Does this mean that Hannity knows for sure that the elections are rigged again? Or is he merely afraid that the Democrats are going to crush Republicans in a fair election?
For sure, Hannity does not like Democrats or liberals. He has even said that "there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker." Hannity has claimed that Democrats winning Congress could be a "victory for the terrorists." Hannity has even compared voting for Hillary Clinton to voting for Hamas and Hezbollah.
No wonder fair and balanced Hannity narrated the welcome video for delegates to the 2004 Republican National Convention. Nor was it a shock on his program when he said "Can we pray for the re-election of George Bush?" No surprise that concerning upcoming elections Hannity is openly saying: "I want to talk to you Republicans out there, both candidates and voters."
But Hannity is far smarter than the rest of us, especially Democrats and liberals. Our Democratic "candidates have absolutely no ideas how to win the war on terrorism." As to President Bush, Hannity has said "Let me be straight with you - I like George Bush. I think he's a man of principle, a man of faith. I think he's got a backbone of steel and he's a real, genuine, big-time leader ... He's a consequential figure for his time. We don't see it right now." Whereas Democrats only "espouse . . . ways to undermine the troops in harm's way and undermine their commander in chief while they're at war." All Democrats are doing is "abandoning our troops on the battlefield or closing [their] eyes to enemy communications or listening to enemy communications in our country . . ."
With such views, imagine what Hannity would express about somebody who said:
"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
"A couple of things that are in my mind. Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reasons why we need to be involved militarily. . . . is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?"
"So it seems that we're talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy's going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission or objective."
"But if you know - every mistake we've made up to this point, there's no stated goal. There's no definition of success. All these important things. There's no exit strategy. One mistake after another. Why would you go in deeper when we have not been successful up to this point? That seems to me to be folly."
"But what are we doing there? And if we don't know what's next, we have no business being there!"
"We've hurt the people we thought we were going to help."
"What is our stated goal, our mission, our objective? How do we get out of here?"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
