Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Meet the Press - by Ichabod Crane

Lucky you,

I was up late (as per my ‘normal’ schedule) the other night, watching “Meet the Press” and trying to hold my temper. It isn’t the guests that are sparking my ire, but the host (I’m trying to catch her name – nice looking, slender blond?)!

There were two Senators on earlier, one of each, and she was firing questions at them. To the liberal, she’d lead him into some pre-ordained answer. [In fact, she’d misfired on one question. “What about the President likening the war on terror with 9/11?” Obviously, at least by the way she stammered over the phrase, she’d meant to say “…in Iraq…” No matter to the lib. Senator, though; he answered as though she’d said the latter and knew exactly what the question was going to be. It was like he was reading off of a script.]

Then, she’d blind-side the Republican with something like, “What mistakes do you think the President made in the war with Iraq?” He’d have to (patiently) tell her (on most of her questions) what the plan (that liberals claim doesn’t exist) is, how it’s working, and how the outcome depends on the Iraqis. Question after question about the smear coming from places like “moveon.org’ (if only they could). It doesn’t matter that there is nothing behind the accusations; as Ann Coulter says, “With the liberals, where there’s smoke there’s nothing.” Why didn’t she ask him when we were going to pull out of Bosnia? (Yes, Virginia, that quagmire still exists. Thanks, Bill.)

It doesn’t matter that when the President went before Congress, he outlined a half dozen good reasons for going to Iraq. There was a long debate in the UN over many of the issues, beyond the WMDs. It’s no use reminding them that we were still at war with Iraq from 1990. [Surely you, gentle reader, remember that there was only a ‘cease-fire’ under severe restrictions? How Saddam basically ignored 90% of them, even shooting at our planes in the ‘no fly zone’ (an act of war in and of itself)?] So what if Congress overwhelmingly gave the President the go-ahead after looking at all the same intelligence he had, most of which was from the Clinton era?

Does it matter that Saddam had WMDs, and used them previously? Why is nobody asking where they are? Somebody has them! They didn’t simply disappear in to thin air. Saddam had the opportunity, near the end, to account for everything he had, but elected instead to give the UN 50,000 pages of useless documents, why didn’t he account for them if he destroyed them? There was nerve gas, mustard gas, anthrax and others biological agents in his stockpile. Where are they?

Maybe a better question would be, who was he supplying them to? What was the Al-Qaeda’s #3 man doing, living in Baghdad under the protection of and sponsored by Saddam himself? Why is this avenue never pursued?

No, she’d just lead the liberal into saying their deceptive drivel, keeping people’s eye off of the ball, and repeating the tripe they spew all day, everyday. They figure that if they just focus on some dark place, real or not is inconsequential, and after a while people will just forget about the rest of it.

Senator Ted Kennedy still thinks the President should take advice from him about the war. The President has made all the goals he set out: winning the war, setting up an interim government, having elections (in record turn-out), and getting a Constitution written (on track). Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, has been wrong about Mr. Bush’s, our military’s, and the Iraqi people’s ability to meet those goals. Why would anybody take the advice of someone who was so consistently wrong about all three? (Maybe the Sr. Senator from MA needs a new bartender?)

The entire Middle-East is a major problem in the world community today, period! Most of the people there live in stinking, abject poverty. Their rulers live in splendor (but they are Muslims, so that’s OK). They are taught from an early age that the West, specifically the USA, is the source of the world’s problems. (The world’s problems with Allah, anyway.) I’m not clear on how they make that leap. Ask a liberal to explain it – they seem to sympathize with the enemy. So anyway, they want to kill us (the terrorists want to kill us, I’m not sure what the liberals want).

That’s not an opinion, they have said it, shouted it, written it, and acted it out. Why would anyone not believe them? What does it take to convince people? What if they stole airplanes and flew them into some of our buildings, would you believe it then?

Saddam was sponsoring them, in Iraq and in Israel. Saddam had, and was building more WMDs. He was an unpredictable madman. That area of the world is too delicately balanced to allow him to continue. If he were to’ve started another war in the Mid-East, especially with Israel, it could have lead to WWIII! We still ain’t out of the woods, either.

The Israeli’s have done a great job of drawing the lightning of terrorism; but, lately, it is expanding too widely. No country is safe; they’re even terrorizing Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca. Iran is building nukes. The guy who held our diplomats hostage there for so long in 1979-80 is now the effective dictator in Iran. Iran openly harbors and sponsors several terrorist organizations, many of which operate in Lebanon and Israel. Why isn’t she asking anybody about that? I know I’d like to know, anybody else?

Meet the Press, and see them for who they are!

No comments: