Posted on 02/17/2006 5:58:25 PM PST by Sic Luceat Lux
At approximately 4:05 pm EST today, Sean Hannity's screener allowed me to be the second caller to pose a question to Sean Hannity on air.
When I heard my name and city announced and Sean said hello, I said good afternoon and stated "Sean, this will be the toughest question you've ever had to answer" and Sean said "have at it."
[my question follows]
"Sean, over the past many years, I've not heard you once, not one time - direct your listeners to go to our U. S. Congressional Record for the date of June 23, 1999. This date is the date of U S Senator Inhofe's Chinagate speech. Why haven't you been directing folks to this all-important Chinagate speech?"
Hannity replied -and I don't remember his exact response, but it was something like- "Well, I don't remember if I have or have not mentioned this over the past years...and I don't know why we have not followed up on this subject."
As Senator Inhofe pointed out in this 2nd Chinagate speech -...all of our nuclear secrets are gone and to quote from Inhofe's speech:
"Next, we move to the other eight major technology breaches revealed in the Cox Report. All of these were not only discovered during the Clinton administration, they also happened during the Clinton administration."
* * *
As soon as I finished my question I heard the click that ended my call and ended any further comments by me on this very important Chinagate topic. I was hoping to conclude my call by asking Sean if he would start mentioning -during his radio program- that folks should read this Inhofe Chinagate speech and Sean could simply say for folks to go to our U. S. Congressional Record for the date of June 23, 1999. - - I got the feeling that Hannity didn't want to really discuss Chinagate. Seems like no one does? (and with Hillary possibly being the Democrat candidate in '08, is or isn't her and Bill's Clinton's Chinagate treason -a topic which needs to be brought back to the table? - I think so.)
fyi
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142229/posts
How Chinagate Led to 9/11 By Jean Pearce FrontPageMagazine.com | May 25, 2004
As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick, who has browbeaten the current administration, helped erect the walls between the FBI, CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been little underreported is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the Chinese funding of Clinton’s re-election campaign, and the favors he bestowed on them in return.
/snip
Well, congratz on getting through. But your whole Question basically comes down to "I want to talk about something that happened 7 years ago!'
Nice try
Welcome to Free Republic...I looked at your home page...it seems you are a one topic person...
Are you Sen. Inhofe by any chance???
Alamo-Girl, may I ask you please, do you have any clue as to why none of our conservative radio talk show hosts never mention Chinagate? And with Hillary possibly making a run in '08, (and if she wins - another White House over-flowing again ---with Communist Chinese agents) why isn't Chinagate the topic of everyday discussion?
I heard your question...your sin was making cubby try to think.
I take it you'd rather have the general public at large -remain ignorant of this very devastating Chinagate speech? (and btw, as I stated above, with Hillary possibly running in '08, that means another White House over-flowing with Communist Chinese agents-you prefer the American voter not to know about the Clinton's Chinagate treason, is this correct Northeast?)
this is off topic but....
can we please stop putting -'gate' at the end of every story involving wrongdoing?
You've never listened to Jim Quinn I take it?
Probably fear of the Clintons kept Sean from discussing Chinagate. Remember when he did that interview with the author of the book that revealed all about Hillary. He very promptly backed away from that issue as did the rest of the media.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141698/posts
How Chinagate Led to 9/11
It’s a story the 9/11 Commission may not want to hear, and one that Gorelick – now incredibly a member of that commission – has so far refused to tell. But it is perhaps the most crucial one to understanding the intentional breakdown of intelligence that led to the September 11 disaster.
Well, congratz on getting through. But your whole Question basically comes down to "I want to talk about something that happened 7 years ago!'
unless i'm reading you wrong, 7 years ago involves clinton, there are a lot of unanswered questions that are starting to surface with his &(her presidency) that need serious answers... and soon...
bttt
I heard your call today and found it sad that Sean, in his usual "I can only speak the phrases that have been programmed in me and they yank my cord" way, he avoided it completely. You threw him off man! haha I also found it very similiar to when he claims a statement a caller has as if it were his own. For instance, he will have Ann Coulter, or Michael Reagan on with a "big lib" (I can't stand to hear him do that childish crap) and they will comment on something and then he will declare it to the 'big lib', as if he researched it and has something on them.
God, I gotta get off this thread. I don't know why I listen. I guess it's to get SOME conservative information, and the only other alternative in Atlanta on the way home is the Kimmer. Of course that Denny Schafer guy in the morning isn't much better.
Exactly and all the more reason for more Americans to at least -at the very least- be directed to the speech and read it.
>>>can we please stop putting -'gate' at the end of every story involving wrongdoing?>>>
Amen and amen. I keep waiting to hear about "Hunting-gate" anyday now.
Dude, when a radio guy says "WE" he means HIMSELF.
It is an old radio affectation to say we all the time when he really means himself. Because, in most of radio, a discjockey is not speaking by himself, but representing the radio station. It is an OLD and annoying radioism.
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.