Red Eye is the one of the greatest TV shows ever. It is fun, witty, bizarre, informative in spite of itself, and a place where you will hear commentators be bluntly honest where in other formats they would be more reserved. And then there is Bill Schulz, Bill is the liberal on Red Eye…most of the time he plays just a coked out hobo spouting idiocy…but sometimes he’ll tell you what he really thinks, and that’s when his spiel turns from funny to just plain stupid. But it’s not that the real Schulz is particularly below average…in fact, I think his honest moments show us the level of idiocy of your average liberal (and probably some of your dumber libertarians*) on foreign policy. So to give you an idea of how little your average liberal knows, let’s look at some comments made by Red Eye’s liberal voice.
So let’s start with a discussion about his opinion about Obama’s term in office so far.
Amb. John Bolton: And significantly in the days of the IRA terrorism, Britain was led by Margaret Thatcher—we’re led by Barack Obama.
BS: Who has got a really good record so far.
Bolton: Five dead in Massachusetts . And four Americans in Benghazi. All unanswered at this point. That’s the signal to the terrorists that it’s open season.
BS: I think so far that’s a great record. You don’t want anyone dead, but those are the realities of our war on terrorism. I thought he’s done a great job defending this country so far. I have never understood that argument.
Bolton: The question is stability in the Middle East where the Arab Spring has turned badly wrong. The loss of influence in Iraq.
BS: How is that his fault?
Bolton: Because of the policies he’s pursued. The withdrawal from Iraq, the withdrawal from Afghanistan. And the unwillingness to take on the war on terror. The unwillingness to go after countries like Iran and North Korea who are pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
BS: I think if you ask most Americans they’re going to say I want out of Iraq. I want out of Afghanistan. And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.
Red Eye April 23rd
So so many stupid statements in such a short period of time. Let’s deal with the last statement first. That because people wanted out of Iraq then it’s a good thing. Leadership is not about doing what the people want. Leadership is about doing what is best for the nation in the long run. If those happen to match up, great. But when they diverge leaders do the unpopular thing, they will try to convince the nation that it is the best thing, but if they can’t they will still expend all their political capital and even commit political suicide to do what is important and right . But just doing what is popular is the base and cowardly move of hacks. And to praise that is idiocy that only liberals can embrace. It doesn’t matter if everyone thinks a course of action is wrong, if you believe it to be right and it is your job to set policy you do what you believe to be right. Now there may be compromises here and there to ensure the most good comes about depending on the limitations of your power, but overall you do not care about what is popular if you are a leader.
But then let’s deal with the truly idiotic statement of “And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.” Which pretty much sums up the rest of his comments and shows the differences between liberals and their opponents. Liberals are too stupid to see any long term consequences. They think only in the emotional moment. Libertarians and conservatives on the other hand both consider the long term perspectives—where they differ is Libertarians focus on the consequences of action and conservatives point out that the consequences of inaction outweigh the negative effects of action.**
So let’s look over some of Obama’s foreign policy moves.
Iraq: Bush was an idiot who didn’t have a plan on how to rebuild Iraq. But if I can lay into Bush for being short sighted, Obama was worse. First off, did he do any of the right things and begin to rebuild Iraq? Nope he left, and left it to crumble. Yeah there are still US soldiers there (so if anyone tells you he ended the war in Iraq, they’re either lying or they’re dumb) but there are not enough there to do anything substantive…only enough there to get killed. Great plan Barry.
Then he did something even more short sighted. You don’t have to be terribly bright to realize that the Middle East is going to take up a large portion of foreign policy for a while. Part of the reason to go into Iraq was not only to stop a dictator (something we should have done in the early 90’s) and to stop support for terrorist networks…but one of the major reaons, long-term reasons, (besides stability, but you’d need a plan for that) was to establish a base from which we would be centrally located in the Middle East and thus have more effective influence on the entire area. Right now our only major staging grounds (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel) are kind of on the periphery of the Middle East.
So thinking short term Obama not only doomed the nation to chaos again but he also blew one of the most important long term goals of the war. Also since problems you don’t fix always tend to come back, don’t be surprised to see that this is not the last of major US troop deployments in Iraq in your lifetime.
Afghanistan: Initially I thought this might not be a complete cluster. We were burning more poppy fields than under Bush, and the initial stories of the uptick in drone warfare were hopeful. But then we found out drones weren’t being used to take out high value targets we couldn’t easily get to, they were being used without any concern. No one was being captured, no one was being interrogated. You run a war as much on intel as you do on manpower….yes you can perhaps keep the problem at bay by an unrelenting drone war, but that is like sandbagging a river that shows no sign of stopping its flooding, the minute you stop sandbagging the flood will break, the second you stop the drones the flood will break (keep in mind Obama was planning on putting strict rules on how to use drones should Romney have won). And then you will have no drone and no intel to work with. Whoever takes over from Obama will have their hands tied on both fronts. And not only that…we’ve been in negotiations with the Taliban. That’s right we want to make peace with the people who throw acid in women’s faces for not wearing a burka and who shoot little girls in the head. I want you to take a look at these pictures. Those are the people Obama has tried to negotiate a peace with. Take a long look. You cannot, you must not negotiate with things that can do that to the innocent. The collateral damage of war is one thing, the intentional mutilation of innocent is another, and any society that can coexist with people who do this as typical means to get what they want has no right to call itself civilized. And to negotiate with butchers like that sends a very clear message that America does not stand for ethics, values nothing but her own whims, and will tolerate any evil so long as it does not bother us.
Iran: Besides leaking information about the virus we planted in Iranian computers and probably leaking information of Israeli plans to attack to ensure everyone in Iran was safe. But while general incompetence abounds in not seeming to realize psychotically crazy religious people with nuclear weapons is a bad thing (and I would like here to thank Bush for blowing all his political capital by not having a plan, thus not being able to deal with this before moron boy took over) it takes a special kind of stupid to consistently back the wrong horse. In Iran that would be the uprising in 2009 where (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/iran-elections-protests-mousavi-attacks) the people of Iran rose up against the government run by the Ayatollah…and the US did nothing. Now you can argue to me all day long about how we couldn’t do much…but please consider that in the light of running guns to Al Qaeda backed rebels in Lybia and Syria…to using US intel to help these groups allied with our enemies…to giving money and weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt…during the pro democracy, true pro democracy uprising in Iran, we did nothing. No word of encouragement. No behind the scenes support, not even running our jets and ships dangerously close to their border to remind them we are watching. NOTHING. When it is a real battle between tyranny and liberty, this worthless pieces of scum did nothing. I can’t promise that there was any way for this uprising to succeed, there probably wasn’t, but because we did nothing we made it very clear to every real desire for liberty in the world that we will not back you.
Israel: Obama has made it clear time and again he will not defend the democracy of Israel, going so far as to compromise the safety of Israeli intelligence officers so he could appear like the leader he is not (notice also they haven’t gone after this and like leaks that they thought made them look good…but leaks that made them look bad hell they’ll bug the AP, call reporters criminals for reporting, and god knows what else in the days to come.
In each and every dealing with Israel Obama leaves no doubt that support for Israel will be tepid at best, and nonexistent at worst, only encouraging further buildup and, God forbid, aggression.
Arab Spring: So while the pro-democracy protests of Iran were left to die, the pro tyranny, pro-Sharia, pro-Al Qaeda uprising of the Arab Spring were praised, supported, encouraged, armed, supplied, and even given money after their reigns are in place. I wonder if the long term consequences of this will be five countries supporting terrorism where we had just gone through so much in Iraq to get rid of one. Again I feel the long term effects of this will be less liberty and more terror.
I could go on, but in every single move the Obama administration has taken it has set long term advantages for the very people who want to destroy liberty and held back the long term strength of those who defend it. Don’t believe me on the weakening of our side, well then I would suggest you take a look at the latest lawsuit against Obama by the families of some of the dead members of SEAL Team 6…they’re not happy.
(yes the video of the press conference is very long, you may want to come back later and watch it because it’s worth it…though infuriating).
But back to Bill Schulz, it’s not a one night occurrence. Try this recent debate with former CIA Agent Mike Baker on the May 1st show.
BS:The congress thing is true. When he ran in 2008 it was not a Republican led Congress. It is now. There is no way he can get this to happen. You guys can complain about that but that’s the fact.
Mike Baker: You know why he’s not closing Gitmo.
BS: Because Congress won’t let him.
Baker: Bush spent several years doing what Obama found out is almost impossible to do. Get someone to take these people.
BS: Well Yemen wants 90 of them why won’t we give them to them.
So Bill’s genius idea is to send them to a nation where terrorists are numerous and partly in control. Can’t see the possibility of a jail break at all, can you?
Baker: The best way to end this prison let them die from the hunger strike.
BS: A lot of them have never been tried for anything and we don’t know if they’ve done anything. I don’t necessarily know if that’ s a great idea.
Baker: I’m sorry what.
BS: None of them have been tried for anything and we’ve already released a bunch that were innocent.
Baker: We just randomly picked these guys up and threw them in there?
BS: A lot of people have admitted that we’ve done just that. A guy working under Cheney said just that.
Greg Gutfeld: I think Baker’s going to kill you .
BS: No but isn’t that true?
I’ll agree Gitmo isn’t perfectly simplistic and that we probably did pick up a few innocent people (there is a reason we have the term “the fog of war”)…but the way Schulz is portraying it (especially if you watch the recording) is that everyone down in Cuba was just minding their own business and the US military randomly picked them up off the street (hence Baker’s face)…also the guy Schulz is likely referring to, Lawrence Wilkerson, who was on Colin Powell’s staff (yeah real conservative credentials there) is also on the record that we made up all the evidence against Saddam and he never had any WMD programs…which in light of the fact that we had to ship 500 ton of yellow cake uranium out of Iraq (according to CNN). Also Wilkerson currently makes a living as a pundit who goes on left wing shows and says that the GOP is nothing but a bunch of racists. Given that he’s clearly a liar (or too stupid to understand what 500 tons of uranium is) and he hates the party he supposedly is from (thought I doubt) his statements about us taking the innocent and shipping them to Gitmo so one finds that his statements may be more motivated by leftist ideology than those pesky things known as facts, which makes most of his points as being the kind you should take with a grain of salt.
Yes military tribunals would be nice…but Schulz in his hypocrisy has forgotten about the constant blocks from liberals who wanted to give them every single civil liberty of US citizens and all protections of the Geneva Conventions (this ignores that little point that the Geneva Convention only applies to those in uniform, and the uniform clause was put in there specifically to prevent the major kind of terrorism that these terrorists were engaged in. The Geneva Convention wanted to set rules that you will fight in certain ways, or we will not guarantee your safety in the least and you’re on your own. To offer this scum those protections only encourages the kind of behavior you don’t want to encourage…but there again we go back to Obama and other leftist). And their lack of understanding of all rules and regulaions, laws, constitution, etc.
And an earlier part of the conversation dealt with the foolish idea that Gitmo is something that makes us enemies…yeah cause our drone attacks are making us so many friends (I don’t buy into the pacifist BS that the drones do nothing but kill innocent children, I’m an adult and realize there is such a thing as unintended collateral damage…but on the same token Barry is rather haphazard in his use of drones and doesn’t seem to care about doing the normal thing and trying to limit collateral damage where possible). But back to creating enemies. It’s not creating more enemies. Religious psychopaths tend to hate whether they have a reason to or not. Note they hated us before the first Gulf War, they hated us before the Shah was put into power, the Mufti of Jerusalem was conspiring with Hitler on how to kill all the Jew in the 1930’s before there was a major Western presence, they have waged endless and constant war on the west since, well, their founding. When you found a religion on an act of genocide (the killing of the Jews of Medina) the after effects tend to be people who find enemies whether you give them a reason or not. If we pulled out every Western base from the Middle East tomorrow AND moved all of Israel here to America…I’d lay down my entire net worth on a bet that would say they would still be calling for death to the Great Satan. We’re not making enemies by our actions, an ideology that hates reason is going to find any example of it as an enemy.
The fact of the matter is that no sane person thinks the people in Gitmo are a bunch of saints. The fact of the matter is that liberals only care about what’s popular now and doing what they want now with no concern for long term.
Yeah Bush botched the job at rebuilding…probably because he wasn’t a real neoconservative (go back to the Bush/Gore debates, you will hear him say he doesn’t believe in nation building), it’s just that like his liberal sensibilities he did the only thing that made sense in the short term. The fact of the matter is that we don’t have anyone in power right now in this nation who thinks long term, and we haven’t had one for a while (although we did blow the chance to have one very recently). I’ve pulled out Bill Schulz as the representative of liberal thought here, but you hear dumb shit like this all over the place, not just on the token liberal of one show, and it is an ideology of short term thinking that will always lead to problems.
*Honestly, libertarians, why are you letting your party get taken over by the whiny anti-war crowd. You used to be Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater types who encouraged destroying tyranny. What happened?
**Libertarians may dispute the idea that they don’t see as far into the future as conservatives, but history backs up neoconservatives on this point in terms of foreign policy
***Anyone who thinks George W. –Let me expand entitlements, give federal control of education, sign stimulus bills, not worry about Tort reform, Social Security reform, cutting any part of the government, do nothing about Fannie and Freddie –Bush was a fiscal conservative in any way, shape, or form is deluding themselves. But he lowered taxes! No he didn’t, conservatives know that a temporary tax reduction has no lasting effect on the economy, so even that move wasn’t conservative. The man was conservative only in the part of “conservative” that is a gross misuse of the word and that the GOP needs to drop, let’s the use government to promote social values.