Do talk show hosts with their constant attempts to split America apart by pitting the war supporters against those who want us to withdraw as well as their constant dire warnings that any day America will be overthrown by terrorists or that the danger of terrorists attacks is just around the corner under the bushes and headed for Grandma's help further the aims of the Terrorist groups like AlQuaeda.

Are conservative talk show hosts guilty of aiding and abetting the terrorists?

Do they give them more power than they deserve by the continually harping on them, emboldening them to the point they know if they just keep killing Americans the cost and emotional despair may force us to withdraw?

Have they made the threat of terrorism much larger than truly is?

and yes this takes into account the threat of the just arrested conspirators -- you are still more likely to die by lightning--I have a great CATO report for you guys A False Sense of Insecurity

edited to fix glaring typos

Are conservative talk show hosts guilty of aiding and abetting the terrorists?
This is the question that puzzles me the most. Liberal talk show hosts engage every bit as much in dividing and splitting Americans as conservative hosts do. If one tunes into any host on AAR, you'll not hear any invitations extended to those who dare disagree, into their 'big tent'. Why do you single out conservative hosts?

Do they them more power than they deserve by the continually harping on them, emboldening them to the point they know if they just keep killing Americans the cost and emotional despair will force us to withdraw?
I don't think so, that would be akin to saying that the constant debate over the issue of illegal immigration emboldens more to cross the border under the cover of night. I find it doubtful that OBL and Zawahiri tune into Hannity during their strategy sessions.

Have they made the threat of terrorism much larger than truly is?
Probably. Another grand act of terrorism is likely to happen, and soon IMO, but I'm more worried about getting killed in a Kansas tornado. Meanwhile liberals on the radio harp on the shortcomings of the administration in keeping us safe, hedging on the 'I told you so' meme, if and when that happens. Both sides play the game.....

Oh I dont disagree with you at all DTOM.
I am just curious as to the responses to the questions. I have to listen to hannity at work and this is all i hear on the show. In the mornings i hear Air America from the guy next to me. Liberal radio is really weak on offense--kind lame.
I put this forward the other day and it got real heated. a neighbor was spouting almost word for word the hannity talking points and i asked why he had so little faith in America and why he thought we could get taken down so easily, said i was tired of all the sniveling and while I was doing that people who normally would just shake their heads and agree with the hannity garbage started nodding--I was very amused at the way they turned on their own and tore him up.

again i agree but to me the conservative side is far more vile in the accusations I have heard, and it seems to me that for all their talk about America they seem to me to be sure we can so easily be destroyed.
I dont like weak people with no faith. I may be against bush and his plans but I am almost violently American.
Sometime i wonder why democrats are so LAME at fighting back.
This seems to me to be the best counter to the conservative attempt to pin any failing of the WOT to the antiwar crowd or democrats.
Its false just as the conservative claims about the antiwar encouraging the terrorists--or the communists or whoever else we weren't able to flat out beat.

But even still if you turn neighbor against neighbor do you not succeed in helping the terrorists gain the foothold and traction they need to keep going? that to me is the limbaugh/hannity/rhoades/garafolo specialty

Are conservative talk show hosts guilty of aiding and abetting the terrorists?

I would say Al-Quaida has no greater aid in the US than the those that constantly harp on how insecure the US is, and, most importantly- using thier "flock" to keep momentum going for new laws such as the Patriot act, or attempting to water down civil rights in the constitution, remove checks and balances from the executive branch, advocate torture for ALLEGED terrorists etc.

The terrorists that really want to do us harm know for a fact they can never militarily defeat us- it is up to our own fellow citizen to demand our own goverment oppress us- and it is working. OBL really, really needs an administration like the one we have now- it would be impossible for OBL to have got the move to radical views such as no-warrant wiretaps with no oversite and other basic tenets to our constitution.

It is traditional in this country over the last 50 years that we use the excuse of "war" to erode the very freedoms we enshrined in our constitution "War on Communism"-"War on drugs"-"War on the terrorists".

And of course- pumping up the public to go into Iraq- a country that has never attacked the US in any way on our own soil.


Do they them more power than they deserve by the constinually harping on them, emboldening them to the point they know if they just keep killing Americans the cost and emotional despair will force us to withdraw?


LOL- pretty tongue and cheek there- what they do is quite the opposite- they denigrate those that raise questions to the war, call them "anti-american" accuse them of "hating america"- well, listen to Ann Coltier and you pretty much get the idea. They also scoff at the numbers of America's dead soldiers comparing the casualty rates of other wars and talking about how it is "such a small sacrifice for freedom"- and in the end, this bleeding of resources and soldiers lives is what is very harmful to America. If we have to withdraw- it is because GW and co had no PLAN for withdrawal in the first place. "No exit strategy" I believe is the term- and they continue to attempt to deflect this well placed blame away from the poeple running the country for the last 12 years + now. It is this enabling of the most incompetent president, while simulteaniously completely corrupt that is the real harm here. If "conservative right wing" talk show hosts actually stuck to thier principles and took this President to task for his bloated budgets, massive increase in goverment intrusion into private citizen's lives, massive increase in inefficient beaurocratic agencies, politizing formally reformed agencies like FEMA- or, even, held him to the same standards as Clinton- then we would probably have a much better situation right now- it is the abandoning of their own so-called "principles,character and morals" that is the real harm. If the right wing radio folks were consistant in thier beliefs- and not just slavishly following the republican party line- perhaps we would already be out of Iraq, if ever there in the first place!


Have they made the threat of terrorism much larger than truly is?

Yes and no- there is a balanced or well thought out defense, and knee jerk defense- the conservatives in this country have gone with the knee jerk, and the Dem party has not offered a well balanced thought out exit strategy either- and so the conservatives are blesed by thier paralyzed opposition- and the right wing talk show hosts instead of sticking to ACTUAL conservative principles like I mentioned above- seem to simply have a vested interest of some type in keeping republicans in charge, no matter how incompetant or corrupt.

That is where they really are near allies of OBL and his friends.

I don't think that terrorists care what talk show hosts of any stripe say in this country. Talk show hosts are in the business of entertainment, so they have to appeal to an audience that will spend money on stuff. Otherwise sponsors won't advertise with them, the networks will drop them, they will have to take jobs at Wal*Mart and compete with illegal aliens and, to a lesser extent, senior citizen welcomers.

Meanwhile, the talk show hosts of any stripe push agendas of various flavors. These agendas appeal to certain political types who find a need to be validated, or they will fall into deep depressions and stop buying big ticket items as compensation for shortcomings.

It's capitalism!

I think your article illustrates the gap between that exists between the reporter on the ground and the "editing" which takes place with some creative omissions by talkshow hosts added along the way. Hosts don't do anyone any favours by playing both sides against each other to such an extent that the issues no longer are discussed. That and the adherance of a two-party mindset with little external input.

Speaking of talkshows you have to see the footage with George Galloway. Wow. If only we could have guys like this question mainstream press.