Transcript from the 05.06.2011 edition of CNN Newsroom (9AM CDT Hour):
COSTELLO: Oh, but it's time for political buzz, a lightning fast conversation hitting the hot political topics of the day. Each of our brilliant political observers get 20 seconds to answer three probing questions.
Dana Loesch is a Tea Party supporter and conservative. Cornell Belcher was a Democratic pollster for the 2008 Obama campaign. And, once again, comedian Pete Dominick will lend his own unique perspective.
So, welcome to you all.
And the first question: have Democrats overcome the wimp factor?
DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: One decision, which I applaud -- I applaud the decision of the president to send in a human ops team instead of bombing the compound at Abbottabad. But I think the way you can follow this up and show that Democrats have really made a really good turn is to stop the investigation into the CIA members who are interrogating detained terrorists. At the same time, while you're celebrating the victory of the death of bin Laden, which was achieved by those interrogations.
CORNELL BELCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, I'm going to first reject and then I'm going to ridicule the very premise of this. I mean, if we're defining being tough as going half-cocked into war that we can't afford and can't pay for, costing thousands of lives and putting our country in debt -- no, we're not very tough. If wimpy means, you know, a measured, thoughtful response when our national security calls for it, well, then yes, we're pretty wimpy on that. We're Peewee Herman if that's the way we're defining it.
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: Yes. I think how we define the toughness is how we well we kill people or how our president orders our military. Well, then, if we're going with that premise, President Obama just, what, a few weeks into his presidency ordered the same SEAL team to snipers, to kill the Somalian pirates, 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and then bin Laden. If that's how you measure tough, I think he wins.
COSTELLO: OK. Second question: Michael Moore says the shooting of bin Laden was an execution and we should call it that. Do you agree?
BELCHER: You know, who cares what Michael Moore thinks on this? Look, Bin Laden, he's a guy. He's a terrorist who killed thousands of Americans. He's killed people all over the world, not only Americans but Muslims as well.
You can call it whatever you want to call it. He needed getting and we got him.
LOESCH: Whose side is Michael Moore on, anyway? Is he upset that he wasn't able to exploit this for another mockumentary and then go back and make millions of dollars off of it? I'm trying to figure out whose side Michael Moore is on. I think this is triumph of good over evil. He needs to stop with the (INAUDIBLE). COSTELLO: Pete?
LOESCH: He has to. It's done.
DOMINICK: Well, I mean, I kind of agree with Michael Moore. I mean, I think obviously it was an execution.
We found out yesterday there was only guy with a weapon. It's disrespectful to Navy SEALs. They could have taken him down with a crossbow. It's a 54-year-old frail man. They could have choked bin Laden with his own beard.
I mean, it really -- we -- definitely, we executed this guy, for sure.
COSTELLO: Got it.
DOMINICK: Whatever they're supposed to do.
COSTELLO: Third question, the week is ending. We've had a few days to digest all of this. So, what does Osama bin Laden's death really mean?
LOESCH: Well, I think we saw images all over the television. I think it's fantastic that everyone was able to unite and realize that this was the ultimate triumph of good over evil. We took out a figurehead of a terrorist organization and I think it sends a loud message that it may take a few years, but we'll track you down and we'll find you in whatever rat hole or overpriced concrete compound in which you live.
BELCHER: This -- I hope it means this. I hope it means that Osama bin Laden and his sort of evil ways become a footnote in history. If you look at the "Arab Spring" that's taking hold all over the Middle East right now, you know, bombs and guns and killing is not the way forward for bringing about change. I think we've seen that in Egypt. That's what I hope this means, is that this is an end to this way of thinking because it's not the way forward.
DOMINICK: It means different things for different people. One thing for young Americans who were coming of age who feel like their innocence was lost. It means something different for military families, victims' families, of course. But I hope -- I hope it means a pivot point for this president to get out of Afghanistan. And I really believe that that is a possibility right now, and I hope that's what it means.
COSTELLO: Dana, Cornell, Pete -- thanks, as always. And we'll be back again Monday. We enjoyed it.
Osama bin Laden's death might have dealt a blow to al Qaeda. But overcoming our foreign oil addiction could finish them off. We'll take a closer look at that, coming up.
Over the past week, Loesch has made pathetic excuses, such as accusing Barack Obama and the Liberals of "politicizing OBL for their own gain."
I also give credit to Bush for standing by the interrogation practices which delivered the clue that the CIA and military used to track bin Laden to his million-dollar compound.Hey Dana, even if the left stopped waterboarding, Osama Bin Laden would've been dead sooner or later.
But for the left and its media to ignore the reason why the action is impossible is petty and demonstrates more allegiance to party than country. The biggest obstacle to killing bin Laden was the left themselves. Had we gone their way instead of staying the course, bin Laden would likely still be alive.
Image: Media Matters For America
She also supported Bush's inhumane decision to support waterboarding:
From the 05.02.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
These same Right-Wing fools (including her) think that Bush 43 should get at least a significant portion of the credit. I think that Bush the 2x Election Thief does NOT deserve ANY credit in killing OBL.
Also earlier in the week, Loesch was making up more lies, such as that "Color of Change runs MSNBC," especially The Dylan Ratigan Show.
Color of Change, the group founded by admitted Marxist and 9/11 truther Van Jones, is chest-thumping all over Twitter essentially saying that they, not Dylan Ratigan, run “The Dylan Ratigan Show.”
Color of Change seeks to suppress conservative commentary across the board, period. They’re not interested in social justice issues as they market themselves to be, otherwise they would have been the first out of the gate with the Pigford story. They would have been the first to condemn the exploitation of black farmers for monetary and other gain by government officials and members of the Democratic party. Instead, they’ve taken the hard line against those farmers and against dissent of any form.
If this group has succeeded in overtaking a cable news network and fatalistically snuff out any non-progressive voice on a debunked race-baiting charge, it’s troubling for free speech and diverse thought, indeed.
She mentioned the repeatedly debunked falsehood on Pigford, by attacking the Black farmers who were victims of discrimination by the Federal Government and praising John Stossel (who infamously suggested repealing portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and her Axis of Evil parter Andrew Breitbart. Media Matters for America easily rebuts Loesch's lies on this subject:
John Stossel -- who believes that private businesses should have the right to engage in racial discrimination -- devoted another segment of his Fox Business show to attacking the Pigford lawsuit that provided recompense to black farmers who were victims of systemic discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Stossel set the segment up as a debate between Al Pires, a lawyer who represented the black farmers, and serial liar Andrew Breitbart, who has attacked Pigford as part of his eight-month smear campaign against former USDA official Shirley Sherrod, who first came to prominence after Breitbart posted a deceptively-edited video of a speech she gave that falsely portrayed her as a racist.
Stossel and Breitbart didn't make any new claims about Pigford. Rather, they rehashed the same tired distortions that we've previously debunked -- that the case is a "scam" and the claimants don't deserve their money.
But the segment was notable for Stossel's refusal to acknowledge that there was real, systematic discrimination against black people by the USDA. Recall that back when Stossel argued that "private businesses ought to get to discriminate" on the basis of race and called for the repeal of part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he at least acknowledged that the government should not discriminate.
From the 05.05.2011 edition of FBN's Stossel:
And finally, Loesch and her cohorts (sadly, including supposedly reputable media sources) are still pushing the UMKC/UMSL falsehoods, including the incitation of violence.