Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the lead off guest. Sec. Gates promptly raised perhaps the first, and ultimately only relevant, issue-the consequences of the upcoming decisions about Iraq. Gates pointed to the tremendous empowerment the global Jihad gained by their victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Gates indicated that disliking the manner by which the US entered Iraq has simply become irrelevant from anything but a historical perspective. In a minor political statement, Gates impliedly criticized the failure to address the consequences of the Democrats demand for defeat in Iraq.
Chris Wallace showed Sec. Gates a clip of retired Gen. Jones' testimony about the readiness of the Iraqi military. Gates used the same retort as did Gen. Jones himself last week-factual reality and accuracy of context. The clip is out of context and describes things likes logistic and air support for Iraqi ground units. The report in total describes a number of major improvements in Iraqi capability that is demonstrable on the battlefield. Again, the liberal argument defines the absence of complete victory as a state of complete defeat and failure. By such logic, the US would have surrendered to Hitler in the early days of the Battle of Bulge to avoid 40,000 American casualites over Christmas time in 1944-six months before VE Day.
Gates would not talk about Iranian involvement in Iraq. Gates did duck the question but did make it clear that Iran is acting against the United States in Iraq. The Secretary would not answer the question of the Administration’s hypothetical plans to take military action across the border.
Similarly, Sec. Gates would not go into much detail about the recent threat of Syrian nukes. Gates also said that the Administration was carefully watching both North Korea and Syria. Gates acknowledged that Syrian nukes would be a major issue for Israel and the US. D’ya think?
Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) was the next guest. Joe Biden shows the ludicrousness of the Democrat position. Biden discusses a change in the American military role to border protection and combating Al Qaeda. Biden then argues that if we maintain the status quo policy of victory over the terrorists and the militias in Iraq we will have unrelenting casualties. Aside from the fact that American casualties are shockingly light, how would a change of mission from one combat action to another further reduce casualties?
When confronted with the most recent ABC/BBC (and that’s about as liberal a pair as you can find this side of NBC and BBC) polls of Iraqi popular opinion as evidence that the Iraqis themselves oppose partition, Joe just ducked and argued about other, unknown polling data showing that Iraqis think its OK to kill US soldiers. Joe looked foolish on this point.
The discussion then turned to the facially unconstitutional plan to limit deployments for the military abroad. Sen. Biden only argument was the ad homonym that “the President doesn’t know a lot about the Constitution”. Strange, the liberals lose almost every Constitutional legal battle with the Bush Administration. Read Article I Joe, Congress has only two roles with the military during wartime: (1) Declare War-they already did that for both the larger global war on terror and specifically again for Iraq; and, (2) pass funding-they have already done that for Iraq this year. The Administration will win this one in court also.
Joe then returned to the silly tag line that we will “break” the military if we keep going. Of course, Biden supported the Democrat position of dramatic force reduction throughout the 90’s so it seems that the insufficiency of force for our present global war is a cross squarely located on the Democrat back. Moreover, military retention is high. I wonder if Joe will vote to enlarge the military consistently with the Administration’s requests.
Joe described the treasonous attack on Gen. Petraeus as wrong, the only D to go even that far. Biden attributed the outrage to frustration at “the war”. Biden’s statement did not exactly storm the moral high ground but it did present at least a sufficient statement of disagreement with the defamatory tactics to distinguish Joe’s decency from the rest of the “patriotic” Democrat leadership.
Our usual review ignores the panel discussions, although George and Tim are increasingly using panel discussions in further mimicry of a Fox success, so perhaps our practice might change. Today, Juan displayed the mindless hypocrisy of the liberal view of the world.
Juan attacked pro-victory Iraq groups for using wounded soldiers high morale for victory in commercials promoting victory; while never having spoken a word about the 9.11 widows or the likes of Sen. Max Cleland (not injured in combat) as spokesmen for isolationism and defeat. Juan defended the vile left wing attacks from Clinton, Schumer and their MoveOn.org leaders by claiming polls show people agree. Juan didn’t argue that the defamation is morally wrong nor that the defamers were factually, historically or contextually correct; in a moment of candor a die hard 60s liberal showed their true colors- the success of the defamation was sufficient to justify it’s use.
Juan even closed with a return to Vietnam, citing Gen. Westmoreland’s testimony that “everything was going well in Vietnam”. As we now know from a vast library of both previously classified American documents and statements coming from the Vietnamese themselves the military was right, we were winning in Vietnam. The icons of the liberal press were presenting a false portrait of defeat in Vietnam, not the patriotic soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who had and were risking their lives in service of the very pestilential propagandists who were undermining the soldiers at home.
Nevertheless, the best line of the show came from a letter from a viewer that caught perhaps the truest difference between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and the strong from the weak. “Every civilized person abhors war. Liberals fear it.”
Chris Wallace showed Sec. Gates a clip of retired Gen. Jones' testimony about the readiness of the Iraqi military. Gates used the same retort as did Gen. Jones himself last week-factual reality and accuracy of context. The clip is out of context and describes things likes logistic and air support for Iraqi ground units. The report in total describes a number of major improvements in Iraqi capability that is demonstrable on the battlefield. Again, the liberal argument defines the absence of complete victory as a state of complete defeat and failure. By such logic, the US would have surrendered to Hitler in the early days of the Battle of Bulge to avoid 40,000 American casualites over Christmas time in 1944-six months before VE Day.
Gates would not talk about Iranian involvement in Iraq. Gates did duck the question but did make it clear that Iran is acting against the United States in Iraq. The Secretary would not answer the question of the Administration’s hypothetical plans to take military action across the border.
Similarly, Sec. Gates would not go into much detail about the recent threat of Syrian nukes. Gates also said that the Administration was carefully watching both North Korea and Syria. Gates acknowledged that Syrian nukes would be a major issue for Israel and the US. D’ya think?
Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) was the next guest. Joe Biden shows the ludicrousness of the Democrat position. Biden discusses a change in the American military role to border protection and combating Al Qaeda. Biden then argues that if we maintain the status quo policy of victory over the terrorists and the militias in Iraq we will have unrelenting casualties. Aside from the fact that American casualties are shockingly light, how would a change of mission from one combat action to another further reduce casualties?
When confronted with the most recent ABC/BBC (and that’s about as liberal a pair as you can find this side of NBC and BBC) polls of Iraqi popular opinion as evidence that the Iraqis themselves oppose partition, Joe just ducked and argued about other, unknown polling data showing that Iraqis think its OK to kill US soldiers. Joe looked foolish on this point.
The discussion then turned to the facially unconstitutional plan to limit deployments for the military abroad. Sen. Biden only argument was the ad homonym that “the President doesn’t know a lot about the Constitution”. Strange, the liberals lose almost every Constitutional legal battle with the Bush Administration. Read Article I Joe, Congress has only two roles with the military during wartime: (1) Declare War-they already did that for both the larger global war on terror and specifically again for Iraq; and, (2) pass funding-they have already done that for Iraq this year. The Administration will win this one in court also.
Joe then returned to the silly tag line that we will “break” the military if we keep going. Of course, Biden supported the Democrat position of dramatic force reduction throughout the 90’s so it seems that the insufficiency of force for our present global war is a cross squarely located on the Democrat back. Moreover, military retention is high. I wonder if Joe will vote to enlarge the military consistently with the Administration’s requests.
Joe described the treasonous attack on Gen. Petraeus as wrong, the only D to go even that far. Biden attributed the outrage to frustration at “the war”. Biden’s statement did not exactly storm the moral high ground but it did present at least a sufficient statement of disagreement with the defamatory tactics to distinguish Joe’s decency from the rest of the “patriotic” Democrat leadership.
Our usual review ignores the panel discussions, although George and Tim are increasingly using panel discussions in further mimicry of a Fox success, so perhaps our practice might change. Today, Juan displayed the mindless hypocrisy of the liberal view of the world.
Juan attacked pro-victory Iraq groups for using wounded soldiers high morale for victory in commercials promoting victory; while never having spoken a word about the 9.11 widows or the likes of Sen. Max Cleland (not injured in combat) as spokesmen for isolationism and defeat. Juan defended the vile left wing attacks from Clinton, Schumer and their MoveOn.org leaders by claiming polls show people agree. Juan didn’t argue that the defamation is morally wrong nor that the defamers were factually, historically or contextually correct; in a moment of candor a die hard 60s liberal showed their true colors- the success of the defamation was sufficient to justify it’s use.
Juan even closed with a return to Vietnam, citing Gen. Westmoreland’s testimony that “everything was going well in Vietnam”. As we now know from a vast library of both previously classified American documents and statements coming from the Vietnamese themselves the military was right, we were winning in Vietnam. The icons of the liberal press were presenting a false portrait of defeat in Vietnam, not the patriotic soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who had and were risking their lives in service of the very pestilential propagandists who were undermining the soldiers at home.
Nevertheless, the best line of the show came from a letter from a viewer that caught perhaps the truest difference between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and the strong from the weak. “Every civilized person abhors war. Liberals fear it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment