Tag Archives: Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow doesn’t understand modern military weapon systems

Rachel Maddow doesn’t think that you can shoot down incoming missiles with missiles. I am NOT KIDDING.

Watch this if you like: (warning – has really vulgar language, because they are liberals)

Or read the transcript: (H/T Newsbusters)

STEVE MOORE, WALL STREET JOURNAL: The other tragedy, David, of what’s happened in the last 20 years is the reason Reykjavik fell apart was because Reagan didn’t want to give up SDI or Star Wars. And here we are, you know, what 20 years later and we still don’t have a missile defense system in this country.

DAVID STOCKMAN: We shouldn’t.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: They’ve never worked.

MOORE: I don’t want to get blown up.

MADDOW: You know what? Here’s the country, here’s the kind of thing you put over like a cake to protect the cake from flies. Missiles don’t work that way. That’s the whole idea of SDI. We’ll protect ourselves by shooting missiles at other missiles. It’s never worked in a test. We spent billions on it.

MOORE: It’s worked.

MADDOW: And anybody who understands this knows it can never work.

MOORE: If you don’t think it works, then why did the Russians not want us to do it?

MADDOW: The Russians were very happy to sign this thing.

MOORE: No they weren’t. They didn’t want us to do SDI because they knew they didn’t want us to blow up their missiles.

MADDOW: You know what? If you think you can shoot the bullet with the other bullet, you can have an awesome life in Annie Oakley’s side show, but you should not be in charge of billions of dollars of the defense budget. It’s such a hysterical fantasy. I love it.

Newsbusters writes:

It appears Maddow must have been out of the country during Desert Storm when Patriot missiles were used to take out Iraqi Scud missiles aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia. Although their success rate was a great source of debate at the time (see the July 1996 Center for Defense Information study), no one disputes that some Scuds were indeed shot out of the air.

More importantly, at least twelve countries are currently using Patriot technology as part of their missile defense programs.

Even Japan has missile defense technology:

And India can do it, too.

You can shoot down incoming ballistic missiles from mobile launchers, fixed launchers and naval launchers. In fact, even fighters can intercept incoming ballistic missiles.

In military simulations, I’ve scrambled my F-14 Tomcat CAP to intercept vampires fired at my carrier battle group. (My CAP usually consists of 1 E-2C Hawkeye and 4 F-14D Tomcats because I really like the range on the AIM-54C Phoenix AAM).

Ships will regularly shoot down incoming SSMs. In fact, that is the whole point of the AEGIS missile defense system that is deployed on CG Ticonderoga and DDG Arleigh Burke vessels.

IN FACT, in simulations I have actually shot down vampires using this Phalanx close-in weapon system made by Raytheon. That thing is just a big machine gun used for point defense if all other missile defense systems fail.

Should we really have Democrats like Rachel Maddow in charge of national defense?

UPDATE: Here are a couple more examples I found:

Related posts

MUST-SEE: MSNBC deliberately edits out black protester then complains about racism

Hot Air posted this video from the radically left-wing MSNBC.

That wicked, wicked white protester! Why, he is such a nasty racisty racist racist racist racist RACIST!

But wait! Look what MSNBC carefully omitted from their video: (H/T Ace via ECM)

Notice how ignorant these morons are about firearms. The AR-15 that guy is carrying is a single fire rifle, with a magazine capacity strictly regulated by law. It is NOT a machine gun. It is NOT an assault rifle. It cannot fire on full automatic, or even a measly 3-round burst! It is just a plan old hunting rifle that looks cool. That is all. (Full disclosure: I love guns, but I don’t own any. I just go to the firing range once a year.)

Too bad journalists spend 4 years in college learning how to create propaganda and how to paint people they disagree with as racist, sexist homophobes. That’s journalism school! Mom and Dad, fork over $100,000.

More videos of egregious media bias on MSNBC.

Which cable news network has the worst media bias?

Why I think that MSNBC is the most biased channel

Listen to Ed Schulz, who works for MSNBC, as he takes a call from a mildly critical caller to his radio show. (H/T NewsBusters)

See, an outburst like this is why I am not at all convinced that left-wingers would protect the rights to free speech of those who disagree with them. It seems to me that there is some fundamental disrespect for the human rights of others that is grounded by the secular-left’s worldview.

Here’s another left-winger, Tamarin Hall, from MSNBC. (H/T Hot Air)

Here’s another MSNBC left-winger, Rachel Maddow. (H/T American Power Blog via Blazing Cat Fur)

News Busters has more detail on Maddow’s reaction to Obama’s Cairo speech here.

The best one of all is here at Hot Air, in which Newsweek’s Evan Thomas is interviewed by Chris Matthews on MSNBC! Thomas says, “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”.

Check out this interview by Keith Olbermann, also of MSNBC, with Steven Crowder.

Well, it’s not really Keith. So this video is fake, but accurate.

Contrast MSNBC with FoxNews

Contrast the fawning over Obama you see on MSNBC, with Charles Krauthammer on Fox News. (H/T Hot Air)

Krauthammer is too moderate for me, but at least he’s a journalist, not a sycophant.

The Western Experience

Here is a more even-handed reaction to Obama’s Cairo speech from Jason at the Western Extern Experience. He has a round-up of stories from Lebanon, Palestine and Iran that shows what is really at stake.

Here are a few of the more disturbing headlines:

This is what Obama should have talked about, but didn’t. Appeasement didn’t work for Chamberlain or Carter, and it won’t work for Obama.

What’s at stake?

The Washington Post reports that drug cartels use submarines to move massive amounts of drugs into the United States. The write that “U.S. officials fear that the rogue vessels could be used by terrorists intent on reaching the United States with deadly cargos”. Maybe Obama should be focused on defending the United States instead of apologizing on our behalf in order to send tingles up the legs of MSNBC talking heads.

Will Obama’s speeches deter aggression of this sort? Or will they be viewed as evidence that no reprisals would follow such an attack?

UPDATE: Muddling Toward Maturity links to a substantive refutation of Obama’s Cairo speech by Caroline Glick writing in the Jerusalem Post.