The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Yeah, it's a ****ty deal for whomever gets hired. They'll never be able to meet the standard he set. That's the "problem" when you have such success on a show like that.

I have hopes for Russert's kid someday but that's at least 10-20 years down the road.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I have hopes for Russert's kid someday but that's at least 10-20 years down the road.

I get a little hesitant when it comes to nepotism like that but if the guy has the chops, who am I to say no?

Personally, I watch Face the Nation. But I think that has more to do with the fact that I watch WCCO (CBS) about 95% of the time when it comes to news whether it's local or national.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I never liked Russert. While he may be an improvement over the current crop of nitwits, that's not saying much.

As I mentioned before, Bill Moyers did a devastating piece on journalism in the lead up to the Iraq War. Some lefties like Dan Rather owned up to the fact that they didn't do their jobs out of fear of being labeled anti-American. Others like the guy running CNN at the time openly admitted it like it was some sort of smart business decision. Russert completely wimped out and got all defensive when called on that. Some hard hitting journalist. That's a pretty big story to be wrong about, especially when there were some news outlets (Knight-Ridder for example not to be confused with Knight Rider) that were asking the right questions.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Where was that ounce when GWB decided to invade in '03? Just say "no?"

The idea of replacing Saddam was probably a good one. The fact that they had no idea on who should replace Saddam was bad - very bad.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I never liked Russert. While he may be an improvement over the current crop of nitwits, that's not saying much.

Agree completely. Russert was a triumph of tenure. He's the Peter Gammons of Sunday talk: stay on the job long enough and people think you shit marble.

The last interesting host was William F. Buckley. The next one may actually be John Oliver.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The idea of replacing Saddam was probably a good one. The fact that they had no idea on who should replace Saddam was bad - very bad.

Oh, BS. We'll be greeted as liberators then, and we'll be greeted as liberators now.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

F that. I want John Oliver to stay with his current show.

 

[walrus]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Do they think Todd is going to actually improve things?

How are you going to hear him speak with his head that far up Obamas butt?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Pat does it again
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2014/08/12/is-isis-an-existential-threat-n1877527

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Peter King is STILL getting lots of air time. Saw him this morning on Morning Joe explaining how ISIS was coming to America and what we needed to do in Iraq to prevent it.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Peter King is STILL getting lots of air time. Saw him this morning on Morning Joe explaining how ISIS was coming to America and what we needed to do in Iraq to prevent it.

I don't suppose the host or hosts asked a question like "haven't you people been wrong on just about every Iraq assumption you've made over the past 12 years" or is that too "biased" a question? So far its been only Megan Kelly on Fox of all places who called out Dick head Cheney to his face.

Oh, I shouldn't forget to give a shout out to that panelist on one of the boring Sunday shows who told Bill Kristol to his face that if he was so into sending US troops to Iraq why didn't he join the Iraqi Army himself! That's a good question to pose to Pio and Fishy amongst others out here...

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Pat does it again
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2014/08/12/is-isis-an-existential-threat-n1877527

That's a well reasoned and written opinion.

I agree with him 100%.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Pat does it again
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2014/08/12/is-isis-an-existential-threat-n1877527

Pitchfork Pat isn't a bad analyst with the exception of the immigration debate where he used to delve into xenophobia. I seem to recall way back him doing an election night show or something with Rachael Maddow where they were both panelists and not the host but they were pretty informative unlike 99.9% of paid political commentary these days.

 

[Priceless]

Peter King is STILL getting lots of air time. Saw him this morning on Morning Joe explaining how ISIS was coming to America

Definitely a cake and party. Would a "Welcome to America" parade be overdoing it?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

That's a well reasoned and written opinion.

I agree with him 100%.

I agree with him, though it's tempered by two considerations:

1. It is possible to use military means to prevent a genocide, and that's not equivalent to our usual strategy of "first, protect the oil." An intervention in this case would not be furthering the chimerical and/or cynical aims of the prior administration, it would be for good reasons.

2. When reading what Pat doesn't think is an existential threat, it's worth keeping in mind what he does regard as an existential threat.

Truly, America faces an existential crisis. Are the racial, political, social, and cultural forces pulling us apart overwhelming the forces holding us together?

It is the belief of the author and premise of this book that America is indeed coming apart, decomposing, and that the likelihood of her survival as one nation through midcentury is improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course. For we are on a path to national suicide.

[...]

How is America committing suicide? Every way a nation can.

The American majority is not reproducing itself. Its birthrate has been below replacement level for decades. Forty-five million of its young have been destroyed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2005 to 2006, our minority population rose 2.4 million to exceed 100 million. Hispanics, 1 percent of the U.S. population in 1950, are now 14.4 percent. Since 2000, their numbers have soared 25 percent to 45 million. The U.S. Asian population grew by 24 percent since 2000, as the number of white kids of school age fell 4 percent. Half the children five and younger today are minority children.

-- Pat Buchanan, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart, 2007, pp. 7-8

 

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

More white babies!
More white babies!

 

[Priceless]

I agree with him, though it's tempered by two considerations:

1. It is possible to use military means to prevent a genocide, and that's not equivalent to our usual strategy of "first, protect the oil." An intervention in this case would not be furthering the chimerical and/or cynical aims of the prior administration, it would be for good reasons.

2. When reading what Pat doesn't think is an existential threat, it's worth keeping in mind what he does regard as an existential threat.

I wonder if that pickup line would work..
"Pat Buchanan thinks we need to ****."

Probably not.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I agree with him, though it's tempered by two considerations:

1. It is possible to use military means to prevent a genocide, and that's not equivalent to our usual strategy of "first, protect the oil." An intervention in this case would not be furthering the chimerical and/or cynical aims of the prior administration, it would be for good reasons.

2. When reading what Pat doesn't think is an existential threat, it's worth keeping in mind what he does regard as an existential threat.

I was only agreeing with his points on the current ISIS situation, not whatever else he may be saying although to be honest, I don't reflexively disagree with him by any means - I've caught him making sense in the past too.

As far as using our military to prevent genocide, I believe that we can (should in some cases) use our air power to support "friendlies" on the ground. I'm not up for sending our troops in to fight for people who should be fighting for themselves and their fellow countrymen.

If our air power can give the "good guys" the upper hand (while minimizing/eliminating risk to our boys) and prevent genocide, then I say light 'em up!

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I wonder if that pickup line would work..
"Pat Buchanan thinks we need to ****."

Probably not.

Abstinence is murder.

Pat's got himself an ally in spirit.

The greatest enemy of theocracy from Tehran to Texas is an educated, financially independent, sexually confident woman.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I was only agreeing with his points on the current ISIS situation, not whatever else he may be saying although to be honest, I don't reflexively disagree with him by any means - I've caught him making sense in the past too.

As far as using our military to prevent genocide, I believe that we can (should in some cases) use our air power to support "friendlies" on the ground. I'm not up for sending our troops in to fight for people who should be fighting for themselves and their fellow countrymen.

If our air power can give the "good guys" the upper hand (while minimizing/eliminating risk to our boys) and prevent genocide, then I say light 'em up!

Exactly. Conflicts like this should follow the Bosnia playbook. If you have reliable allies on the ground, bomb the enemy with superior air power while the faction you're supporting slowly takes advantage and eventually defeats their advisary. ISIS is doomed to be blown to bits whenever they're in a convoy or firing artillery or any heavy equipment. Without that advantage, hell, maybe even the idiot Iraqi army can defeat them - that elite fighting force conservatives had been telling us about.