Last night, I watched Hannity as usual, which follows my other favorite comedy show, the O'Reilly Factor.

Anyway, I realize that these two imbeciles--O'Reilly and Hannity--are merely clowns, or comedians from the Republican Right, but last night's Hannity show was certainly UNFAIR and it's never balanced (I don't expect GOP TV to be balanced).

As most media outlets were doing last night, hyping the torture case that was recently leaked to the press, Hannity approached the topic after the first half-hour.

He had some guest on there who was likely ex-military. It was a guest who Hannity would consider as on the right side and there was no brow-beating on his part.

Hannity asked a question, paraphrased by the following:
**So we really can't call this 'torture' like the New York Times and every other liberal media outfit is painting this to be some kind of Sobibor. I mean, these prisoners weren't tortured, they were mistreated [to guest] wouldn't you agree here that what is depicted, although I think it's sick behavior to do this to someone, is not torture but mistreatement?**

The guest responded with agreement, except that international law prohibits the behavior exhibited by six or seven National Guard soldiers policing the Graib or Ghaib prison.

Come on Hannity! If the same pictures came out from the Arab world in which American POWs were in silly naked poses, or had bags on their heads, we'd call it torture. Any time American nut-sacks meet rifle butts, that is torture ladies and gentlemen!

Hannity is completely off his rocker. First he said it wasn't 'torture' but mistreatment, then he said those who did this to the Iraqi detainees is "sick behavior." So which is it Mr. Hannity? Is sick behavior exacted upon detainees not torture, or is it not torture because Americans weren't victims of 'mistreatment?'

Here's another little oddball feature to this whole incident, which has been known by the Pentagon and White House since January:
Iraqi prisoners at the Ghaib prison in Iraq are not POWs although most of the 3, 000 were captured and charged with firing at coalition forces (coalition now means the U.S. Army coalesced with the U.S. Marines, who have coalesced with the U.S. Navy and Air Force, and National Guard, whereas coalition once referred to a bunch of countries who hate each other team together to whip some arse.).
Instead of POW distinction, Iraqi POWs are considered 'detainees.' Isn't this odd? I think this detainee distinction is deliberate so the U.S. military and civilian contractors running the prison system over there don't have to adhere to international systems and treaties that govern troop behavior during warfare.

In any event, Hannity's equivocation of 'mistreatment' with 'torture' are like many other GOP attempts to revise history. At one time in recent memory, Saddam and the Iraqis had WMD's and chemical weapons waiting to be unleashed on Americans in their home town, say Urbana, Illinois.

Now, since WMD's have not been seized by invading coalition forces, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs.

When nations are invaded and indigenous peoples resist the invaders with a fight, those people are typically called 'freedom fighters' or 'patriots,' similar to our own national experience when rag-tag militias teamed together to rid the colonies of British invaders. Today those similar peoples in Iraq waging war against the invaders are called 'insurgents,' terrorists, or 'Baathists.'

And who says the GOP doesn't revise history? :snore: