I just heard the most remarkable exchange on the Ed Schultz show. I'm writing this from memory, so perhaps somebody else has a more accurate version. For those who aren't familiar with Ed Schultz, he's one of the hosts on Air America Radio. His particular shtick is that he sounds slightly like Rush Limbaugh, but he's liberal and quite jovial in personality, as likely to talk about football as Iraq.
Anyway, some rightie called in. He started off with an offer to concede that Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq over the WMD issue as long as Schultz was willing to concede that Clinton missed some opportunities to go after Bin Laden. It ended with this:
Ed Schultz: Answer me this. Are we really any safer as a result of going into iraq?
Caller: Well I feel safer —
ES: That's not the question. What's your proof?
C: Uh —
ES: Oh, you're gonna say because we haven't been hit. That's your proof.
C: [triumphantly, with the sense that at last, he's found the winning answer] LONDON's been hit!ES: Thank you for your call...
So I'm just sitting there thinking, oh, no, that man did NOT just say that the fact that the U.K., our chief ally in Iraq, is getting hit again despite long practice fighting the IRA... is somehow proof that we're better off?
Oh yes, he did! Moron.
