Sean Hannity is not a big fat drug addict!

This post is not about Sean Hannity.

Well, at least I don't want it to be about Sean Hannity. That's because, first, I don't know all that much about Sean Hannity. I don't listen to his radio show and I don't watch much television. From what I do know about him, I disagree with his moral/social/religious conservatism, and probably agree with him to the extent that he wants a free economy, believes in self defense, and stuff like that. But again, I don't know what he thinks.

I say this because there are a lot of people out there who hate Sean Hannity (including some people I like) and obviously, they wouldn't hate him unless they knew a lot about him, so if I get into a debate with them about Sean Hannity I'd be sure to lose because they probably, like, hang on his every word waiting for horrors. Besides, as Lee Harris has noted, you can even lose respect for not trashing Sean Hannity.

Ditto Mr. Megaditto. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh either and I disagree with him on the moral/social issues. But I don't want him to go to prison for drugs! And if Sean Hannity were to develop a drug problem, I wouldn't want him imprisoned either.

So there. I went out of my way to say that this is not really about Sean Hannity per se. But it is about something Sean Hannity did which I tried to do for many years, without success: he dared -- he had the unmitigated gall -- to ask John Dean about Blind Ambition (still regarded as truthful and awe-inspiring by innumerable historians). Only one website -- an anti-Hannity site -- has even mentioned it, and I think it's important, certainly far more important than whether or not someone likes Sean Hannity.

Here's what Dean said in Blind Ambition's introduction:

I prepared for the writing of Blind Ambition the same way I prepared to testify before the Ervin Committee, before the special prosecutors, and in the cover-up trial. But in the book I have included dialogue and enclosed it in quotation marks, wheras in my testimony I deliberately refrained from dramatizing the events I was relating.

While many White House conversations were taped, many were not. To reconstruct what occurred, I reviewed an enormous number of documents as well as my own testimony. Wherever possible, I spoke to others who were present with me during discussions, or I talked to people to whom I'd related conversations shortly after they took place, and I referred to notes I had kept. I have also, of course, relied on my memory in this account of my experiences in the White House, and while I do not claim to report the dialogues verbatim, I vouch for their essential accuracy. To borrow my lawyer's phrase: "I'm ready to get on the box" -- take a lie-detector test. Blind Ambition, p. 5 (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1976)

Contrast that with Dean's testimony when questioned about Blind Ambition under oath:
WILLIAMS: [Quotes to Dean from his book "Blind Ambition"] "This was the worst blow since Magruder's call. I felt queasy. I really didn't want to know more because I had to assume that if Strachan knew, Haldeman knew, and if Haldeman knew, the President knew. It made sickening sense. Now I understand why Strachan had called earlier." Do you see that?

DEAN: I do.

WILLIAMS: Is that an accurate description of your reaction upon absorbing Strachan's name?

DEAN: No. Pure Taylor Branch.

WILLIAMS: He just made that up?

DEAN: Absolutely made it up out of whole cloth.

WILLIAMS: Didn't you read this? You said you read this after Taylor Branch got through with it.

DEAN: Not with this kind of detail.

So, not only did Dean not even write his own book, he didn't even read the galleys! Questions should be asked that weren't asked three decades ago.

But why John Dean again, with a new, much-touted book, right now? I didn't think that 9-11 would degenerate into an argument about Watergate, but I did not start this. I'm sorry, but I think the Democrats have Watergate on the brain (which includes impeachment on the brain), and it's time to call them on it. By "it" I mean Watergate itself. They trot out the obligatory Watergate "heroes" like John Dean to say the present administration is "worse than Watergate," and today I see that former Watergate prosecutor Richard ben-Veniste is grandstanding it.

Is 9-11 becoming a Watergate pageant in drag?

I'll say this about Sean Hannity. I might not agree with him on a lot of things, but I admire him for getting to the heart of what's been ruling the country for far too long......

WATERGATE HYPOCRISY!


UPDATE: I was pretty disgusted when I wrote the above, but I am delighted to see clear signs that the Blogosphere will not be easily bamboozled by the high priests of Watergate. Professor Bainbridge's characterization of ben-Veniste earlier today as a "partisan thug" (via Glenn Reynolds, who notes "he's got transcripts"!) has warmed the cockles of my jaded heart.

UPGRADE (4-11): Getting even warmer! Ben-Veniste has now been called a "grandstanding nerd", a "horse's ass." (Via Glenn Reynolds.) High Priest of Watergate, behold the blogosphere!

posted by Eric on 04.08.04 at 05:33 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/920








December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits