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.
Wow......I have listened to Hannity and watched his show for a long time....then I came to FR a couple of years ago and got a different perspective of things...I still think he is a nice guy and does nice things for our troops and knows how to rally the people....but I sometime think I am more informed with the details that he is.
Believe what you will but congress wouldn't have voted against something that was getting major support.
President Reagan would have never found himself in such a position as "W" has allowed himself to be placed.
Reagan was fully for the security of the United States. You seem to imagine he would have allowed such a porpostion, fraught with uncertainity and possible danger to have to moved forward, all in name of buying the good wishes of another nation.
Imagine under Reagan's administration a port in Long Beach, California being managed by a chinese communist company. Such an idea was unthinkable. However, a president who followed him found it an atrractive idea, though it wasn't successfully done until an money grasping embarassment like Clinton was in office.
The prime house organ carrying water for the White House on the DWP deal has been Rush Limbaugh. For three weeks he has been supporting Dubai in its attempt to extort the United States into accepting the deal.He has been playing the elitist schooling a room full of fools on their faullty ways.
He has been paying knee jerk obeisance to free trade without understanding that the American voters are often times combat vets, and their family members, who have seen the eyes of our enemies in the heat of battle. Unlike Rush we understand the absolute need for uncompromised security ahead of the notion of business as king.
The elites who are lamenting the failure of the port deal offer up various measures of retailation that Dubai may engage in over the situation. If Dubai does retaliate it is a good measure of just how unfriendly they are toward the United States.
President Bush in his bumbling manner is paving the way for Democrat gains in 06&08.
For reference; I am a Limbaugh listener though he has been acting like a spoiled baby for the past three weeks since it appears he wasn't able to sway the conservative base to support "W". Over this period of time I have frequently turned the off knob; Am not a Hannity listenter.
I won't listen to Hannity either. Mine was when he pulled that stunt on April Fool's Day trashing Pres Bush and I always thought he enjoyed every minute of it even it turned out to be a joke.
So basically your speculation is right and mine is wrong.
aint never gonna happen (not in the next 10 years anyway) as affirmed by the UAE officials yesterday in a statement saying they were pulling out of the deal so as to retain their good relations with the US.
If you want to hold fast to hysterics, so be it.
But the UAE has 100 times more reason to cozy up to the US (military) than they do to cut and run. They know it and have so stated.
So please calm down and do your blood pressure some good.
I support the ports deal but think the President and the administration bungled it big time with their incessant communication problems.
No radio host did more for the President than Hannity during the election. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.
Reasonable people could disagree about the now-defunct Dubai deal. But reasonable (and well informed) people also know that Dubai is strategically extremely important to our men on the ground NOW --and to our ability to stop a nuclear Iran.
It is foolish to add insult to injury to Dubai.
the troops in the field are no more at risk today than yesterday, so please stop the hyperbole.
The UAE has already said it wants to maintain a good relationship with the US.
I hear Air America is in need of listeners.
Hurrah! Sean Hannity is so over and his attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of Reagan are pitifully transparent. He thinks that he is more in tune with national security matters than Tommy Franks and Peter Pace? He can take his frickin' Ruth's Chris Steakhouse gift certificates and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.
Yes, that is annoying. He constructs everything to where the person agrees with him. Such as interviewing someone, they make a point and then he will turn to the third party and repeat the same thing the other person did and act like it was his big revelation.
Apples and oranges. Complete control of the entrance to the Panama Canal is not the same as leasing some terminals at ports.
Bush bash 24/7.
I nominate you for the "Mr. FR member of the month!" (There he is... Mr Free Rep......music)
You do sound good! :)
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.