Hannity yes/no Q's not valid or simple

Hannity has a habit of asking "libs" yes/no questions which he claims are "simple yes/no" questions, but which are designed to put the lib between a rock and a hard place.

I have no problem with putting someone in a difficult position *provided* the question is legitimately simple and appropriate to a yes/no answer.

However, many, many times his question is not legitimate, often due to semantics and the twisting of the meanings of words.

Perfect example is when he asks a listener "did John Kerry call US troops terrorists?"

If you answer 'no', SH follows up with "did he not claim that US troops terrorize Iraqi children?"

This later question is simple and not prone to dispute. Yes, JK did say this. However, this is not the same question as the former.

The big difference is semantics: we cannot equate the words terrorist and terrorize. In the modern vernacular, the word "terrorist" has taken on more than the meaning "someone who terrorizes", it is now specifically used to refer to someone whose sole occupation and purpose in life is to intentionally terrorize an entire population through the use of random and extreme violence.

Example:

If I "terrorize" someone, I don't necessarily do it on purpose. For example, my wife is terrorized every time I quickly change lanes on the highway during heavy traffic. My intent is *not* to terrorize her, it is to change lanes in the safest manner possible. Nonetheless, I did terrorize her. Does that make me a terrorist? No? But wait! I *did* terrorize my wife, did I not? Yes, I did. So, how can you not call me a terrorist???

In the same vein, Kerry did *not* say US troops commit acts of terror - in the sense that they kill and/or main with the intent on terrorizing an entire population. But rather, he's referring to the act of inadvertently scaring the hell out of women and children by storming into a home in the middle of the night in search of Iraqi insurgents. The troops do not intend to scare these people, they only need to locate insurgents that have hidden themselves among the populace. Often the only option is to go door-to-door in search of these people. In so doing, children are going to be scared (terrorized) when heavily armed soldiers bust into their home in the middle of the night.

They aren't committing acts of random, extreme violence; their intent isn't to scare an entire population; and certainly their sole occupation in life is not to inflict this type of terror upon any population.

Hence, by all three criteria for being labeled a terrorist, US troops are not terrorists. This is 100% consistent with JK's statements. He was only pointing out that the mere fact that when a US troop smashes down a door in the middle of the night he strikes terror into a child's heart. He never claimed this is the intent of the US troop, nor that it is a random act of extreme violence. But he did say their actions do terrorize those directly affected by the activity.

If someone were to point out these facts to SH, he'd quickly accuse them of playing a game of semantics and pull his Bill Clinton impersonation "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". And, while in the middle of this not-very-funny impersonation, the caller is unceremoniously cut off.

In this way SH always gets the last word, and any focus on his own inaccuracies is ridiculed by equating the criticism with blanket associations with well known, infamous incidents.

I don't see any flaws in my argument. Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong? What have I said that is inaccurate? I'm more than willing to stand corrected.