Posted on 03/10/2006 5:34:07 AM PST by soccermom
Dear Mr. Hannity,
Your cavalier attitude toward the possible removal of our troops from the UAE air base (as discussed on Thursday's show) has finally caused me to lose whatever remaining affection I had for you. It is very easy for you, sitting in your comfortable studio, to respond, “Let em”. You're not the one who has to conduct missions in the Middle East. You're not the one that needs the logistical support. Why don't you tell it to General Tommy Franks? Better yet, why don't you tell it to the men and women that are currently working with the UAE?
Yesterday's stunt by congress to revoke the contract with DPW has done absolutely nothing to make our country any safer. It was purely a political stunt. Unless congress closes down every air and sea port to imports (and foreign visitors) of any kind, there will always be a risk. Changing whomever holds the contract is nothing more than a change in window dressing and you know it. Meanwhile, as you and others are stirring up people into a frenzy over them thar A-rabs, another pale-skinned, British-accented Richard Reid will waltz right in under your nose.
Whether or not the selfish pandering of our politicians hampers our war effort remains to be seen. But, if our troops are forced to take on additional risks due to a lack of cooperation by the UAE, I will lay their blood directly at the feet of you, like-minded shock-jocks, and the spineless Republicans in congress. (I expected such tactics from the Demagoguecrats. I did not expect Republicans to put their own miserable political careers ahead of national interest.)
Furthermore, I am getting more than a little tired of your wrapping yourself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Your repeated attempts to paint yourself as a “Reagan Conservative” is nothing more than an intellectually lazy way for you to appeal to your audience. It is very easy to simply claim “I'm with him – the cool guy”, rather have to define yourself and stand on your own.
We (conservatives) all love Ronald Reagan. Who are you to invoke him as to where he would stand on your issue? My father was a fighter pilot from the time he fought in Vietnam to the time he retired in 1992. He will tell anyone who will listen about the brilliance of Ronald Reagan. He tells us he is a “World War Three” veteran and that Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. For Father's Day a few years ago, I even got him a license plate frame that reads: “World War III Veteran......Reagan Won the Cold War.” Incidentally, my father was the DO for the fighter wing that bombed Libya. I was only a teen then but, if I'm not mistaken, France was even uncooperative then, refusing to let us use their airspace. So while you're telling it to Tommy Franks and our troops in the Middle East, why don't you go ahead and tell my father how insignificant it is to have strategic allies as well?
Finally, I get a little tired of people like you holding subsequent presidents to the “Reagan Ideal” -- an illusion that Ronald Reagan himself couldn't possibly live up to. Yes, Reagan was one of our greatest presidents. Yes, he was a conservative leader. But, NO, he didn't always adhere to his conservative principles and I'm getting a little tired of you revisionists pretending he did. President Reagan, like any great leader, was a pragmatist. And he, like any great leader, occasionally had to set aside his conservative ideals for more practical purposes. Raising taxes on social security isn't a conservative ideal. I don't think Reagan wanted to do it, but he did so in order to get other concessions from congress. Growing the deficit is not a conservative ideal. I don't think Reagan wanted to do it, but he did so for the greater goal of building up our military (and he thought he was getting other concessions from congress.) I don't think a conservative like Reagan would want to ally himself with a country like Iraq, but he did so because it was the pragmatic thing to do at the time. And let's not forget Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. So please, stop holding Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to a purely conservative standard that never was.
So WWRD? I don't know what Reagan would have done in the DPW controversy. NEITHER DO YOU. I do know that Reagan wasn't concerned with what the “popular” thought was. He did what he thought was best for our nation, regardless of what the critics said. Unlike you, he was not short-sighted. He knew that the long-term benefit of defeating communism was more important than avoiding the contemporaneous scorn of his critics. And unlike the spineless Republicans in congress, he didn't ignore the best interests of the country in an attempt to save his own political rear end. And that is why his legacy stands today.
Actually, there is a lot wrong with Hannity, but that isn't the point. The reason to get "wrapped around the axle" about it is, as I noted in my opening statement, his arrogant attitude about how this will impact diplomatic relations in our war on terror. If he whips public opinion into a frenzy and that impacts our foreign policy, you bet I'm going to be upset about it. Granted, he isn't the only one, but he is one of the more high profile ones.
As for the school teacher thing, he didn't do anything but pick up a local talk show that covered it first. And David Horowitz was taking on leftist academia long before Hannity.
You need to live in the real world. "W" is putting conservatives in a pinch. We will get punched in the gut come election day because of "W"s actions or inactions. He has been tone deaf to the conservtives cause and allowed hay to be made by the liberals because of his deafness.
A short list: spending, immigration, DPW, Supreme Court nominee (Harriett Meirs), education bill, friendship with Bill Clinton, criticism of the South Dakota abortion bill.....
Here in NYC Levin follows Hannity for the next two hours Levin is going nation wide now!
http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=12009
Got broadband?
www.ktkz.com streams the show everyday from 3 to 6 eastern.
"President Reagan would have never found himself in such a position as "W" has allowed himself to be placed." Uhhhhh--- may I refer you to post #60?
The UAE is an emirate that is governed by a family. Your concerns about management would apply to any foreign owned terminal operation.
As for the GOP, it is (was) not media bias that had W's support level plunging. It was the fleeing of millions of mainstream Republicans over this deal, most of whom support and welcome foreign investment but don't want Arab governments to be in bed with the US Coast Guard, etc
I guess we don't want Arab governments allied with us in the GWOT? How do you propose getting the assistance or intel in the region to go after these terror networks. How many American military guys speak Arab?
Great comments. I, too,have turned off Hannity
I listen to CBS news rather then listen to him. At least I know what the libs are thinking, so I can come up with intellegent responses.........( he is on while i drive home, i do not listen to or watch andy MSM news at home )
The UAE has purchased billions of dollars worth of aircraft from Boeing. Those Arabs could use take those planes to attack our cities. Do you want to scuttle that deal too?
Hey, Rush moved to Palm Beach, for gosh sakes, not Topeka, Kansas. Florida may be a marginally Red/Pink state, but he's in one of the Bluest areas of that state. For the record, I never thought that Rush was unduly influenced by the Left, even when he lived in New York and the Harry Thomason(sp?)/pro-Clinton crowd were trying to schmooze him.
"Why do you think that your opinion is so contrary to the vast majority of the American people or with grass roots Republicans?" Because the vast majority of Americans are under the impression that the UAE would "control" the port or was "in charge of security" of the ports. Both those notions are false. Some poor misinformed woman called into Hannity's show yesterday and said she couldn't understand why we had to contract out to foreigners for our security. Not once did Hannity take the time to correct her and let her know that wasn't the case. The vast majority of Americans have heard the talking points that the UAE "funded 9/11", which is a lie. The vast majority of Americans were told 2 of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE. What they weren't told is that the UAE detained one of those men and it was the U.S. that let him go. You get my point -- their opinion was formulated on misinformation and people like Hannity, who should know better, allowed the misinformation to persist.
Way to go soccermom. I wish we could all sign it and send it!!
Sean will probably be changing the subject pretty quickly now. Coward.
go right ahead -- and thanks
Spending: Not doing enough to cut spending, I agree but this is not causing this mass Rebellion in the Republican party and among independent leaning Republicans.
Mass immigration: Same as above.
DPW: This emotional mass hysteria will be forgotten in few weeks.
Supreme Court nominee (Harriett Meirs): Very old news and President Bush gave us two very solid conservative to the Supreme Court something no other Republican President (including Reagan) has done
education bill: Very old news and has absolutely zero effect in elections.
friendship with Bill Clinton: I do not think he is a “friend” with Bill but rather a courteous person and that the nature of the man. Again I do not see mass rebellion about this insignificant issue.
criticism of the South Dakota abortion bill: You mean the bill that does not take in consideration rape and incest. I agree with him on this and so vast majority of Republicans and Republican leaning independents.
PS: If you want to make a distinction between Republicans and Conservatives and you think that the Republican Party is not representative of conservatives, go ahead make you own party and get 1% of the votes.
I'm sympathetic with your anger but Hannity carried a whole lot of water for the Swiftboat campaign in 2004.
I would be reluctant to toss out the baby with the bathwater.
All this really shows how little the public appreciates nuance in foreign policy and how weak as usual politicians are to exploitation.
We atill are not on a war footing though we sure should be.
Would the public and Congress have stalled FDR's pragmatic relationship with Uncle Joe the same way?
These are the same folks who whined and moaned about our pragmatic decisions to get along with Pinochet, Strossner and Somoza in the face of a Guevara style communist domino in Latin America.
the UAE was hardly perfect but Bush was in a tit for tat hotseat no doubt and it crumbled.
I'm 48....they always become lame ducks. Better get the big stuff done first term. Though Bush has done well with SCOTUS appointments.....real well looks like.
Uh but the point stands that he grew up in an English culture household and still became the shoebomber, such as john walker lindh grew up in liberal Marin county, California(barbara boxer's home base) and was training with the taliban.
Dittos! I don't know what he was thinking with that comment. Were I Ollie North, Tommy Franks, Rummy or the WH, I would take him of my interview list in a minute...
With all due respect, I think this letter is awful. It's awful because you knew it would elicit the kinds of bile against Sean that's become all too common. You leave it salient points, including the fact that Sean worked overtime traveling to a number of states to get this president reelected. I don't know that anyone here did anything close to what he did, day after day. He is an extremely bright guy who's personally attacked repeatedly because he happens to take a different view. He is at all times respectful to the president, even when he disagrees. And yet time and again, the vicious personal attacks are hurled at him by people who claim not to listen to him, yet obviously do each and every day. Sean is attacked here more than Al Franken, Moveon.org, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and the real enemies of our society. It's almost an obsession. No, not bravo from me, a long-time and proud Freeper who doesn't take a back-seat to anyone around here. Differences on the UAE run deep, and the president any many here are in a small minority of 20% who supported it. And while you might disagree with those who opposed the deal, a thread like this is truly embarrassing, or at least should. I realize some of you will now attack me. I don't much care, because most Freepers here are my good friends. But I know it's easy to remain anonomous while slinging arrows. Now and then, put yourself in the other guy's shoes. You certainly don't have to like him or agree with him, but the poison here is awful. (Excuse any typos in advance as I have to move along. Thank you for your indulgence.)
Uh no one is criticizing him for taking a different view, the criticism is based on his calling those who take a different view than his "kool-aid" drinkers.
Hey you can drink hannity's "kool-aid" all you want, especially his blue dress interview with howard stern.
Now get off this thread you big dope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.