It was déjà vu all over again, Cheney style, on the Hannity show last night as – get this – Sean Hannity and Liz Cheney theorized that Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria had been sent there by Saddam Hussein in advance of our Iraq invasion. And since that military action worked out so well, the two went on to suggest we ought to do it again in Syria. Cheney, perhaps ogling a cabinet position in a Romney presidency, went on to blow the now-familiar Romney-campaign dog whistle of characterizing President Obama as anti-American, this time for not being more bellicose.
Although we’re barely out of the last Cheney war, Liz and Hannity saw yesterday’s revelation that Syria has acknowledged having chemical or biological weapons and started lusting for the next one.
Hannity began the discussion with the suggestion that the WMD’s came from Iraq (with the obvious implication that the Bush/Cheney invasion had correctly assessed the threat after all). Hannity said, “The first question that comes to my mind: where did these stockpiles come from… I had often said publicly that I wondered, in the lead up to the Iraq war, if whether or not Saddam Hussein could have moved chemical weapons, biological weapons to Syria. Is that a fair question or is that long dispelled?”
If that was a question Hannity has truly been mulling over, then his choice of Cheney as a guest pretty much pre-guaranteed the answer he received. She assured him, “No, it’s an absolutely fair question. “ She said there’s also a question of “what happened to the Libyan weapons of mass destruction.”
Daddy Dick Cheney must be so proud of daughter Liz. She’s got all the charisma, the warmth and now the willingness to fear monger over WMD’s while suggesting the need for urgent aggressive action in the Middle East that he had. She continued,
The only thing this administration seems to be able to muster in response is words. You know, you’ve got the President issuing warnings, you’ve got our U.N. ambassador – we know, issuing more warnings, you’ve got Secretary of State issuing warnings but we seem to be doing nothing. And you now face the very real prospect that these weapons could end up in the hands of Hezbollah, could end up in the hands of Al Qaeda in a situation that really is one of our worst nightmares. So I think that it’s clearly time for more action.
But if it's true that Iraq sent WMD's to Syria before we invaded and they've been sitting there posing a dire threat since early 2003, why didn't the Bush administration do something in the nearly six years they were in office since then?
The question never seemed to occur to Chickenhawk Hannity. Yet he was all ears at the thought of a new war - or at least berating Obama for not being more hawkish. Hannity said, “Liz, I keep talking about the rise of radical Islamists around the world, in the Middle East, in northern Africa and it reminds me somewhat of the 1930’s. You couple, you know, radical ideology with weapons of mass destruction and you’ve got a prescription for a disaster.”
So what do these two exactly want to do about it? Interestingly, neither ever said. You could get the feeling that their real concern was denigrating Obama.
Hannity said, “It seems the administration – it’s not just feckless, it’s almost reckless and irresponsible at this point. They don’t seem to have a foreign policy that understands the danger. Am I overstating it? Am I understating it? How bad does this get? Worse case scenario.”
“You’re not overstating the danger at all, Sean,” Cheney said. She then used the protests against Hillary Clinton during her recent trip to Egypt as an excuse to start up the dog whistles. “It’s not unusual for an American diplomat to be greeted by protests. But she was greeted by protesters who told the news media that they were upset because they believe the United States is backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt… It’s very, very tough to understand how this administration is defending American interests at this point.”
She went back to fear mongering about WMD’s. “You’ve got a situation where the King of Jordan today, for example, warned that the Syrian regime could be now headed for a situation where Al Qaeda gets control potentially of these chemical weapons. And the adminstration’s response has been to say, ‘We’re going to pivot towards Asia.’ Once again, you know you’ve got the real potential that the Israelis might have to take action.”
Cheney added that she keeps thinking about how “thank goodness” Israel did take action against the Syrian nuclear reactor several years ago. “It shouldn’t be up to the Israelis time and time again to have to stop these very dangerous developments.”
Was Cheney suggesting we should bomb the WMD’s? Invade Syria? And if so, should we do this before or after taking action against Iran’s nuclear program?
Hannity seemed to have forgotten about Iran and how that country is so dangerous we need to start another war there, too. Instead, he sounded more enthusiastic than worried when he said, “So you’ve got the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt now in power and in Libya in power. And it might be worse in Syria at the end of the day.” He also cited problems in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Cheney said, “There was a glimmer of hope in the outcome of the Libyan elections where you had parties that weren’t as extreme as those we’ve seen, for example, in Egypt take over and at precisely this moment when the United States needs to be demonstrating a very strong presence, a very strong leadership, a very strong dedication to our allies, the administration is walking away.”
She continued, “So you can see very clearly… that the United States has lost tremendous credibility in the years that he’s been in office and his policies are making that worse.”
I tell you what, Liz, why don’t you send Daddy Dick to the Middle East instead – you know, the guy who’s so despised that Mitt Romney refused to be photographed with him – and then let’s talk about who’s really lost credibility abroad.
Feel free to tweet Cheney at @Liz_Cheney. Cowardly Hannity is now restricting his Twitter account to approved users only. But I bet he’ll see it if you address a tweet to @SeanHannity.
Let’s ask Osama bin Laden about that {you may be waiting some time for a response, though.}
âIt shouldnât be up to the Israelis time and time again to have to stop these very dangerous developments.â
Israel defeated three opponents in a one-week period in June 1967 — they’re a big boy; they can take care of themselves.
Besides, I’ve heard that the largest nuclear arsenal in the ME belongs to . . . Israel. Shouldn’t we be targeting them next?
But if it’s true that Iraq sent WMD’s to Syria before we invaded and they’ve been sitting there posing a dire threat since early 2003, why didn’t the Bush administration do something in the nearly six years they were in office since then?
He was too busy looking for Osama bin Laden. Oh wait . . .
.
Miz Liz the typical chip of the old block.
With Saddam, none of the nitwits in charge really believed there were any WMDs; it was all an excuse. IF Saddam really were sitting on a massive cache of WMDs, why would he have bothered trying to move any of them when he knew he was being threatened with invasion. It’s not like Saddam really gave a rat’s ass about “his” people; he’d already shown his willingness to sacrifice a village here and a village there for the smallest imagined slight or opposition to him. Why would he willingly just sit on his “greatest deterrent” when his country’s being invaded a SECOND time?
As for Assad, again, the man has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of his subjects via bullet and mortar shells. Why would he deliberately wait until “foreign” forces attack before using these alleged WMDs? And this little uprising has been going on for a year and a half. He’s willing to let his army run through their conventional arms but NOT make an example of a particularly uppity town and just use part of that “WMD cache” of his? Assad’s putting on a show and there are idiots (unfortunately, with too much pull for their position) who are willing to fall for it.
He is a self-serving New York street hustler out for himself, and a few close friends.
That’s the thing about Hannity… he only cares about advancing his political interests – and Fox News lets him do this kind of garbage night after night after night. In fact, he’s like the unadulterated version of Fox. You get the same thing elsewhere but it’s tempered by stabs at balance, truth and by people who are not so single-minded in their pursuit of political gain.
I used to think Hannity was the most despicable person imaginable. Until Glenn Beck showed up.
This is just as ridiculous as the final segment of the show, where Hannity had two GOP cheerleaders on, the male of whom made the heroic decision to say that President Obama treats our allies badly, and gave as his example, the long-debunked nonsense about the Churchill bust!
I have to wonder, between Hannity’s nonsense that he throws out with regularity, and O’Reilly throwing GOP talking points at Juan Williams and Alan Colmes, are we supposed to have to relitigate EVERYTHING each night? Do we have to reestablish that the sky is blue by day and dark by night if Hannity or O’Reilly has a Rasmussen push-poll that says otherwise?
There’s a great line on The Newsroom, a show that has major problems but still manages to generate good Aaron Sorkin dialogue on a good day: Not every issue has 2 sides. If some nut opines that Pres. Obama is somehow a Kenyan, that doesn’t mean we need to have a massive debate about it every night of the week. We only need to say that the nut needs some help, and move on to the real issues.