On this show we again investigate the events of another devastating attack on the French capital. We’re joined in studio by W. Rand Smith of Lake Forest College, a political scientist who studies French politics and Daniel S. Kamin, adjunct professor of International Relations at DePaul.

Via phone we check in with Fred Kagan of American Enterprise Institute and Fred Burton, VP of Intel at Stratfor.

Subscribe to The Milt Rosenberg Show in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Penfold Member

    As sometimes happens when I listen to Milt’s programs, I find myself wanting to throw a shoe at my monitor. In this case one of his guests, I believe it was Daniel Kaman, just can’t help from siting moral equivalency between the Catholic church and Islam. After all, the Catholic church locked up Galileo (380 years ago). And at the height of the Catholic church, they were totalitarian. Is he saying that Islam can be excused for its current state because, well, the Catholic church was bad once too? The argument is childish and I’m not buying it.

    • #1
    • November 20, 2015, at 12:39 PM PST
    • Like
  2. mildlyo Member
    mildlyoJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Couldn’t make it five minutes into this one. Too much Catholic bashing.

    • #2
    • November 20, 2015, at 5:53 PM PST
    • Like
  3. Henry Castaigne Member

    The blame-it-on Bush excuse for the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq doesn’t hold up.

    Short NYT Article

    Short Reuters Article

    Krauthammer’s take

    In essence the main point of Krauthammer’s that contradicts the Catholic-Basher is in these two paragraphs,

    Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated. And all major parties but one (the Sadr faction) had an interest in some residual stabilizing U.S. force, like the postwar deployments in Japan, Germany and Korea.

    The second failure was the <Obama’s> SOFA itself. U.S. commanders recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead a level of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

    <The parenthesis are my own>

    I think the problem is that liberal wonks don’t talk to generals or folks in the military. As I understand it, they are overwhelmingly conservative.

    • #3
    • November 21, 2015, at 9:29 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Basil G Inactive

    My recognition skills were a little slow today due to a heavy heart and l got slimed with some Lefty goo before I could reach the Stop button. Now I gotta pinch my nose and listen to 10 minutes of a Michael Savage podcast to get this film off me. (I’m out of turpentine.). Fortunately it was basic “off the rack” Leftist tripe that most American minds have acclimated to; like training at altitude.

    • #4
    • November 21, 2015, at 3:28 PM PST
    • Like
  5. Blue State Blues Member
    Blue State BluesJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Henry Castaigne:The blame-it-on Bush excuse for the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq doesn’t hold up.

    Short NYT Article

    Short Reuters Article

    Krauthammer’s take

    In essence the main point of Krauthammer’s that contradicts the Catholic-Basher is in these two paragraphs,

    <The parenthesis are my own>

    I think the problem is that liberal wonks don’t talk to generals or folks in the military. As I understand it, they are overwhelmingly conservative.

    Exactly right. I am so tired of that stupid talking point. Leftist talking points can never be debunked; they just keep repeating them until people believe them. I thought maybe Milt would challenge it, but he’s too polite to his guests to do that.

    • #5
    • November 21, 2015, at 5:58 PM PST
    • Like
  6. Henry Castaigne Member

    Thanks for quoting me Blue State Blues. I think a huge problem is that liberals don’t talk to military historians are folks in the military who are in the know about that kind of stuff.

    • #6
    • November 22, 2015, at 12:15 PM PST
    • Like
  7. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    The Liberal guests live in some sort of fantasy land where up is down and Catholics are violent, Islam is a religion of peace with only a minority radicalized and MSM suffers from right wing bias. How does Milt interview these folks without laughing at them and calling them names?

    • #7
    • November 23, 2015, at 7:31 PM PST
    • Like
  8. Penfold Member

    How does Milt interview these folks without laughing at them and calling them names?

    Milt is too much of a gentleman. And living in the enemy’s camp may have conditioned him to the lending of a sympathetic ear. But you can tell when he’s battling back when he asks what he hopes are thought-provoking questions of his guest. Unfortunately, his questions sometimes slide off their armor. I can imagine it stretches his tolerant nature from time to time.

    • #8
    • November 24, 2015, at 9:05 AM PST
    • Like
  9. The Question Inactive

    Henry Castaigne:The blame-it-on Bush excuse for the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq doesn’t hold up.

    Short NYT Article

    Short Reuters Article

    Krauthammer’s take

    In essence the main point of Krauthammer’s that contradicts the Catholic-Basher is in these two paragraphs,

    <The parenthesis are my own>

    I think the problem is that liberal wonks don’t talk to generals or folks in the military. As I understand it, they are overwhelmingly conservative.

    Thanks for this. I knew that Bush specifically warned against a complete withdrawal from Iraq, so what the guest was saying didn’t make sense in light of that.

    I’m agnostic about the second Iraq War, but if it really was a mistake, it was only a marginal mistake, where the unintended bad somewhat outweighs the good. We got something very good out of the war. Getting Saddam and his sons out of power was a very good thing. Was it worth the costs? I don’t know, but the war can’t be described as a complete mistake because some very good things came out of it. Many of those good things have been completely negated by Obama’s policies, e.g. a cooperative Libya and a fragile but stable Iraq.

    In contrast, Obama’s mistakes have been total mistakes, that can only be justified within a progressive, anti-colonial ideological prism where reducing American power in the world is a good thing.

    • #9
    • November 24, 2015, at 1:40 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Omid Moghadam Inactive

    Milt is too much of a gentleman in presence of intellectual dishonesty. And, why do leftie academics feel the need to vigorously defend every single decision Obama has ever made. It seems that they take any criticism of his policies and actions (or lack there of) personally. Looks like they are willing to die on every hill in that arena.

    • #10
    • November 25, 2015, at 1:51 PM PST
    • Like