How Sean Hannity Thought The Iraq War Would Turn Out

Sean Hannity, to put it kindly, has never met a war he hasn't liked. Following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, Hannity, true to form, has suggested that President Trump should attack Iranian oil refineries in order to "cause major poverty for the people of Iran"

The Fox News host isn't shy when it comes to using military force against anyone or anything, a firm believer in American Exceptionalism which is prevalent on the American right. Hannity claimed that the strike on Iranian General Soleimani was a "massive win for the US military and President Trump."

However, Hannity isn't the the best source to go to when asking how an impending war will turn out, as his reasoning for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq has come to light once again and has proven how you cannot trust a single word he says.

Hannity, true to form, was completely wrong regarding the Iraq invasion back in 2003, claiming the the United States would find the much talked about 'weapons of mass destruction' - which were never found. In actual fact, if you search online for "Iraq weapons of mass destruction" your first result will instantly show you just how wrong Sean Hannity was.

Should you search "Iraq weapons of mass destruction" the first thing that shows up is part of a Wikipedia article, which states that Iraq were developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons beginning in 1962 and continued until 1991, when they destroyed their chemical weapons stockpile and halted development of biological and nuclear weapons programs as required by the United Nations Security Council, twelve years before the 2003 invasion.

In 2009, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) searched two bunkers that Iraq declared after becoming a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention and after searching the bunkers the OPCW's Michael Luhan stated that Iraq's declaration contained no surprises, the production facilities in the bunkers were put out of commission by 1991 Gulf War conflict, due to airstrikes. Luhan further claimed that "these are legacy weapons, remnants, the weapons are not believed to be in a useable state." These remnants were then destroyed in 2018.

Hannity was right about two things in his claims, just not in the way he thought. Hannity claimed "you're going to hear the stories of rape and torture" - and there was rape and torture. By American forces, however.

Back in March 2006, five US servicemen were found to have been involved in the Mahmudiyah rape and killings in which fourteen year old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was gang-raped by the five US Servicemen, who then killed her and four of her family members that were home at the time. Her two brothers, 9-year-old Ahmed and 11-year-old Mohammed were at school at the time of the attack and were orphaned as a result.

There was also the widely publicised prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib prison along with further prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay Prison, again by American forces.

Hannity was right in a way, there was rape and torture, but it was American service members who were involved. Male prisoners at Abu Ghraib were raped and tortured, there was the gang-rape and killing of Abeer Qassim and her family, but I do question whether these incidents even cross Sean Hannity's mind when he makes ludicrous statements and is a consistent cheerleader for American interventionism.