Liberal Logic Via Alan Colmes

Tonight as I toggled back and forth between Hannity and Colmes and the World Series I caught Alan questioning, and badgering, New York Congressman Peter King over his defense of Dick Cheney’s statement that John Kerry is criticizing the troops concerning the “missing” ammo. Of course, Colmes, as was so predictable, took umbrage. No, he said, Kerry never criticized the troops. He criticized George Bush. Colmes position is that since Kerry didn’t specifically blame the troops he must not be blaming them.

But what Cheney meant, obviously, is that no president micromanages every facet and detail of a war and the troops on the ground and their commanders are making these types of decisions. When Kerry condemns the administration for the “missing” ammo — which again is a canard anyway — he is necessarily criticizing the troops, because they are the ones directly in charge.

Alan must have been watching Lawrence O’Donnell at MSNBC. He kept interrupting King and wouldn’t let him finish a sentence. Boy that’s annoying. Peter King also rightly pointed out that John Kerry is siding with a U.N. official over the commander in chief during time of war, which is “absolutely disgraceful. He should be ashamed of himself.” Kudos to Peter King.

My friend Sean said that Kerry said, “they failed to guard the stockpiles of ammo,” further proving that Kerry was necessarily condemning the troops — unless, of course, you choose to believe that John Kerry expected George Bush personally to do guard duty in Iraq.

To develop the point of liberal logic further, I want to point out that Kerry shill, Democratic Congressman Adam Smith, under questioning by Sean as to what evidence he had of any negligence on the part of our troops or the president on these weapons said: “At some point these weapons were in Iraq. There were 380 tons of weapons there at some point. Now they’re not.” Then he goes on to say that this ties in to John Kerry’s point that we did a great job winning the war in Iraq (Kerry hasn’t said that, by the way), but we’re doing a terrible job winning the peace, because we had no plan to win the peace.

So what Smith is saying is that if there were 380 tons of weapons in that location before the war and they were removed before our troops ever reached that location it is President Bush’s fault for not having a plan to win the peace. That is such nonsense that it hardly deserves a response. But I’ll respond anyway. If these weapons were removed before we got there, it doesn’t prove anything about any plan to win the peace, which is an offensively stupid concept anyway: a plan to win the peace. And it doesn’t say anything about our conduct of the war either. It says that even our incredible troops are not omnipresent. It says that they didn’t get to that site until after they’d taken over the country. And remember the Dems saying we began the ground war and charged into Baghdad too hurriedly? Well, if President Bush had listened to their advice and slowed down the troops they wouldn’t have reached this site as soon as they did and there would have been even less chance that diversion of the ammo could have been prevented.

What all this says is that Democrats will use anything to score political points no matter how inane. They’ve been caught with their pants down in some conspiratorial news orgy with the New York Times and instead of licking their wounds they’re still maintaining the lie in the face of contradictory evidence. These people simply cannot be trusted.