Sean Hannity: Jon Stewart ‘Has His Head So Far Up Obama’s Ass’

Mediaite.com:

A new Jon Stewart interview out today includes the late night comic going off on Fox News. In particular, Stewart honed in on Sean Hannity as “probably the most loathsome dude over there.”

“That’s just pure cynicism, and it’s horrible,” Stewart said. “Everything is presented in as devious a manner as it could be possibly be presented.”

Well, Hannity fired back in a statement to Politico that mostly just highlighted how bad the economy is under President Obama. He refers to Obama as Stewart’s “beloved president,” and asks, “Do I even need to remind him about keeping our doctors, our health plans and saving money? And how is that healthcare website working out? Or Iraq, Isis, the ‘Russian reset’?”

And then Hannity went for the jugular:

“Jon’s problem is he has his head so far up Obama’s ass he cannot see clearly, he is obviously better suited to reading his joke writers material, and making his clapping seal audience happy.”

He also brings up how Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear featured Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, who made comments many interpreted as support for a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie.

RELATED: Jon Stewart Whacks Bush As Inferior to Jimmy Carter, No Troublesome Facts Allowed

George W Bush: ‘No Regrets’ over Decision to Invade Iraq

Mediaite.com:

Former President George W Bush told Bob Schieffer Sunday morning that he had no regrets over the decision to invade Iraq. 

Bush was on to discuss his new book praising his father (and to honor Face The Nation’ss sixtieth anniversary). 43 insisted he did not invade Iraq to finish what his father started, and said he was surprised when Saddam Hussein called his bluff over the invasion, but didn’t regret the decision to go in.

“I think it was the right decision,” Bush said. “My regret is that a violent group of people has risen up again. This is al Qaeda plus. I put in the book that they need to be defeated. And I hope they are. I hope the strategy works.”

It's funny that idiot liberals think President Bush would ever say anything different about his decision to invade Iraq.Clearly, they never paid attention to the man's resolve.

RELATED: The war over President Obama’s new war in Iraq

Q-poll Says Barack Obama Is Worst President Since WWII

HotAir.com:

It’s no secret that Barack Obama’s popularity has plunged over the past 18 months of his second term, but just how bad has it gotten? According to a new poll from Quinnipiac, Americans pick him as the worst post-WWII president of all. A third of respondents choose Obama for that dubious honor, while 28% pick George W. Bush:

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush. …

Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 39 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is worse. Men say 43 – 36 percent that Obama is worse than Bush while women say 42 – 38 percent he is better. Obama is worse, Republicans say 79 – 7 percent and independent voters say 41 – 31 percent. Democrats say 78 – 4 percent that he is better.

Obama beats up George Bush on the economy any time he can in order to distract attention from the fact that his own economic policies have produced the worst recovery since WWII — not exactly a coincidence in regard to this poll. That tactic isn’t working as well as it used to work, though:

Voters say by a narrow 37 – 34 percent that Obama is better for the economy than Bush.

That’s within the MOE, but that’s the good news on Bush comparisons. He’s now at 39/40 against Bush as to which was the better President, down from 46/30 in January 2011 when the question was last asked. Among independents, Obama scores 31/41 and barely holds serve with women at 42/38.

Obama got a little bit of good news in his overall approval ratings, but that just shows how bad the rest of the news is from this poll. His job approval improved to 40/53, up from 38/57 in December … but not by much. Among independents, it’s 31/59, and among women — a critical demographic for Democrats this fall — it’s 42/49. He’s dead even on trustworthiness overall (48/48) but 42/53 among independents, and underwater on leadership at 47/51 overall and 41/57 among independents.

Perhaps even more embarrassing — and potentially more dangerous for other Democrats — is the rise of buyer’s remorse from the election of 2012:

America would be better off if Republican Mitt Romney had won the 2012 presidential election, 45 percent of voters say, while 38 percent say the country would be worse off.

Missing Mitt are Republicans 84 – 5 percent and independent voters 47 – 33 percent, while Democrats say 74 – 10 percent that the U.S. would be worse off with Romney.

If independents have double-digit buyer’s remorse from 2012, that suggests a strong desire to make up for their earlier mistake. The economy is driving that remorse. Respondents rate the economy as their highest priority by far in the midterms. Obama only gets a 40/55 on the economy, and 34/61 among independents. At the very least, it shows that independents won’t be too motivated to vote for Obama’s allies, while Republicans will be very motivated to turn out in November.

RELATED:  Thumbing His Nose at Congress, the Constitution, and the People

10 Reasons Why Iraq's Bloodbath Is Not George W Bush's Fault

Townhall.com:

1) In 2011, President Barack Obama pronounced Iraq "self-reliant and democratic," and "a country in which people from different religious sects and ethnicities can resolve their differences peacefully through the democratic process." In 2010, Vice President Joe Biden called Iraq "one of the great achievements of this administration." Obama ignored pleas by top generals who advised against pulling out without leaving a residual force. 

2) Nearly everybody assumed Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Of the newspaper editorials that opposed the war, not one challenged the assumption that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD. 

President George W. Bush relied on the same intelligence -- and on the same CIA director -- as did President Bill Clinton. Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's Persian Gulf adviser, said not one government intelligence analyst disagreed with the assumption that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD. 

"The intelligence community," said Pollack, "convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the U.N. inspectors in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. ... The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction predated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. ... Germany ... Israel, Russia, Britain, China and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. ... In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." 

3) Saddam Hussein did possess stockpiles of WMD. James Clapper, the current director of National Intelligence, said in 2003 that materials for WMD had "unquestionably" been moved out of Iraq, to Syria or perhaps other countries, in an effort to "destroy and disperse" evidence just before the war began. 

One of Saddam's top generals, Georges Sada, in his book called "Saddam's Secrets," said truck convoys and 56 airplane flights moved tons of WMD into Syria. 

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in December, 2002, said, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." 

4) Had we not invaded, Saddam Hussein would have soon restarted his chemical and biological program -- and resumed his pursuit for a nuclear capability. After the war started, Bush sent David Kay, a weapons hunter, to locate the assumed stockpiles of WMD. Kay found no stockpiles, but he did find that Saddam had the intent and the ability to restart his WMD program as soon as the heat was off. 

5) George Bush did not "rush" America into the war. He obtained a consensus -- a resolution from the House, a resolution from the Senate and a resolution from the United Nations. There was a 15-month run-up before the war, during which time Saddam could have declared what he did or did not do with the WMD. 

6) Americans supported the Iraq War, overwhelmingly at least at first. Gallup found 76 percent of Americans supported the Iraq War when the military action began, about the same percentage that supported the first Persian Gulf War. 

7) Obama wanted out of Iraq, and ran in 2008 with a promise to do just that. A year after the troop pullout, during a 2012 debate, Mitt Romney said he wanted a residual force to remain. Obama pointedly disagreed, saying that leaving "10,000 troops in Iraq ... would tie us down." 

Incredibly, Obama now blames the Iraqis for his refusal to leave any troops. Obama says he wanted legal protection for the soldiers left behind and that Iraq's parliament would not provide it. So Obama happily walked away, blaming it on "a decision made by the Iraqi government" to reject the offer of "a modest residual force." Obama sure had no difficulty in quickly working out an agreement -- via diplomatic notes, without the approval of Iraq's parliament -- for the recently promised 300 "advisers." 

8) We were greeted as liberators in Iraq. The New York Times Iraq reporter John Burns said: "The American troops were greeted as liberators. We saw it." In April, 2003, the New York Daily News reported, "Jubilant crowds chanted, 'Thank you, Bush' and showered troops with yellow and pink flowers, exactly as administration hawks had promised." 

9). There were legitimate, good-faith reasons why we sent "too few troops." The Times' Burns said, "I think that to be fair to the United States, when I speak as a citizen of the United Kingdom, I think that the instincts that led to much that went wrong were good American instincts: the desire not to have too heavy of a footprint, the desire to empower Iraqis." 

10) The men and women who served in Iraq deserve better. They achieved great things under harsh and unforgiving circumstances. That the succeeding commander-in-chief did not preserve their hard-fought gains ought not devalue what they accomplished. Perhaps the returning soldiers might more readily adjust to civilian life if Americans truly understood and appreciated what they achieved in Iraq. They did their jobs -- and their mission was just, important and noble. 

RELATED:  Bill Clinton Dismisses Cheney on Iraq: He Got Us in There in First Place