Forced back to a second viewing, I concede that there was a bit more substance to the second half of the interview than I initially gave credit. So I'll fall back to the position of most others here: that the initial attack on the guy, the commentators' 'digestion,' while possibly warranted given the full story, certainly distracted from the viewers' ability to get that full story and digest the position for themselves. It obviously distracted me from evaluating the guy in one viewing of the segment. With a position so out there, Hannity would have made his point much better with more examination along the lines of Combs' interview than merely slinging insults out of the gate.

Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics

RSS


RE: Hannity is a Cobra spy
I see what you're saying, but it's not entirely true. In Hannity's intro, he says something along the lines of, "Regardless of your political stance, you probably agree that troops deserve some sort of support. There is a man with a web site who thinks soldiers are overpaid, thinks wounded soldiers are leeches, and celebrates when soldiers are wounded and killed." He then reads a series of quotes from the site and asks Crook if those are his words.
If you couldn't figure out what Crook was "about" at that point, then I'm not sure what else would have helped. It'd be like Hannity saying, "so you believe that chickens are our overlords, correct?" Do you really need to hear the guy say anything other than "yes" to know he's not the most rational fellow?
I agree that Hannity went overboard on the offensive, but he did give the who, what, when, where, and how. The "why" was the only thing cut short, but even that was apparent by the end: money and poor decisions. I'm curious as to what you gained from the website that wasn't obvious in the interview.
View Full Discussion