I am encouraged that we find a point of agreement – the audience really did bring shame to Utah through its disrespect of the speakers. But then again, the event was hyped almost as if it were a boxing match, so maybe we should not be surprised. Thankfully, most of the students in the audience were not drunk like they are at U of U football games because, if they were, it could have been a whole lot worse!

But on the point of alleged “misrepresentations” made by Rocky, let’s remember that this was a debate. One of the central goals in a debate is to flesh out and expose the fallacies or false premises in the other side’s argument. Throughout the debate, Hannity commented that the mayor was rehashing a speech made over and over again (which is, for the most part, true). Presumably, then, Hannity had ample time to prepare for the “misrepresentations” that he could and should have expected from Anderson. Yet when it came time for Hannity to speak, he failed utterly to respond to the evidence presented by Anderson indicating that Bush ignored key concerns of the intelligence community during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. He simply went off in a different and unrelated direction which, as you know, contributors to ASP or ASM can be, and perhaps appropriately are, taken to task for doing.

Was Hannity caught off-guard or unprepared? Doubtful. What, then, is the reason that Hannity failed to respond to Anderson’s thesis or evidence in support thereof? If the counter-argument is so blasted strong, either legally or factually as so many assert, then Hannity could have shut down Anderson for good. Yet Hannity failed utterly in this regard, choosing instead to wander off-topic and yap ad nausiem about Hillary, Kerry, Anderson as mayor, and liberals and Democrats in general (kind of a shoot the messenger(s) if you don’t like the message orgy). Hannity knew only too well going into the debate that Rocky would present his case for impeachment of the president, but in listening to Hannity respond, one was left to wonder whether he was even present in the building when Anderson presented his case in chief. From an academic standpoint, Hannity lost the debate as a result!

As for the allegations of torture and the legal implications under the constitution, I will agree with you to leave it for later.

While Rocky brought up a bunch of crap about impeachment, the fact is that Bush has NOT committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are requisite for impeachment.

I think the reason that Hannity supporters were not “terribly concerned” about torture is because torture is NOT a central problem in Iraq. It’s an isolated issue that is dealt with as it comes up. The “domestic spying” thing is a non-issue with us as well because it’s nowhere close to what you, and Rocky, thinks it is. Either way, none of this stuff is impeachable according to the constitution and if it were, there’d be a whole bunch of impeached people. But, I don’t want to dwell in these individual issues here.

The fact is that neither side did a good job of answering questions and presenting their case. Hannity seemed to rely on emotion vice evidence while Anderson relied on misrepresentation.

1) I was struck by the disrespect shown both speakers by the audience.

2) I found it curious that Hannity, following Mayor Anderson’s presentation of a solid prima facie case for impeachment, responded primarily with a combination of ad hominen and the Clinton defense (either Hillary should be impeached, too, or Bill screwed up by not taking out Bin Ladin while in the Sudan). Indeed, Hannity never once attacked the factual basis presented by Anderson, leading me to suspect that Hannity concedes that, during the run up to war, Bush ignored compelling evidence that Iraq was not connected to 9/11 nor was Iraq amassing WMD as alleged.

3) I found it equally curious that Hannity supporters did not seem terribly concerned with the incidents of torture, domestic spying, detention of US citizens without access to counsel, etc., and the evidence (largely unrebutted by Hannity) that Bush grossly misled this nation into war (either affirmatively or through omission). It was almost as if the Hannity supporters were ok with all of that. But what did appear to get their goat, however, was when Bush was properly compared with other leaders around the world, past or present, who condoned many of the same things. Hannity supporters would do well to consider the adage: sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander!