Obama-hating Lt. Col. Ralph Peters joined Obama-hating Sean Hannity for a “fair and balanced” discussion to exploit the ISIS terrorism threat as a vehicle for making their viewers hate Obama even more.
Neither Hannity nor Peters were interested in discussing ISIS all that much; they were too busy focusing on finding new ways to hate on Obama.
For example, although the graphic on the lower third of the screen blared: “ISIS TERROR THREAT,” Hannity set the tone with his first question to Peters:
I want to ask because you and I have talked a lot about the disconnect with the administration and the vacations and the lack of urgency that I think is needed in this moment in time. (Secretary of State) John Kerry said, “The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion,” and then simultaneously said, “Scripture commands the U.S. to protect Muslim countries against global warming.” My question to you is, are they not getting how dangerous this threat is? There are some that liken this to 1938. Would you liken this to 1938, the rise of radical Islam?
Peters said he’d liken this to “somewhere in the 1930s” but he didn’t waste time on the details of Hitler. No, Peters got right to smearing Kerry: “John Kerry doesn’t know anything about any religion. He’s a member of this poxy elite that doesn’t take religion seriously.”
But Peters was just getting started with his smears.
Let’s see, Bush had a coalition of the willing. Let’s see if Obama has a coalition of the chilling. Because I will tell you he is not going to get our allies to step up in the way George Bush did. He’s not going to get neutral states and others in the Middle East to step up. Why? Because they cannot trust Obama. He screwed over the Eastern Europeans on missile defense to get a crappy arms deal with Putin. He’s bailed on our allies in Iraq. He’s run NATO all over the map in Afghanistan. He’s drawn red line after red line and never lived up to any of it. He won’t call an invasion of Ukraine an invasion. He won’t call a war a war. He won’t call Islamist terrorists Islamist terrorists. This president is a terrified little man in a great big job he can’t do.
Hannity was oh-so-sincere as he announced, “You know, I’ve always had the greatest respect for people like yourself that have served our country (well, except for those who served whose opinions he doesn’t like, such as John Kerry or John Murtha or Markos Moulitsas). And if I’m looking at us giving up all of our gains in Iraq, I don’t know if I can in good conscience recommend that any American sign up for the military under this leadership.”
Watch the video from the September 4th Hannity show below and check out how Obama is made out to be the real villain in the Middle East.
You cite the right wing American Center for Security Policy – an anti-Muslim group that regularly gets called out for its bias and inaccurate statements. Your account of Gaddafi’s attempt to hang on to power leaves out several important details and conflates others. First, the whole thing was disputed as to whether it had even happened. The real reporting on it was done by al Jazeera, something you would have known had you actually been in the area. Further reporting was done by Asharq al-Awsat in London and al-Bayan in the UAE, all citing unnamed sources on the rebels’ interim council in Libya. Reuters did a report that said that Gaddafi was saying privately he would step down if he was paid a sum of money to leave.
Obviously, this was all rejected by the rebels, who didn’t want Gaddafi to have what they thought of as an “honourable exit” and they sure didn’t want him to leave with a large sum of the country’s money. Again, it’s disputed as to whether it in fact happened – it sounds like a trial balloon was floated and then popped. And from all these accounts, there is no indication that President Obama or his people were personally involved. This was an internal Libyan matter. Interesting that your only source is a right wing website that regularly attacks President Obama in ludicrous ways, depending on what’s upsetting Frank Gaffney that day.
As for Assad, your idea there comes from a 2013 Facebook post by Ahmad Ramadan. What makes this interesting is that Ynet reported in 2012 that the US wanted Assad to step down but Russia was saying that he did not need to do so. Your stated opinion here leaves out the Russian middleman in this entire situation, and attempts to ascribe something that nobody else is alleging that isn’t on the far right wing.
These are complicated international issues, as you would know were you actually on the ground in Libya, Syria or even Egypt. From what you’ve been presenting here, we must conclude that you are not actually in the Middle East, or are so biased by your own dislike of this president that you cannot objectively perceive the events happening around you. I strongly recommend that you take some time to actually read up on these events and try to learn a little more about them before making strident condemnations that make little sense when seen in the light of day.
Qadaffi asked for no sanctions on him and his family, and the right to continue fighting AQIM, which would have been by finding since he would be in exile. He had a place to go and a country to accept him. The deal was negotiated by the US and Libyan military, and there was even a truce and ceasefire where all of the forces were pulled back. Obama refused.
Assad asked for speedy elections to ease the transition of power, and that he would not be tried in the ICC. He too had a country to accept him and a place to go. Obama again refused.
Neither of the conditions asked for by Qaddafi and Assad were outrageous or unreasonable. If accepted Libya would be in a different condition than they are now, and so would Syria. A lot of lives would be saved. This action to refuse the white flag waived by Qaddafi, constitutes an illegal action of war on the part of Obama.
I have no idea who you are, or what your background is to declare something patently false, however I am an American who lives in Egypt, speaking Arabic, French and of course English, and I lived here for both Egyptian revolutions, as well as the Libyan and Syrian revolutions, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Since the 1st Egyptian revolution, the media is totally free, and we get different news over here.
If you are relying on only US and English sources for news, that is your first problem. 2nd problem is where do you have your feet on the ground with first hand knowledge? 3rd problem, what are you willing to believe and not believe? Would you know the truth if you heard it? Are you open to the truth, or only that which confirms what you already believe and what you want to believe?
;^)
Beheadings of Christians (some of which are Americans) under Obama: “That squirrely little commie bitch is masterminding this- We need to impeach him, and get a Conservative in there!”
See the difference? And here’s your free space- How many of these beheadings got covered by Fox News without becoming top stories everywhere else first when Dubya was in?!
First, we begin with the cozy business relationship between Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and News Corp Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch. The prince is the second largest shareholder at News Corporation. Ruthless turns a blind eye on what’s happening in Saudi Arabia. Apparently, beheadings and the mistreatment of Saudi women gets a pass in his book.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8841452/Top-ten-News-Corp-voting-shareholders.html
To really combat terror, end support for Saudi Arabia (You won’t hear it from Ralphy or the Fox “News” mouthpieces)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism
Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists (If you are an atheists keep away)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html
WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists (We save the best for last)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding
Call local and national radio talk shows and discuss these gems. Include the Wikileaks article.
Photo Op Hannocchio would not be interested in these topics. He was on a date with his pal, Duckman Willie at the U.S. Open tennis championships, and struck up a conversation with a young, professional female musician at the game. She actually sang a song to him! Yeah, we know it was Lauren. People talk.
— signed, Ralph Peters
“We agree.”
— signed, Osama bin Laden, Mummar Khaddafi, and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad
Hannity was oh-so-sincere as he announced, “You know, I’ve always had the greatest respect for people like yourself that have served our country (well, except for those who served whose opinions he doesn’t like, such as John Kerry or John Murtha or Markos Moulitsas).
" . . . especially since I’m too much of a chickens—t chickenhawk to ever serve myself."
And if I’m looking at us giving up all of our gains in Iraq, I don’t know if I can in good conscience recommend that any American sign up for the military under this leadership.”
Wow, Seannie Poo — that sure is a contrast from your belief during the Dumbya misAdministration, when anyone who criticized the war, or Dumbya himself, was considered “unpatriotic”:
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/03/hannity_denies_calling_bush_critics_unpatriotic.php
Then again, Bush was a white republican. IOKIYAR
.
Oh, wait. That would only be the case when the President is a White Republicon being insulted by Democratic-leaning military personnel. When it’s a Democrat (especially a Black one) being insulted, then no problem.
