Thursday, December 07, 2006

The Corner on National Review Online

The Corner on National Review Online: "By the standards and practices set up by Baker, the entire report represents the least objectionable ideas acceptable to the most unreasonable panelist. If Leon Panetta thought something was a bad idea, it got massaged until he liked it. If Ed Meese objected, it got massaged, or deleted, until he was happy. By what standard does a proposition become wiser or a greater model for the nation — — simply because ten people like it instead of nine? If the panel unanimously recommended that all cats in Iraq wear sweaters and that chickens be forced to dance the Mamba, would no one dare challenge the moral authority of their unanimity? "
Posted by at

6 comments:

Syl said...

Believe it or not Buchanan said something 'realistic' last night. He said the ONLY options are to keep all our troops there or to remove them all.

Either 'stay the course' or 'cut and run'.

Because if we start pulling out combat troops, it will put the embedded trainers at risk.

It will put every American and westerner in the Green Zone at risk.

So the combat troops have to remain unless everybody leaves.

10:28 AM, December 07, 2006
Charlie Martin said...

Answer: Congress.

10:30 AM, December 07, 2006
Syl said...

Oh, I was laughing at MSNBC last night. I still watch occasionally even though they've all gone anti-Iraq with a vengence. Scarborough is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and won't recover unless he goes elsewhere, if he can recover at all.

Anyway one of the Dems they had was saying how this report will bring everybody together at the same time she was saying Bush was totally discredited.

IOW, now we are bipartisan and the country is together again because, ahem, YOU LOST WE WON.

LOL

10:40 AM, December 07, 2006
truepeers said...

Yes, a liberal aristocracy paraded before the world by the MSM, filling all and sundry with hopes that the best and brightest in America are back in charge and all will be a.o.k. And when, in time, the hopes fade that talking with and appeasing Iran and Syria are in and of themselves the key to progressive change, who will be blamed by the masses? Can you see the lobby sweating?

2:00 PM, December 07, 2006
buddy larsen said...

Syl, you're so right--look at John Bolton--Chris Dodd has led the fight against him, on the grounds that he "lacks bipartisan support".

If anyone would ever ask Dodd why Bolton lacks bipartisan support, his answer would have to be, "because he lacks bipartisan support".

IOW, "Just because!"

The Rule-or-Ruin party, now playing in your local future.

3:00 PM, December 07, 2006
Anonymous said...

Well in truth this commission was not as bad as I expected. There was some silly stuff in it, but it could have been worse. Really.

4:24 PM, December 07, 2006

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)