Commemorate Philadelphia's World Series VICTORY
with a Phillies Jersey and other Phillies Memorabilia at low prices.

10,000 Katyusha Rockets Are Enough! (VIDEO)

July 29th, 2006 at 03:13 by MsUnderestimated

Well, I think Fox must have gotten all of our emails from last Friday (at least I can hope they did) and paid attention to them, because Laura Ingraham again sat in for Bill O’Reilly for what has become his now frequent Friday night absenteeism. Last Friday night was apparently not just a fluke - Laura was AND is brilliant. She shone again tonight.

The Talking Points Memo was fantastic, and Laura reminds us of how crazy it is that many are acting like lemmings, jumping off the “let’s condemn Israel” cliff together. The first segment guests were Dan Senor, former Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman, and Kawal Nawash of the “Free Muslim Coalition.”

Part of the exchange went like this:

Kamal: You said something in the introduction that, you said that when Hezbollah first attacked Israel, the Arab governments criticized Hezbollah.

Laura: They don’t want to destroy them too much, don’t want to destroy them too much.

Kamal: The disagreement came is that when Israel… they wanted Israel to attack Hezbollah, attack Hezbollah…

Laura: Hezbollah hides in neighborhoods; in residential neighborhoods.

Kamal: Okay, that is fine, but Israel also attacked ALL of Lebanon. They attacked non-Hezbollah infrastructure.

Laura: No, no, no, no, no, no… I know what your comments on that are. You know what…

Kamal: ….they attacked the airport…

Laura: Why did they attack the airport?

Kamal: What, they don’t new supplies?

Laura: Why did they attack the bridge, why did they hit that bridge?

Kamal: (unintelligible)

Laura: Ten thousand Katyusha rockets are enough! They don’t want another 10,000.

Kamal: All Israel had to say is that ‘if any plane land, we would shoot it.’ But you see, here’s what happened…even the Christians… even the Christians…

Laura: Christians are criticizing the Hezbollah today, even in the New York Times today.

Kamal went on to say that his organization was very much involved, they read all the regional local publications, and talked about how Arabs at first supported Israel, but now they’re “upset.”

Laura: If I hear ‘disproportionate force’ one more time, I’m going to lose it.

Kamal: No that’s not disproportionate; I agree with what Israel is doing. I’m saying they should have focused their attack on the Hezbollah infrastructure. When they attack Lebanese infrastructure…

Laura: Hezbollah makes it impossible to do that because of the way that they operate. They are chicken, they are chicken! Their own leader is hiding probably in an embassy, if that report is accurate. Dan, I’m going to give you the last word.

Dan: Two things… One, Laura, to your point; Hezbollah has a longstanding practice of locating their weapons and basing their operations out of civilian areas. To say that Israel shouldn’t attack civilian areas, is to say that Israel shouldn’t attack Hezbollah. Hezbollah is to blame for the violence in these civilian areas; not Israel.

Kamal was talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying ‘no, it was not disproportionate, they just should have stuck to Hezbollah infrastructure.’ What the hell does that mean when Hezbollah has seats in the government? I agree with Laura -Hezbollah are chicken, and the head rooster is the lunatic weird-beard running Iran. If they keep screwing around, the eagle is going to have to fly into that coop and start plucking some chickens itself.

Watch the video here.

Cross-posted at Expose the Left.

Choose Options to Share This Post
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Fark] [Google] [MySpace] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

 

Posted in Are You Kidding Me?, Israel, Video, War on Terror | | TrackBack | Email This Post Email This Post | Print This Post Print This Post | View blog reactions

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    "disproportionate force" is a term I have only heard of through blogs like this one. So if it is a mantra, who is repeating it? As is the case here. Laura is the one who says it, obviously implying that's what democrats say. I get the literature in the mail, the e-alerts and listen to liberal talk radio and haven't heard the phrase used that much. If you pay close attention, a lot of the mantras we supposedly use as an argument, we don't. I've said it before we aren't that organized. Most of the 2 or 3 word phrases that get repeated ad nauseum are from right wing pundits claiming democrats say it all the time. It's a convenient way to frame how the pundit wants their audience to see the dems argument. That is one of the ways people like Laura divide the citizenry.
    Plans,
    yes those are ideas I mentioned. And by that standard I could ask what is Bush's plan exactly?
    You can see the dems agenda at Democrats.org. For the meat and potatoes you'll have to read the failed legislation they've been trying to introduce. For that you have to go to the congressional records. It's dry reading but it's there. The truth is the Democrats do have plans and ideas and they have been succesfully stifled by an increasingly unpopular congress. Trust me, I have beefs with my party but one thing they are not short on is ideas and plans. It's convenient to attach a stigma to a group of people indeed powerless in the federal government. We've been offering alternatives for 5 years that have gone ignore, from honoring our commitment to the Kyoto accords, to plans for Social Security, Energy policy and nothing comes of it because right now the Republicans control everything. You might not like the plans or ideas they have but they are there.
    • ^
    • v
    Bing, you are not answering the question about "plans." You say the Democrats have a plan for troop redeployment and fixing our reputation abroad. Those are not plans - they are ideas. Exactly how will the Democrats achieve those goals ? That's what's missing here.

    Oh, mantras? Try "culture of corruption," "truth to power," "we have a better way," and many more. Those are mantras; i.e., repetitious mutterings that have absolutely no meaning at all.
    • ^
    • v
    With all due respect americanleader you used a lot of words but didn't say a whole except you find liberals to be illogical. I'm not saying this to try to be insulting, (though I'm kind of insulted by your post) but perhaps your belief that it is illogical or defensible is really your not willing to accept or are unwilling to try to understand where we are coming from. An example might be the tired mantras of the right that include, "the Democrats have no plan." If I'm right you probably said out loud "they don't" or at least thought it when you read that. However that is not true. There are many plans for everything from troop redployment in Iraq to fixing our reputation abroad as it has been weakened by the current administration. I'd like an example of your interpretation of "mantras" which the you believe liberals to use when tryinto illogically defend the "indefensible." That's a pretty bold charge to not back it up.
    • ^
    • v
    bigbingtheory: MsUnderestimated is correct. When liberals, who cannot use logic to defend logically indefensible positions, resort to puny-minded nonsensical mantras which they repeat ad nauseum, it doesn't take long to lose patience at such infantile tactics (which are inherently insulting to the interviewer as well as the audience) being used by someone who clearly wishes to be treated as an adult despite their use of crybaby tactics.
    • ^
    • v
    To you maybe. Tell me are you tolerant of any idea that you don't agree with? Thee are always two sides to the story and there are few instances in life where we have the luxury of things being in black and white. Thee is an argument and a legitimate one to be made that Israel is over reacting or at the least reacting the wrong way.
    • ^
    • v
    That's not called losing "it;" it's called losing patience at the continuous drumbeat of a mantra that makes no sense whatsoever.
    • ^
    • v
    "If I hear disproportionate force, one more time I'm going to lose it.."
    I think she lost "it." A long time ago.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus