Sunday, January 15, 2006
Sunday Talking Heads Shows
I watch all the Sunday talking head shows I can without Tivo or a working VCR. So it's This Week with Stephanopoulos, the Fox Sunday show with Chris Wallace and the thankfully short Chris Matthews Show. I really miss Meet the Press.
Chris Matthews, a partisan Democrat TV pundit, had another all lefty panel, (moving from extreme to center)--Cynthia Tucker, Norah O'Donnell (Matthews is partial to fellow Irish derived), Michael Duffy (See!) and Andrew Sullivan (just imagine if it was O'Sullivan). The panel talked about the Alito hearings and proved that Hell has no fury like a Democrat embarrassed.
The criticism of the bloviating Democrat senators, though universal from every talking head, was tame, for example, on the much criticized Fox Network show, when compared to the Matthews panel, particularly Cynthia Tucker. She was still angry days after the debacle. Oh, and Sullivan talked about homosexual rights again, somehow tying it to Republican efforts to recruit blacks into the party (which they all agreed was failing badly).
Although he never let it out like the panel, you could tell that Matthews was disgusted by what happened on TV last week in DC, and in his closing thoughts apparently advocated scrapping the current system of bloviations followed by a question and then interruptions of the answer for more bloviating. Except that I'm always glad to give the Democrats the means to embarrass themselves, I agree. (Pat Buchanan said on McLaughlin that Senator Biden (D-DE) politically slit his own throat with his tongue at the hearings-- a horrifying image but true, if you gave Biden any chance to begin with).
Chris Matthews, a partisan Democrat TV pundit, had another all lefty panel, (moving from extreme to center)--Cynthia Tucker, Norah O'Donnell (Matthews is partial to fellow Irish derived), Michael Duffy (See!) and Andrew Sullivan (just imagine if it was O'Sullivan). The panel talked about the Alito hearings and proved that Hell has no fury like a Democrat embarrassed.
The criticism of the bloviating Democrat senators, though universal from every talking head, was tame, for example, on the much criticized Fox Network show, when compared to the Matthews panel, particularly Cynthia Tucker. She was still angry days after the debacle. Oh, and Sullivan talked about homosexual rights again, somehow tying it to Republican efforts to recruit blacks into the party (which they all agreed was failing badly).
Although he never let it out like the panel, you could tell that Matthews was disgusted by what happened on TV last week in DC, and in his closing thoughts apparently advocated scrapping the current system of bloviations followed by a question and then interruptions of the answer for more bloviating. Except that I'm always glad to give the Democrats the means to embarrass themselves, I agree. (Pat Buchanan said on McLaughlin that Senator Biden (D-DE) politically slit his own throat with his tongue at the hearings-- a horrifying image but true, if you gave Biden any chance to begin with).
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 11:02 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Hey Roger,
I can't figure out why you don't watch "meet the press". It is one of my favorites, although over here I have few choices. I get Wolf, Mclaughlin and Russert. That is it. You should have seen Bremer craftily defend what he said in his book without saying on the show that anyone in the administration had done anything wrong. It was one of those moments when I realized I could never be in politics. I guess I'm just too honest. This kind of masterful sidestepping really needs to be left to the professionals.
I know you are a supporter of the war and I wonder if you don't think that there should have been (and should still be) more troops on the ground? I mean, my feeling is, if you are going to do it, do it right. If you look at the numbers comparing 2004 and 2005 there seems to be no improvement. Same number of US soldiers lost, same or more terroists attacts, same or more innocents caught in the crossfire from both sides. From my understanding there will have to be drawdowns this year less for political reasons than for institutional limitations (specifically the rules of deployment of the National Gaurd).
I predict that the drawdown (and predictable increase in insurgent activity) will be blamed on politics (Murtha et. al.) and the fact that laws would need to be changed to deploy National Gaurdsmen for 4th and 5th tours will be largely overlooked. And the Democrats in their ineptitude will fail to point this out.
I can't figure out why you don't watch "meet the press". It is one of my favorites, although over here I have few choices. I get Wolf, Mclaughlin and Russert. That is it. You should have seen Bremer craftily defend what he said in his book without saying on the show that anyone in the administration had done anything wrong. It was one of those moments when I realized I could never be in politics. I guess I'm just too honest. This kind of masterful sidestepping really needs to be left to the professionals.
I know you are a supporter of the war and I wonder if you don't think that there should have been (and should still be) more troops on the ground? I mean, my feeling is, if you are going to do it, do it right. If you look at the numbers comparing 2004 and 2005 there seems to be no improvement. Same number of US soldiers lost, same or more terroists attacts, same or more innocents caught in the crossfire from both sides. From my understanding there will have to be drawdowns this year less for political reasons than for institutional limitations (specifically the rules of deployment of the National Gaurd).
I predict that the drawdown (and predictable increase in insurgent activity) will be blamed on politics (Murtha et. al.) and the fact that laws would need to be changed to deploy National Gaurdsmen for 4th and 5th tours will be largely overlooked. And the Democrats in their ineptitude will fail to point this out.
I blame the Clintons, but think I might have been tempted to do the same. At the end of the first George Bush's term, we had 2.7 mil in uniform, by the end of Clintons, we had 1.6. That means we can't do two large scale things anymore. I admit that Rumsfeld is seriously into lean and mean (emphasis on the lean) so that we probably went against Saddam with the bare minimum. I don't know how things would have been much different with 400 thousand on the ground. Would there have been less looting? And if there was less looting, then what? More troops on the ground now is just more targets and more miles driven in Humvees next to IEDs. I believe we are winning but winning was just providing security until the political solution arrived. Has it arrived? Hard to believe it has not. If you read what the Iraqis did to their liberators (the Brits) from the Turkish Empire in the 20s, I have to think they really like us. Churchill called Iraq a volcano of ingratitude about 1925. Anyway, what's done is done and all we have to do now is resist premature withdrawal (and we all know what a messy drag that is), and George Bush is not pulling out before the Iraqis are able to provide reliable security. (and besides, we'll need forward bases for the hard part with Iran). Stay warm. Thanks for the comments.
Yea, Brrr. The snow doesn't even melt when the sun shines on it this time of year. Blame who you want for the situation with the Army. Clinton is a perfectly fine scapegoat for me (or Rusmfeld). The lean and mean Clinton Army did quite well in what it was desingned to do: hit hard and fast. Clinton didn't want to get into nation building. Bomb from afar whenever possible.
But I figure they must have know their limitations going in. Had we had the ability to put more boots on the ground to prevent the looting at least the Iraqi's would have some confidence in us. As it happened, the would be insurgents saw how utterly unprepared we were to provide even the most basic security. Don't you find it ironic that treasures 3000 years old and older that had survived hundreds of wars met their demise only now? You are a history buff, doens't that bother you just a little?
I can't figure out how we are winning. Same amount of insurgent attacks, same amount of US casualties. Less oil being pumped. No real improvement in services. By what measure are we winning?
Also, if we can't provide reliable security, how can a rag-tag outfit like the Iraqi army ever hope to?
Finally, mark my words, one step into Iran, and all hell breaks loose. I'm not one for prophecy, but this one really stinks of Armegedon.
But I figure they must have know their limitations going in. Had we had the ability to put more boots on the ground to prevent the looting at least the Iraqi's would have some confidence in us. As it happened, the would be insurgents saw how utterly unprepared we were to provide even the most basic security. Don't you find it ironic that treasures 3000 years old and older that had survived hundreds of wars met their demise only now? You are a history buff, doens't that bother you just a little?
I can't figure out how we are winning. Same amount of insurgent attacks, same amount of US casualties. Less oil being pumped. No real improvement in services. By what measure are we winning?
Also, if we can't provide reliable security, how can a rag-tag outfit like the Iraqi army ever hope to?
Finally, mark my words, one step into Iran, and all hell breaks loose. I'm not one for prophecy, but this one really stinks of Armegedon.
Check the back stories, the so called looting of the museum was poor reporting. Almost everything in the museum has been recovered. I feel we're winning based on the mil blogs and the Iraqi ones I bother to read now and again, Iraq the model is one. We took causualties all through WWII, I still think we were winning. You are right about Iran. Very tough nut. But Hugh Hewitt is pushing "Imperial Grunts" which I haven't had the time to read. A few well trained men can apparently do a lot when history is right. Thanks for reading and commenting.
So Called? Seriously? I dont know, I saw the vases broken and watched while a curator went into shock while he was seeing in. Im glad to hear that they got alot of the stuff back. It doesnt change the fact that we were too busy protecting the oil pipelines to protect the museum. Certainly plenty was destroyed. I hope you are right that we are winning. I just dont see it.
I was wondering, do you still practice or do you do this stuff full time?
Post a Comment
I was wondering, do you still practice or do you do this stuff full time?
<< Home
