Another group of quick hits for you to ponder. Here you go...
Quick Hit #1: Obama - genocide not good enough reason. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said last week that the U.S. shouldn't use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that a potential genocide isn't a good enough reason to keep us in Iraq. He points to Darfur and says if that was the case, we should have huge numbers of troops there. What Obama fails to note is the key difference - as tragic as it is, we didn't cause the genocide in Darfur. We did invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein's government, and we did it based on good and legitimate reasons (as I've blogged about before). So, it IS our responsibility to prevent such a genocide from happening. That Obama doesn't see the logical connection is disturbing, especially since he wants to be our next President.
Quick Hit #2: Why the MSM and Democrats are so tight. Hugh Hewitt blogs about a conversation of his with Jake Tapper, who is a MSM reporter that says he's 'objective'. As Hewitt says, "When an elephant shows up in your backyard, it isn't evidence that you run a zoo, it is an extraordinary occurrence that everyone talks about and points to." Translation: just because you asked one hard question doesn't mean you're objective. He goes on to show the consistent bias by the MSM in favor of the Democrats and shows how this agreement makes them think that they're the mainstream of the nation. In fact, Hewitt surmises: "It isn't journalism they practice, but a sort of high-end yodeling: shouting out cliches which, when echoed back, they take for proof positive of their prejudices. It is all very amusing - until you realize that the lives of millions of Iraqis and eventually millions of Americans are imperiled by their collective incompetence." 'Nuff said.
Quick Hit #3:Terrorists in the U.S. Lebanese Christian Brigitte Gabriel -- founder of American Congress for Truth -- on OneNewsNow.com warns of growing threat of terrorist cells in the U.S. She maintains that Hamas has over 40 cells already here, and that Hezbollah has almost a dozen. Good thing we've got such good, tight border control that keeps all these people out, huh?
Quick Hit #4:Reid Pulls Funding Beneficial To Troops. Senator Jeff Sessions criticized Harry Reid for pulling the Iraq funding bill due to the failure of the retreat amendment, saying it was an act of "pique and frustration" that makes no sense since the larger bill included pay raises and special 'wounded warrior' provisions for military personnel. If Reid was truly interested in protecting and supporting our troops, he would have allowed the bill to proceed despite the failure of the retreat amendment. Maybe Reid needs to...change course.
Quick Hit #5: They Really Don't Support the Troops. William Kristol reveals in the Weekly Standard that though the MSM says they support the troops, they really don't. With his typical relentless logic, Kristol outlines how Cindy Sheehan and stories of atrocities from a supposed soldier on the ground (the probability is that this 'person' doesn't actually exist, and these stories are frauds) are being used to erode support for the war. The line is that these stories allow people to oppose the war while still 'supporting the troops'. He poses a question that makes anti-war types uncomfortable: "How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies?" I certainly haven't seen a good answer to that. But, Kristol goes on, saying that although editing mistakes (i.e. allowing fictitious stories to be published) are always possible, "what is revealing about this mistake is that the editors must have wanted to suspend their disbelief in tales of gross misconduct by American troops." In a stark contrast of the media and most Americans: "Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They sense that history is progressing away from them--that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country. They are not "Shock Troops." They are our best and bravest, fighting for all of us against a brutal enemy in a difficult and frustrating war. They are the 9/11 generation. The left slanders them. We support them. More than that, we admire them."
Think these are isolated incidents? Think again. Michelle Malkin has been keeping track for a long, long time. You need to understand who supports our troops -- and American victory -- and who doesn't.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment