Sunday, September 10, 2006


Talking Head Sunday

A reunion of some of the lefty members of the 9/11 Commission (plus the Co-Commissioner Tom Kean) on This Week with George Stephanopolousousness. And Kean and John Lehman are the only ones who are making sense and not calling for censorship. I'm actually amazed that Jaime Gorelic has the brass to show her somewhat less than than attractive face in public. Ben-Veniste sounded just like a Soviet Commissar circa 1965 (except there was no use of the word Comrade), and Gorelic actually said we can't have the children getting bad facts. Tell that to Michael Moore. Or Jay Bennish.

I'm glad I haven't eaten yet, because Katrina Van den Awful often causes me to throw up a little in my mouth. Mens insana in corpore sano. She clearly doesn't believe we are in a war. I wonder if that puts her in the mainstream of the Democrat party? If I had to guess, I'd say yes. Fareed is a little touchy feely. I'm sorry, but on the 5 year anniversary of our last night of sleeping through the growing threat, I'm not exactly feeling touchy feely. Now she's blaming us for the growing threat. Yeah, it's all our fault. We deserved it. I can feel the bile rising.

Now Katrina is saying our absolutely unproven torture of captured terrorist is causing bad feelings about the United States. I don't know how she can know that; I think they would consider torture to be the normal course of war. The Mid-East nations seem to use it all the time. Maybe she meant it is causing bad feelings in Europe. I'm glad Fareed and Katrina cleared up the difference between a documentary (where apparently you can lie as much as you want without complaint) and a docudrama (where the least factual inaccuracy sends the Democrats into a vaporous case for censorship). I would have thought that it was the documentary that was held to the higher standard of accuracy. More topsey turvey from the Democrats. Of course she will tout the recent Senate report on pre-war intelligence despite the substantial and growing body of evidence the Senate was completely wet on the subject of al Qaeda connection to the government of Iraq. The good news is that it seems The Path to 9/11 will in fact run tonight and Monday.

9/11 widower Gene points out the good works many people do in this world, which actions are apparently nearly invisible to the buggy whip media.

On to the Fox program with Condi Rice up first. I feel that her star is dimming somewhat, but nearly everything she says is a blander version of what I believe. She was good about the Taliban coming back to continue to be killed in great numbers and great about the goodness of deposing Saddam Hussein.

Dean up next. This could be good. Quick prediction--everything the Bush Administration has done ever, without exception, is bad. He let me down, admitting to some improvement. Afghanistan is turning against us? Really? The Constitution is the only thing standing between us and the people we're fighting. I could have sworn it was our military. Is the Constitution explosives proof. It had better be, I think. Democrats are for more judicial review of war actions which is clearly the Executives' (with some support by the Congress) and where the judiciary has absolutely no place. Why? I really don't get that. Is it so they can speak ill of the President? Is it because the judiciary is still largely lefty? Continuing mystery. Howard, phased redeployment is different from cut and run how? New direction seems the staple Democrat talking point these past weeks. Well, retreat certainly is a new direction from what President Bush is doing. No stunning faux pas but a lot of ducking and jiving.

The Looming Tower gets a big plug. We face a terror movement (Jihad) not a terror network.

Chris Walace shows what to me is one of the more embarrassing scenes of 9/11, the Congress singing "God Bless America" Yeah, important moment.

Brit Hume sagely points out that the current bitter disagreement is largely a result of our success. We are not under continuous attack here in the homeland so we can afford to disagree. True, true.

In response to Juan Williams' Democrat talking points that the Republicans are mere fear mongers, Brit points out that this is merely the result of a different world view--the Republicans see clearly that there is a very serious threat out there--the Democrats see at most a crime problem, which could easily be reduced to mere nuisance. I'll add that at the socialist extreme, millions of Democrats believe that the terrorist threat is a complete fraud and the Bush administration (or perhaps, somehow, Israel) was the perpetrator of the 9/11 attack (or the administration was guilty of misprision). That delusion/denial causes a lot of bad feelings on both sides.

Chris Matthews is on. Happy, happy, joy, joy. Tucker Carlson, the token, is sans bowtie. Dancer fashion? Engel is little miss sunshine about Iraq. Carlson is clearly not a Bush supporter regarding Iraq so I suspect the panel is unanimous about that. Fair and balanced indeed. Engle calls the failed Sunni state in the middle of Iraq, Jihadistan. I'll get behind that. Kay has forgotten the recent past. It was a Jordanian who got the ball rolling of wide spread Sunni/Shia endless reprisals. The President is telling the truth, not the Brit named appropriately Katty. Now Tucker has put on the fool's cap, appropriately, and is dancing with himself. His show on... on whatever alphabet network playing it has so few viewers it hasn't been listed on Drudge's list of the triumph of Fox News Channel. I don't think he helped himself a bit.

Matthews says the Press is McCain's base. True, true. I too don't think Giuliani can get the Republican nomination, but I still like the guy. Carlson had the best news, if true, the Iranians believe we will bomb their nuclear facilities. If they act prudently then, and don't try to hide their nuke weapon program (further), maybe we won't have to. He ends with a nice montage of the 9/11 attack footage with recorded FDNY radio traffic that day and a rolling list of what seemed like 250 dead firemen. Well done.


I guess I take the misrepresentations of the "docudrama" more seriously than you do.

I mean suppose we had the preseident, the vice president, Ms. Rice, and Condi Rice all sitting around and brainstorming to the effect that: "We had better sell the public on WMDs and mention Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in the same paragraph so many times that the public will establish the link their individual minds even though there wasn't any so we can go to war as we are much more likely to get reelected in we are actaully at war in someplace like Iraq as no one equates the Taliban with a serious threat to our national security."

"Yup. Sounds like a plan."

Of course the above scene was much more likely to have actually occurred than the scene in the "docudrama" in which a senior memeber of the Clinton administration pulls the plug on killing or capturing Osama bin Laden.

I disagree with Mr. Kean. I don't think that "docudramas" contribute to outr understanding of recent historical events. When you consider, as you and D have documented from time to time in this blog, the nonsensical things that people are willing to believe (see your posting on the internet movie about 9/11 being what--a government plot?)than I think it is encumbant upon a major network not to portray events that have no basis in fact.

That's my position.

Sorry. The "Condi Rice" should have been "Karl Rove."
You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. Someone pulled the plug on operations to kill, capture, accept as prisoner OBL. If it wasn't the NSA Berger, it was someone else. I don't consider saying it was Berger to be fantasy. I don't mind docudramas but they are not my preferred means of gaining info. Composite characters, streamlined timelines are apparently the rule not the exception. I'll tell you if I think it's just BS.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?