BROOKS, SMERCONISH SHILL FOR OBAMA
Shame on David Brooks. The Long Defeat is nothing but road clearing for Obama. Why? Because, as I heard him explain, Obama does not hate him for being a Republican though I am not sure he is any longer. Most Democrats, Brooks said, hate him for thinking differently but Obama sent him nice notes in which he claims to understand him view point.
Well, those emails have been paying handsomely. I am sure Hillary wished she had done the same. As is he has the nerve to write:"In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming." He is doing so at a time her lead in Pennsylvania is growing fast.
Michael Smerconish is another Obama fan. He not only fawned over the"speech" but chose three Obama supporters to analyze it. What happened to balance? Simple. He chose members of three ethnic groups, an Irishman, a Black and a Jew. Who could ask for anything more?
His listeners saw through the gimic and let him have a piece of their mind. He compared bitterly about them and proceeded to pepper Barack with soft balls during the short interview the man deigned to give him. Consider this exchange:
Smerconish:"Pakistan . . . it looks like for six-and-a-half years we've been outsourcing the hunt for bin Laden to a guy [President Musharraf of Pakistan] with no motivation to get him. Do you agree with my assessment?"
Obama:"Absolutely. You may be aware of the fact that I made a speech in August, you remember that I got criticized . . .
Smerconish:"Not by me, Senator, I applauded you."
Obama:"I know. Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain and George Bush all suggested that I said something wrong when I said we should be going after bin Laden, in high-value targets, and if we've got him in our sites, we should ask for Pakistan's cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take him out. But if they don't, we shouldn't need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans. . . .
Smerconish:"John McCain says he'd follow him to the gates of hell. I just want him followed to the border of Pakistan."
Obama:"I'm not sure whether you stole my line or I stole yours, because that's exactly what I said in a speech on Thursday. If you're going to follow him to the gates of hell, why don't you just start by going to where he is right now?"
In other words, Obama and Smerconish wrongly imply that Bush knows where Bin Laden is but fails to take him out because he does not wish to upset Pakistan. The truth is that Bush does not hesitate to go after high value targets within Afghanistan and has repeatedly done so successfully. What Obama suggested was sending ground troops into the Pakistani tribal areas! But never mind. The so called Republican Michael Smerconish may not admit it but he is a shameless Obama fan and his listeners know it.
comments powered by Disqus
- Tales of African-American History Found in DNA
- History Celebrates New Show Roots With Project to Digitize Post-Slavery Documents
- In 1453, this Ottoman sultan ended Christian rule in Constantinople. But was he a good Muslim?
- Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation among documents sold for $6.2m in New York
- Family shines light on American POW killed by Hiroshima blast
- History Relevance Campaign meets at the Smithsonian
- Bernard Lewis Turns 100
- David Lowenthal, author of "The Past Is a Foreign Country,” says it’s folly to scratch the names of slaveholders off buildings
- Jean Edward Smith, biographer of FDR and Ike, has a new biography coming out … of George W. Bush
- Flora Fraser, biographer of George and Martha Washington, wins $50,000 George Washington Prize