Anyone listening to this drivel from Sen. Feinstein? (Obviously, Specter isn't...he offers no coherent rebuttal).
Feinstein in essence says we need to "clear up" the issue of Iran sending weapons to Hezbollah. She talked and talked but, in the end, what she prescribes is that we "talk" to them. [she says, "For the life of me, I've never understood this attitude that we don't talk to people we disagree with!"] She cites the illegal Iranian weapons shipment confiscated by the U.S. and----we need to go talk to them about it. "This constant use of threats just doesn't work".
And there sat Specter. Perfect opportunity for him to ask: "What does 'clear up' mean? Are you implying they just mistakenly shipped the weapons? That it's all a misunderstanding? When you and your colleagues say we need to 'talk' or 'clear things up' or that 'threats don't work'---that's just meaningless drivel. Before Americans can take you seriously, you need to put some specific proposals on the table. Implying that the enemy would be satisfied with 'talk' is childish at best and mortally dangerous at worst".
Of course, in the real world, Snarlin' Arlen reserves all his snarlin' for Republicans and George Bush.
 |
| "What does 'clear up' mean? Are you implying they just mistakenly shipped the weapons? That it's all a misunderstanding? When you and your colleagues say we need to 'talk' or 'clear things up' or that 'threats don't work'---that's just meaningless drivel. Before Americans can take you seriously, you need to put some specific proposals on the table. Implying that the enemy would be satisfied with 'talk' is childish at best and mortally dangerous at worst".
|
Good post.