio. After what is on Mike’s tape here, Sean went on his normal rant, saying things that I know Mike could have refuted. Of course, Sean had already taken Mike off the air, so he couldn’t respond. If Sean had the courage of his convictions, perhaps he could take Mike up on his offer, and allow him to be on the show on a regular basis, and on a more equal footing.
Didn’t think so.
john x, you may be right. i was taking them at their word, and particularly i was thinking about cheney saying the insurgency is in its last throes. seeing as there’s not very many foreign fighters in iraq, when they say “insurgent” they mean sunni, when they say “iraqi” (as in “iraqi military” or “iraqi police”) they mean shiite. these factions already have a lot of tensions, they dont need us arming and training, and sometimes leading, the dominant faction. this is what they say the military strategy is, though it may not be their motivation. creating chaos for massive theft and corruption may be the real motivation.
I think having an ongoing insurgency is key to US plans to install a puppet government over in Iraq. The new illegitimate government will depend on US arms and resources to put down the Sunnis (insurgency) and we’ll have all the more influence because of it.
All we need it a military junta that depends on a fresh flow of arms in exchange for a fresh flow of oil - the political milestones are meaningless talking points for Sean Hannity types.
I don’t think genocide is the plan, or desireable. We just want a low intensity prolonged conflict where we can support some military.
Being able to support a military vs a long term insurgency is the mechanism by which we will control Iraq’s resources.
So, far from wanting the insurgency to be in its “last throes” or wanting the insurgency to end through some final solution genocide, we want a contained single state civil war and an arab army facade in charge of the resources that we can support.
Of course we expected an insurgency - we just didn’t think that with all our weapons we couldn’t create an army before election day. That’s why the Foreign Affairs journals are so consumed with whether we should have kept the old army instead of disbanding them.
darth zinn May 12th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
well, my point was that insuregency or stable government is irrelevant as long as we have control of the resources. Saudi has a stable government (regime) and we do business with them. Afganistan didn’t and we did business with them too. It’s not actually untill we lost our position on the resources that we attacked them. That’s actually the case throughout the 20th century. Do some research on Cuba and you will find that no one really cared about the Cuban revolution in the US government. The US was perfectly fine with Castro. It was only when castro took possession of the US controlled sugar plant that they finally broke ties. The same is happening with Venezuela (only Chavez is moving very slowly and carefully to protect interests).
In conclusion, I don’t know if the insurgency is a planned thing. I suspect it wasn’t. I beleive they thought it was going to be just like afghanistan. go in install govt that is friendly to your agenda and game over. but aside from the side effects of negative publicity and potential political conflicts at home iraq civil war works well too. as long as whoever wins still is friendly to american agenda. thus no loss in resource control.
P.S. I wonder if Sudan has no resources cause we don’t seem to be doing crap over there.
Remember Thomas Friedman during Gulf 1 when he said that what we need in Iraq is a new iron fisted military junta to replace Saddam. That’s the mechanism for our control in so many areas over there where there’s domestic strife: Pakistan and Israel (the tail does NOT wag the dog regarding us/israel).
Iraq won’t represent the Shiites in any real sense but their military government will declare martial law against Sunni terrorists indefinitely and they’ll need our weapons and that will be our leverage.
Cuba is different because it’s so close to home. I just saw a movie on Haiti at Boston’s Museum of Fine Art and it suggested that all our interference is about Disney and Walmart sweatshops being opposed to Aristide’s $1/hr minimum wage proposals…but I suggest that like Cuba it has more to do with nationalism/socialism taking place in our own back yard. Why do poor people always vote like that?
“P.S. I wonder if Sudan has no resources cause we don’t seem to be doing crap over there.”
Has the root causes of indifference and profits of resources over the sanctity of life ever been more exposed in such an ugly fashion, laid bare for the world to see?
Man, Hannity seems to think that only praise is allowed, that only good news should be reported, and then you got the Rush Limbaughs who call the Abu Ghraib a “college prank”, this is a disgusting side of America that the majority is sickened by. Sean Hannity and these defenders of all things Bush are Radio show prostitutes in the Jeff Gannon fashion. They simply regurgitate the same spin with a slightly new twist, this time he was adding a “freedom concert”, Oh boy, do all the wounded from Walter Reed get front row seats?
Bet they’d be more happy having their arms and legs back.