Chickenhawk Sean Hannity was full of bullyboy petulance last night over President Obama’s holiday message to Iran urging a peaceful resolution to our conflict with them. But three cheers for Democrat Nancy Soderberg who did a great job in a “fair and balanced” debate of three against one.
After a series of gotcha questions (which she nicely called out), Hannity asked Soderberg, “Why should we not wait until they (Iran) ...denounce and renounce their terror ties and being a state sponsor of terror before, as a pre-condition to any negotiations. Wouldn’t that be a wiser strategy?”
SODERBERG: We tried that for 10 years and they were very close to getting a nuclear weapon. It’s only because we’re talking to them that they’re not getting a nuclear weapon right now. Without talking to them, there’s no question they would have that. And then we’re in a military confrontation with them.
Soderberg acknowledged that the Iranian regime is terrible but, she noted, “60% of that country’s under the age of 21.” That was why, she thought, President Obama had reached out to Iranian youth. “We want them to see a different Iran,” she added.
Hannity called that “an absurd premise.” But he never refuted what Soderberg said. Instead, Hannity reiterated his earlier point and tossed to his conservative pals whom he knew would agree – and who attacked President Obama for not being warlike enough. By the way, Soderberg has extensive foreign policy and national security credentials. Hate-monger Hannity, on the other hand, merely has had a lust for war with Iran going back to the Bush administration.
Watch it above, from last night’s Hannity.
Crossposted at News Hounds.
We watch Fox so you don't have to!
[ad]
