From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 04:12:44 MST
gts wrote:
"And then there's Sean Hannity of FOX. He takes the prize for the most
offensive."
Perhaps he takes the prize for being most offensive to you. I don't think any
fair-minded observer would characterize Mr. Hannity as anything less than an
unapologetic conservative. However, he has yet to do anything as nauseating
as a "human interest" interview with Saddam Hussein, so he is most certainly
not the most offensive journalist to me, or I'm sure a number of other
members.
"A few weeks ago, Hannity interviewed a liberal who made what I thought was a
very good point: she argued that Bush had only aggravated the situation with
N. Korea by labeling that country as part of his "Axis of Evil." In her
view, the word "Evil," especially when capitalized, has religious
connotations and should not be used by high-level government officials in
international affairs. I'm not a liberal but I agreed completely with her
point."
Aside from the issue of whether or not "Evil" should be used by high-level
government officials, I would ask in what sense you seriously believe Bush
"aggravated" the situation in North Korea. Bush's use of that terminology did
not suddenly made Kim Jong Il desire to possess nuclear weapons. He in no way
motivated Kim Jong Il and communist North Korea to suddenly desire to conquer
the Democratic South. He in no way made Kim Jong Il's regime any more brutal
and tyrannical. So, really, how did Bush's labeling of Kim Jong Il's regime
as a bad one make it any more bad, "evil", or any more horrible than it
already was? Unless you are seriously going to attempt to argue that by
calling a spade a spade, Bush has somehow absolved Kim's regime of all
responsibility for its subsequent crimes against humanity, since after all,
Bush "aggravated" the situation?
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 04:20:20 MST