Friday, May 29, 2015

Coals to Newcastle

"To carry Coals to Newcastle, that is to do what was done before; or to busy one's self in a needless imployment."

The Circle of Jerks went blind the other day over a quote from Scott Walker about ultrasounds prior to an abortion being “cool.” The Politico ran it. Various left leaning journalists circulated it. It’s as if they had an email server and they all descended at once with their stories printed on kleenex.
The only problem is that the story was made up. Some of the lefty journalists refused to retract their stories even after the quote was proven to be fabricated. It just fit their narrative too well.
Now comes another one and this time it involves Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%. Cruz opposed an aid package for Hurricane Sandy. But now he is supporting an aid package for Texas floods. The left-leaning New York Daily News swung into attack mode and with it came the very same “journalists”who had attacked Scott Walker. But, like with Walker, they got their keyboards sticky and their story completely wrong.
Legal Insurrection has the complete play by play. The issue here is that no one in the Circle of Jerks has the ability to nuance. They go straight for the release as quickly as possible and leave out every detail imaginable that does not fit their narrative.
For example, the Texas flooding happened this week. The Hurricane Sandy aid package was formulateda month after the hurricane hit. It was not emergency spending by any stretch of the imagination.
Next, Cruz was not alone in his opposition to the Sandy package because  ....

“The difference between Bush’s mistakes and his disappointments may just be that he hasn’t yet taken ownership of the latter,” Massimo Calabresi wrote in Time as he covered President George W. Bush’s final press conference in January of 2009. Four years earlier, left-wing journalist John Dickerson had begun a trend among the Bush White House press corps, demanding from the President a recognition of his mistakes.

Dickerson, now like George Stephanopoulos, plays an objective Sunday news program questioner and he, along with the circle of jerks who pose as objective reporters of the Obama Administration, would rather blame George W. Bush for ISIS, and not Barack Obama. But, objectively, in 2009 as George W. Bush left the White House, the surge had worked, Iraq was stabilizing, Iran was on the sidelines, and ISIS did not exist.

When Barack Obama entered the White House, he had made a campaign promise to get out of Iraq. On July 14, 2008, then candidate Barack Obama wrote in the New York Times, “We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began.” Politifact, which once attacked those who said President Obama was lying with his claim that you could keep your doctor only to then declare the President’s claim a lie, has never wavered from declaring President Obama has stuck to his Iraq withdrawal plan.

In fact, the Obama Administration was so intent on withdrawal, it is now both documented and accepted as fact that the Obama Administration ran from negotiating an agreement to keep American troops in Iraq. Dexter Filkins, writing in the New Yorker’s April 28, 2014, issue, documented our disastrous withdrawal.  This Way Comes

At the beginning of this year, President Obama referred to ISIS as junior varsity. Later in the year he declared them amateurs. Less than three weeks ago the President said he had no strategy to combat ISIS. Less than two weeks ago, President Obama referred to the non-ISIS rebels in Syria as farmers incapable of leading the resistance against ISIS. This past Wednesday night, President Obama’s bold new strategy is to arm the very rebels he says are incapable of leading resistance to ISIS.
But who are the rebels? They are people who have been in a civil war against the Syrian government. But from the rebels have also come loyal foot soldiers for ISIS. How does the President know the rebels will not use our weapons and funds to fight Syria instead of ISIS? Likewise, how does the President know some of the rebels will not take our weapons to ISIS?
More troubling, how does the President know these rebels will not turn on us? And is it not possible the Syrian government and ISIS may now make an alliance of convenience to rapidly and jointly crush the rebels? The sad truth is Barack Obama knows the answers to none of those questions, but wants Congress to approve sending arms and training to the rebels anyway. More DOOM! from the polls.

Delivering fresh state of affairs commentary anymore is ... you know. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Gotta love the Congressional scorecards popping up from Heritage and Conservative Review. One of the best new tech treats of 2015.
oy vey ole'

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.