Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is just one of every Republican who wants to play Goldilocks with President Obama's handling of the fight against ISIS, but on Wednesday's edition of CNN's Legal View, anchor Ashleigh Banfield took kinetic action against Blackburn's assertion that Obama's ISIS porridge needs to be "more aggressive":
While I support this amendment as a first step in our efforts to fight back against Islamic terrorists, it is my hope that we will re-center our focus and commit to annihilating ISIL from the face of the earth. President Obama must be more aggressive and more forthright when it comes to his strategy for destroying these terrorist thugs.
When it comes to being honest with the American people about ISIL and what is going to be required to win this fight, President Obama is living in fantasyland. To date, the President has failed to provide us with a clear definition of what a win or success in this fight would look like. Our goal must be to destroy these terrorists and ensure Americans are protected from threat they pose to our freedom and way of life.
Yes, if only President Obama would say we should "destroy" ISIS.
In the sort of pit bull interview you rarely see a mainstream reporter subject political figures to, Banfield pressed Blackburn to explain what, short of boots on the ground, would be "more aggressive" than the bombing campaign that began Monday night.
"What's more aggressive than 47 Tomahawk cruise missiles, four dozen aircraft, 200 pieces of ordinance -- all of that just in two days?" Banfield asked.
Blackburn started spewing verbiage like a .50 cal Salad Shooter, even cleverly sidetracking Banfield by accusing the president of failing to "defin(e) the coalition," adding, "We are yet to know who is a part of this coalition." Here's how that (comically) worked out for her:
"It's on the map right in front of us, right now!"
The call is coming from inside the house!
Eventually, Banfield just got fed up and asked Blackburn, point blank, if she thought U.S. ground troops in Syria were a good idea. Shockingly, the response wasn't yes, and it wasn't no:
"You do not need 435 people playing commander-in-chief, what you need is members of Congress supporting the command team..."
Support the entire command team, except the President. Genius.
What Blackburn seems to be saying is that the White House shouldn't be ruing out using ground troops in mission-specific deployments, as events on the ground dictate. Maybe Blackburn missed it, because everyone else sure did, but that's exactly what the White House is saying, and ha been saying all along.
Here's the full interview: