The title link will give you all you need to know about how convoluted is the left's thinking on the threat of terrorism.
It's a transcript of Tom Oliphant's radio interview with Hugh Hewitt on July 8. You'll see an absolutely stunning refusal and/or inability to face facts on Oliphant's part. He sounds like a nice enough guy with positively no grip on reality. The debate looped in so many circles that I got dizzy just listening. Oliphant agreed with half of the first point, disagreed with the second half of the first point...claimed there are three different "strains" of terrorism...insisted that maybe the terrorists would have used nukes if they had them, but then again, maybe not.
And maybe the moon is made of green cheese.
Check Hugh's July 8 posting for a roster of the intelligence successes that have been achieved in the War on Terror. This is the type of news that, if reported at all by MSM, gets buried in small type on page A18. Front pages always seem to be reserved for "worsening conditions, " "heavy losses," or "tragic setbacks."
And for the piece de resistance, read Radioblogger's transcript of the Ron Reagan/Christopher Hitchens exchange on MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast. Hitchens totally skewers Reagan with his own ignorance, as was his right. Hitchens is British, the day after 7/7, sitting there as a guest, listening to Reagan essentially telling him that Great Britain brought the attacks on itself. After reeling off a solid list of examples of Saddam Hussein's complicity with international terrorism, to the incessant interruptions and denials of Reagan, Hitchens delivers the payday quote:
"How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?"
~ Christopher Hitchens to Ron Reagan
A very good question, indeed. Probably one that should be asked more often.
