Fox News Renamed Badger News
Via Jo Miller, a funny "interview" on Fox "News" from last week's inauguration festivities. See the clip on iFilm; it's only a couple minutes long.
The interviewer seemed to want to have a nice, friendly, content-free chat with Vanity Fair contributing editor Judy Bachrach. The trouble was, Ms. Bachrach wanted to rail against the $40 million extravagence of ten inaugural balls, etc. So how does the interviewer handle this turn? Why, by arguing with her, of course. And lamely, it should be noted. Ms. Bachrach calls insufficiently armored Humvees in a war zone sitting ducks, and the interviewer counters that Bush has already given his "proper respect" to our troops - why, they not only held a special military gala to honor our troops; they even had a prayer service, for heaven's sake! (Pun intended.)
Original credit to oliverwillis.com, but it's apparently being slashdotted and looking at an enormous bandwidth bill because of this, so no link for you.
posted by Chris @ 1/24/2005 09:34:00 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
1. Bush shouldn't have such an extravagant inauguration in a time of war. Uses the propaganda line "When FDR was president during a time of war, he had a very modest inauguration and a tiny party where he served chicken salad and that was when we were actually winning a war."Yes, indeed during the 1945 inauguration, we were at war, and near the end of the war coming out the winner. Yes the
Inauguration and post parties were modest - BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS SICK YOU IDIOT! HE DIED ONLY A COUPLE MONTHS LATER TOO! Prior inauguration parties of his weren't as laid back. But of course you leave that out, Judy.
I'd also like to point out the usual defeatist attitude of most on the left, shown in her "when we were actually winning a war" comment.
2. In bitching about the cost, Bridget asks "ok, what should we have cut back on", Judy replies "how about 40 million dollars?" http://joustthefacts.typepad.com/joust_the_facts/2005/01/clinton_ii_inau.htmlhttp://loadedmouth.com/node/373http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004852.phpBush's inauguration was well within precedent, the same or less than the prior parties under Clinton.
3. "10 parties are not appropriate"Clinton had 14.
4. "We have soldiers that are incapable of protecting themselves in their Humvees in Iraq"After realizing that we were facing an increase of road-side bombs, RPGs, etc. we went from only 235 to over 15,000 armored Humvees, produced and shipped at a rate of 1000 a month. I think that's pretty damned good, wouldn't you say?
And let’s not also forget who Liberals nominated for Commander-In-Chief a man who voted numerous times to cut the military budgets for things like bullet-proof vests, weapons, and of course, armored Humvees.
...and to the Liberal who is so "concerned" that our Military is in shambles and that it is costing the lives of our soldiers, consider the following:
The Facts about Military Readiness - Heritage Foundation - September 15, 2000.
This report documents how Bill Clinton WEAKENED the U.S. Military. The data and facts can not be denied. It is LIBERALS who are WEAK on Defense. http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfmOh and not necessarily stated in this interview, but another common bit of left propaganda is that it's your tax dollars funding all these parties. NO it's not; it's funded by private donations as they have always been, which gives them the right to do what they wish with it, spending it how they see fit.
(Liberal whining) "Yeah, but instead of spending all that money on the inauguration, it could be used for things like the children devastated by the Tsunami in South-East Asia!" ...Hello!? We sent more than a BILLION dollars in federal and private donations to it already! WE as a country were (as usual) the biggest contributor of relief aid to a disaster cause.
On a final note, let me just ask - why are liberals always so hypocritical and pessimistic, and have such defeatist and anti-American feelings? Why do they hate this country, and want to see failure of freedom around the world?
Do you really wish things would get worse for our troops over there trying to uphold freedom and democracy, so that we would be forced to pull out and let all hell break loose out there? You do realize that in order to have peace in the world, the middle-east must be stabilized and based on some form of democracy, where the people have a say in their lives and not dictated by a madman or group of terror cells.
Is it all just so you can point and laugh, and say “ha-ha! You failed Mr. Bush!” is that it?? Why are you so hateful?
Communist pigs... I hope you die
Communist pigs... I hope you all die in a fire
Post a Comment
<< Home