Just this week three individuals of the Democratic (Party) persuasion were put on radio and TV as credible commentators on the Global War On Terror. Each had been discredited on this very subject yet the Democratic Party and the main stream media saw fit to bandy them about as if they were the final authorities.
I'm talking about Sandy Buerger - the man who shove classified documents in his under shorts and walked out of the National Archives building unmolested. This is a scandal of grand proportion that has been completely swept under the rug. Why don't we see Chris Mathews Hardballing this one day after day? Where is Andrea Mitchell to feign indignation on NBC? This man destroyed documents that were being sought by a governmental investigative body - namely the 9/11 commission. Well, you see, Sandy is a Democrat and a former Clinton appointee. Ah, yes, this is all one big misunderstanding. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
So there he was spouting off on CNN or ABC or MSNBC - one the alphabet news channels - on what the President should be doing about terrorism. Well Sandy, you guys had your chance, and as Colin Powell is want to say "you kicked the can down the road".
Following the President's weekly Saturday radio address giving us the Democratic response was none other than Joesph Wilson and Larry Johnson. Wilson, a liar and a partisan hack, could not have been more discredited by the 9/11 commission and a few hard nosed reporters and bloggers. But Larry Johnson takes the case. Larry, a former State Department counterterrorism specialist during the Clinton years, certainly has had his share of crow to eat. Besides the fact that the entire Clinton era cast a blind eye on Islamic terror Larry was the author of a most enlightening article published in the New York Times July 10th 2001 called "The Declining Terrorist Threat".
Note the date again: July 10, 2001 - exactly two months before the most savage terrorist attack in history. While Larry's "facts and statistics" may indeed be accurate his every conclusion was patently wrong. He ends his piece with that old military industrial complex conspiracy again - essentially, the military needs a boogey man now that the Evil Empire is gone.
How clueless can these people be? And how can the Democrats expect to ever be taken seriously on the subject of terrorism when they continually trot out people like this? I say, let them... At the same time pray that these fools never occupy a place of power again.
CW
1 comment:
When the democrats assemble a group of “experts” to blanket the Sunday interview shows, give testimony, or pound home their policy points in speeches they invariably choose people who have failed in the past as their champions. Case in point; during the build up to the Iraq war who did the Dems send to give testimony to congress decrying the carnage and death that would come of invading? None other than the architect of one of the worst disasters in U. S. military history, Robert Strange McNamara. His inept handling of that war cost more American vets in the Vietnam era their lives than anything the communists did yet he is still an “expert” the Dems want to rely on.
This bottomless well of mediocrity that the democrats keep dipping into for support illustrates a point put forth by Rush Limbaugh long ago as one of his keys to his success. (I have to paraphrase) Hanging around failures will never teach you how to be successful. You can only learn how to win from the winners.
It appears that the dems that routinely listen to Rush's show must have missed that day.
Post a Comment