Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Declassified "revelation" that bin Laden wants to attack Americans used to renew tired talking points on Big Story

Reported by Chrish - May 24, 2007 -

Big Story substitute host Geraldo Rivera, while infinitely more articulate and skilled than John Gibson, still plays along with the pro-Bush administration agenda. His one-sided interview last night 5/23/07 with Danielle Pletka, VP of Foreign Policy Studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, promoted Bush's failed "war on terror" "strategy" as the only way to keep us safe from terrorism.
With video.

Rivera mouthed right-wing talking points such as Bush's "unwavering message that if we fail in Iraq the enemy will follow us home" and said that "no sane, reasonable, informed person can have any doubts" that even if Iraq wasn't part of the "war on terror" originally, it is today, to which Pletka emphatically agreed.

She elaborated to say that a big problem in the political debate in the USA today is that there are those who disagree (duh, that's why it's called a debate) and see Iraq as mainly a civil war. She said flat out that there are people who deny that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, a straw man argument meant to paint those who disagree with her as ignorant.

Rivera asked if the problem isn't more that it is both, a civil war and a front in the WOT, and terrorists are targeting Americans there as well as in the Middle East, Europe and the United States itself? Pletka found that to be a real oversimplification, saying that Al Qaeda inflames the sectarian violence to try to force us out, trying to give ammunition to people in this country who want us to withdraw.

This claim directly contradicts the video released several weeks ago, wherein Al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri said

"We ask Allah that they only get out after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, so that we give the blood spillers in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson to motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system,"
indicating they want US troops to remain a long time, where they are within easy reach.

Rivera asked Pletka if she had heard John Edwards remarks that we should use another term besides "war on terror," and her non sequitur reply was that he should be told that surrender is not a strategy. Rivera wondered aloud what else we could call it - the war on Islamo-fascism?
Pletka dismissed it as a lot of "silly debate about semantics" yet conceded that WOT may not be the ideal phrase. She opined that people need to focus on the threat we are facing, not what it's called, and Bush needs to show leadership "like he did today" by making a speech about how threatening OBL still is.

Take it away, Woke. ;-)

There was no opposing view, and still no definition of "winning," just gratuitous propping of Bush and ridicule of those (70%+) who disagree with his policies.