In the aftermath of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner by radical Islamist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Rachel Maddow alerted her audience to the REAL security threat facing the United States.Guess which of the following concerned Rachel:
- That the TSA is still not using intelligent profiling techniques that have kept Israeli flights terrorist-free for decades?
- That Abdulmutallab was brought a lawyer by the Feds while he was still in his hospital bed—better treatment than a white collar criminal– and not subject to military or intelligence-style questioning while vital information might still be obtained?
- That Congressman Peter Hoekstra, the biggest thorn in the side of ACLU and pre-9/11 mentality liberals– who is running for Governor of Michigan– brought up this incident in a fundraising letter to supporters?
If you chose anything but number 3, then you don’t know Rachel.
The reaction of the Left to the Christmas bomber crystallizes once again something that has been true since at least the 1950s—liberals rarely think fighting any foreign threat, no matter how deadly, repressive, or expansionist they may be, is as important as defeating the world’s real evil obstacle to progress and utopia– Republicans!
More at the link. Maddow's attack on Hoekstra's here:
1 comments:
I can dislike Rachel Maddow with the best of 'em, but this time you're wrong.
Here's why:
If you know anything about Rachel Maddow, you would know that she is a "Pro National Security" Wonk. Unusual for liberals.
When it was published for 2009, Rachel immediately read, cover to cover, the military's own publication, "Counter Insurgency Field Manual" (not sure that's the exact title.) It's a good sized book, and quite a challenging read, as you can imagine.
Although she is certainly a liberal, Maddow is quite serious and conservative regarding national security. She also spends a great deal of time studying the military and it's methods. She is quite pro military. In fact, she is in the process of writing a book about uses of the military and changes in military procedure.
Maddows' point about Hoeksra was not about the state of National Security, but about Hoekstra's immediate manipulation of a frightening and serious situation as an opportunity for personal gain in his own fundraising.
I must agree with her that manipulating such an event for one's own fundraising is not placing "country first".
Post a Comment