Last week, the CIA declassified and released a large chunk of 1970s-era documents gathered as part of an internal review designed to assess and prepare for possible public embarrassments in the midst of the Watergate investigation. In response to an order from then-chief James R. Schlesinger, as the Washington Post wrote last week, "the agency combed its files for what it called delicate information with flap potential. The result was a collection of documents [at least some CIA analysts] called the family jewels" (read the Post story in full here).
I hesitate to call this huge event an under-reported story (the news was everywhere last week; below you will find extensive treatment from the NYT). On the other hand, for historians this is a coup of great significance. Some of these "Freedom of Information" requests went back three decades. More than that, cataloguing newly released documents is the essence of "doing history." As the old guys say: "no document; no history." This is the exhilarating part of the business. In a word: poring over newly released primary sources is fun.
You would think that the news media would feel the same way. But I sense an awkwardness in regard to reporting this story. Although it is hard for me to put my finger on exactly, the coverage is less than fully engaged or even highly interested. In other words, the reporting lacks the joy you might expect in uncovering this treasure trove.
Why the lack of enthusiasm? Some speculation in brief:
1. The story goes against the template that the Bush administration is the most secretive White House ever. It is hard to reconcile this essential core assumption with the unprecedented access to secrets that four previous administrations (two of which were Democratic) denied.
2. The documents themselves also play against the template that all dirty tricks began with Richard Nixon. This assumption is perhaps even more sacred (although eminently less defensible) than the first.
Examples:
--Although a gunman assassinated Martin Luther King the spring before Richard Nixon won election as president, we see in our mind's eye the Nixon White House harassing and surveilling the civil rights icon.
--John Kerry famously remembered spending Christmas Eve 1968 on a gunboat in Cambodia while the President of the United States [presumably Nixon] was telling people we were not in Cambodia. Again, Nixon did not take office until the next month.
Lies and deception are Nixonian and Republican. We do not enjoy hearing reports that Bobby Kennedy oversaw the project to assassinate Fidel Castro.
Having said all that, here are some nuts and bolts on where to start in terms of engaging this new information:
The New York Times offered an interesting series of commentary and expert analysis on their NYT blog, which you can access here (membership required).
The Actual Repository: The agency actually released the documents to the "National Security Archive," a self-described "independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University." You may access the archive here.
I hesitate to call this huge event an under-reported story (the news was everywhere last week; below you will find extensive treatment from the NYT). On the other hand, for historians this is a coup of great significance. Some of these "Freedom of Information" requests went back three decades. More than that, cataloguing newly released documents is the essence of "doing history." As the old guys say: "no document; no history." This is the exhilarating part of the business. In a word: poring over newly released primary sources is fun.
You would think that the news media would feel the same way. But I sense an awkwardness in regard to reporting this story. Although it is hard for me to put my finger on exactly, the coverage is less than fully engaged or even highly interested. In other words, the reporting lacks the joy you might expect in uncovering this treasure trove.
Why the lack of enthusiasm? Some speculation in brief:
1. The story goes against the template that the Bush administration is the most secretive White House ever. It is hard to reconcile this essential core assumption with the unprecedented access to secrets that four previous administrations (two of which were Democratic) denied.
2. The documents themselves also play against the template that all dirty tricks began with Richard Nixon. This assumption is perhaps even more sacred (although eminently less defensible) than the first.
Examples:
--Although a gunman assassinated Martin Luther King the spring before Richard Nixon won election as president, we see in our mind's eye the Nixon White House harassing and surveilling the civil rights icon.
--John Kerry famously remembered spending Christmas Eve 1968 on a gunboat in Cambodia while the President of the United States [presumably Nixon] was telling people we were not in Cambodia. Again, Nixon did not take office until the next month.
Lies and deception are Nixonian and Republican. We do not enjoy hearing reports that Bobby Kennedy oversaw the project to assassinate Fidel Castro.
Having said all that, here are some nuts and bolts on where to start in terms of engaging this new information:
The New York Times offered an interesting series of commentary and expert analysis on their NYT blog, which you can access here (membership required).
The Actual Repository: The agency actually released the documents to the "National Security Archive," a self-described "independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University." You may access the archive here.
01/07: Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaeda
Trivia Question: What is the least-read edition of any daily newspaper?
Answer: Saturday.
This Saturday in the Washington Post:
Christina Shelton, an intelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 1984 to 2006, writes of her role in determining the existing links between Saddam's Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization during the summer of 2002.
Quoting Shelton:
"[Back then] I summarized a body of mostly CIA reporting (dating from 1990 to 2002), from a variety of sources, that reflected a pattern of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda, including high-level contacts between Iraqi senior officials and al-Qaeda, training in bomb making, Iraqi offers of safe haven, and a nonaggression agreement to cooperate on unspecified areas."
The Shelton piece is a curious article (in full here), as it comes without editorial comment or context--but clearly radiates resentment for the way in which George Tenet, the media and the swirling "politics of the Iraq war" have clouded the study of an extremely complicated issue.
Notwithstanding, she optimistically predicts that "a more complete understanding of Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda will emerge when [future less politicized] historians can exploit the numerous seized documents."
We can only hope.
For now, the template of the mainstream media, who often bemoan the lack of nuance in political discussions, demand "black and white," "right or wrong" answers when it comes to pre-war intelligence.
Answer: Saturday.
This Saturday in the Washington Post:
Christina Shelton, an intelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 1984 to 2006, writes of her role in determining the existing links between Saddam's Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization during the summer of 2002.
Quoting Shelton:
"[Back then] I summarized a body of mostly CIA reporting (dating from 1990 to 2002), from a variety of sources, that reflected a pattern of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda, including high-level contacts between Iraqi senior officials and al-Qaeda, training in bomb making, Iraqi offers of safe haven, and a nonaggression agreement to cooperate on unspecified areas."
The Shelton piece is a curious article (in full here), as it comes without editorial comment or context--but clearly radiates resentment for the way in which George Tenet, the media and the swirling "politics of the Iraq war" have clouded the study of an extremely complicated issue.
Notwithstanding, she optimistically predicts that "a more complete understanding of Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda will emerge when [future less politicized] historians can exploit the numerous seized documents."
We can only hope.
For now, the template of the mainstream media, who often bemoan the lack of nuance in political discussions, demand "black and white," "right or wrong" answers when it comes to pre-war intelligence.
01/07: A Quick Note on Knocked Up
Category: Books, Movies and TV
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This Friday, I finally found the time to see Knocked Up, which, by the way, exceeded the 100-million-dollar threshold in box office receipts this weekend.
I approached the film with great expectations, having read the reviews that praised it as something of a morality tale. It is in some ways a traditional story: boy meets girl, boy wins girl, boy loses girl and then wins her back, and they drive off together into the sunset.
Much has been written about the plot of the story in which an unmarried couple opt to make room for an unexpected new life in the midst of a relatively happy if self-centered existence (in the case of the father) and a promising career at a crucial juncture (in the case of the mother). Even more surprising, the parents, who make an unlikely couple, take great pains to fall in love and form a family in hopes of providing a secure and wholesome home for the impending child.
My review in a nutshell: funny, provocative and entertaining.
However, I have one caution: what may get lost in all the talk of high moral lessons and new traditionalism is that the movie is an R-rated ribald comedy. That is, if you are thinking about taking your wife (and meeting church friends) and seeing the movie at a very public theater on a Friday night in Waco, Texas, you should know that the content of this film is exceedingly raunchy and sexually explicit.
Consider yourself warned.
I approached the film with great expectations, having read the reviews that praised it as something of a morality tale. It is in some ways a traditional story: boy meets girl, boy wins girl, boy loses girl and then wins her back, and they drive off together into the sunset.
Much has been written about the plot of the story in which an unmarried couple opt to make room for an unexpected new life in the midst of a relatively happy if self-centered existence (in the case of the father) and a promising career at a crucial juncture (in the case of the mother). Even more surprising, the parents, who make an unlikely couple, take great pains to fall in love and form a family in hopes of providing a secure and wholesome home for the impending child.
My review in a nutshell: funny, provocative and entertaining.
However, I have one caution: what may get lost in all the talk of high moral lessons and new traditionalism is that the movie is an R-rated ribald comedy. That is, if you are thinking about taking your wife (and meeting church friends) and seeing the movie at a very public theater on a Friday night in Waco, Texas, you should know that the content of this film is exceedingly raunchy and sexually explicit.
Consider yourself warned.
At least one source is already calling the early box office for Sicko "healthy" ($1.3 million in 441 theaters on Friday).
UPDATE-2: Weekend total: $4.5 million to finish at No. 9. nationwide (full story here via BostonHerald.com).
An aside: these numbers are approximately five-times weaker than the opening for Fahrenheit 9/11--but still very strong for a documentary.
Considering the pre-opening publicity for the film, which began in earnest a month ago, the high profile of the filmmaker, and the plethora of positive reviews, no one should be surprised at the initial interest in Michael Moore's latest offering.
Having said that, my hunch is, in the end, Sicko will fall well short of expectations (however, even if my prediction comes to pass and the picture goes South, don't hold your breath for much critical press coverage).
The feature-length documentary is receiving a big push from the studio and a first-class ride from the film-reviewing fraternity, many of whom are big fans of Michael Moore's politics and like-minded in their basic assumptions about America, big business and evil Republicans.
However, my prediction is that Sicko will not have legs. Once the usual suspects see the film (and go back and watch it again a few times for the team),* who else is really going to care about this film?
In general, American filmgoers are not fans of the documentary genre. In terms of style, if you have seen one Michael Moore film, you have seen them all. Why would Joe Sixpack and family spend thirty-some dollars to go see a serially angry and malcontented demagogue deliver a heavy-handed and patronizing harangue dripping with sarcasm and a depressingly redundant deep-seated cynicism?
In the bluntest terms, it is unlikely that the work will ever appeal to anyone other than the axis of American liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia). One great irony is that the biggest fans of this film will be an elite echelon of Americans who actually enjoy the best health care in the world. Even more ironic, there are actually very few of these ostensibly compassionate humanitarians who will be willing to give up their own premium personal care to stand in line in some national health system so that the "unfortunate" might have more access. In the most practical sense, they are as much against "leveling" as William F. Buckley.
In the end, the hype around Sicko will prove to be another self-indulgent exercise of the American Left. Without seeing the picture, I can already tell you that it is a frontrunner for an Academy Award. Barring a late entry from Al Gore, Michael Moore should have a clear path to another statuette. On the other hand, Moore, who too often listens to his own press and the retinue of fools who encourage his antics, is still not a major player in American politics. He is a major player in Hollywood--but he carries very little weight (no pun intended) in fly-over country.
*UPDATE-1: This exhortation from the Daily Kos explains some of what is happening in re the weekend numbers:
Quoting Kos poster "hopesprings":
So if you want to see SICKO stick around and move into more and better venues, go see it this weekend. If you want all of America to be able to see it easily, go see it. See it again. And tell your friends to see it.
Will the campaign generate enough momentum to attract a wider audience? We'll see. But I stand by hunch.
UPDATE-2: Weekend total: $4.5 million to finish at No. 9. nationwide (full story here via BostonHerald.com).
An aside: these numbers are approximately five-times weaker than the opening for Fahrenheit 9/11--but still very strong for a documentary.
Considering the pre-opening publicity for the film, which began in earnest a month ago, the high profile of the filmmaker, and the plethora of positive reviews, no one should be surprised at the initial interest in Michael Moore's latest offering.
Having said that, my hunch is, in the end, Sicko will fall well short of expectations (however, even if my prediction comes to pass and the picture goes South, don't hold your breath for much critical press coverage).
The feature-length documentary is receiving a big push from the studio and a first-class ride from the film-reviewing fraternity, many of whom are big fans of Michael Moore's politics and like-minded in their basic assumptions about America, big business and evil Republicans.
However, my prediction is that Sicko will not have legs. Once the usual suspects see the film (and go back and watch it again a few times for the team),* who else is really going to care about this film?
In general, American filmgoers are not fans of the documentary genre. In terms of style, if you have seen one Michael Moore film, you have seen them all. Why would Joe Sixpack and family spend thirty-some dollars to go see a serially angry and malcontented demagogue deliver a heavy-handed and patronizing harangue dripping with sarcasm and a depressingly redundant deep-seated cynicism?
In the bluntest terms, it is unlikely that the work will ever appeal to anyone other than the axis of American liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia). One great irony is that the biggest fans of this film will be an elite echelon of Americans who actually enjoy the best health care in the world. Even more ironic, there are actually very few of these ostensibly compassionate humanitarians who will be willing to give up their own premium personal care to stand in line in some national health system so that the "unfortunate" might have more access. In the most practical sense, they are as much against "leveling" as William F. Buckley.
In the end, the hype around Sicko will prove to be another self-indulgent exercise of the American Left. Without seeing the picture, I can already tell you that it is a frontrunner for an Academy Award. Barring a late entry from Al Gore, Michael Moore should have a clear path to another statuette. On the other hand, Moore, who too often listens to his own press and the retinue of fools who encourage his antics, is still not a major player in American politics. He is a major player in Hollywood--but he carries very little weight (no pun intended) in fly-over country.
*UPDATE-1: This exhortation from the Daily Kos explains some of what is happening in re the weekend numbers:
Quoting Kos poster "hopesprings":
So if you want to see SICKO stick around and move into more and better venues, go see it this weekend. If you want all of America to be able to see it easily, go see it. See it again. And tell your friends to see it.
Will the campaign generate enough momentum to attract a wider audience? We'll see. But I stand by hunch.
29/06: More Fairness, Less Doctrine
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the homepage of Congressman Mike Pence (R) Indiana:
PENCE AMENDMENT PASSES HOUSE 309-115
Prohibits FCC From Reviving Fairness Doctrine
Read the full press release on Congressman Pence's website here.
What Happened?
Pence's amendment to the 2008 Financial Services Appropriations bill prohibiting funds from being used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to impose the Fairness Doctrine passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 309-115.
Is this a big deal?
Not really. The story did not make a big splash. I heard about it on Washington Journal this morning. Having searched the Post and the Times and then Google, the most prominent mention of the amendment I can find is in the Hill. You may read the well-crafted and informative article here.
As the Hill points out, the bill speaks to the 2008 budget, and "there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president."
According to Pence, he intends to "introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act to ensure that the victory we experienced on the House floor today extends to future generations."
I am less optimistic about that legislation.
Needless to say, the overwhelming vote for the Pence-Hensarling-Flake Amendment may not tell us much, as it was an opportunity to appeal to talk radio listeners without consequences. However, it is instructive to note that over 100 Democrats voted for the bill, which tells me they don't need a weather man to tell which way the wind is blowing in their home districts.
As I said a few days ago in this piece (you may review the entire post here), I am not greatly alarmed by the Democratic saber-rattling on this issue.
Quoting myself:
Such a move would incite a massive popular revolt that would dwarf the grassroots rebellion engendered over immigration. There has never been a more democratic apparatus in American political culture than talk radio, and fly-over country loves and appreciates this conduit to the centers of national power. Perhaps it is true that America grows more apathetic everyday--but an enormous portion of the remaining fighters and patriots listen to talk radio. Red-blooded, Red-State America can be mobilized in a single afternoon.
Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton are foolhardy, indeed, for introducing this hot button subject into the arena. On the other hand, we should not look a gift issue in the mouth. If they want to threaten the conservative base with this scenario--let's kick it around.
Looks to me like Mike Pence and company are wisely kicking it.
PENCE AMENDMENT PASSES HOUSE 309-115
Prohibits FCC From Reviving Fairness Doctrine
Read the full press release on Congressman Pence's website here.
What Happened?
Pence's amendment to the 2008 Financial Services Appropriations bill prohibiting funds from being used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to impose the Fairness Doctrine passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 309-115.
Is this a big deal?
Not really. The story did not make a big splash. I heard about it on Washington Journal this morning. Having searched the Post and the Times and then Google, the most prominent mention of the amendment I can find is in the Hill. You may read the well-crafted and informative article here.
As the Hill points out, the bill speaks to the 2008 budget, and "there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president."
According to Pence, he intends to "introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act to ensure that the victory we experienced on the House floor today extends to future generations."
I am less optimistic about that legislation.
Needless to say, the overwhelming vote for the Pence-Hensarling-Flake Amendment may not tell us much, as it was an opportunity to appeal to talk radio listeners without consequences. However, it is instructive to note that over 100 Democrats voted for the bill, which tells me they don't need a weather man to tell which way the wind is blowing in their home districts.
As I said a few days ago in this piece (you may review the entire post here), I am not greatly alarmed by the Democratic saber-rattling on this issue.
Quoting myself:
Such a move would incite a massive popular revolt that would dwarf the grassroots rebellion engendered over immigration. There has never been a more democratic apparatus in American political culture than talk radio, and fly-over country loves and appreciates this conduit to the centers of national power. Perhaps it is true that America grows more apathetic everyday--but an enormous portion of the remaining fighters and patriots listen to talk radio. Red-blooded, Red-State America can be mobilized in a single afternoon.
Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton are foolhardy, indeed, for introducing this hot button subject into the arena. On the other hand, we should not look a gift issue in the mouth. If they want to threaten the conservative base with this scenario--let's kick it around.
Looks to me like Mike Pence and company are wisely kicking it.
29/06: Podhoretz: Right Again
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
John Podhoretz writes today:
"[T]he parlous decision to revive the dead immigration bill and fight for it, only to see it go down to defeat again, was an act of political suicide from which this White House will not recover."
and:
"[A]s someone out of step with my fellow conservatives on the issue, as someone with a very liberal view of immigration, including illegal immigration...the more I read about the bill, the more it was clear to me it was an unholy mess and that the nation would be far better off without it."
With regret, I agree wholeheartedly with both assertions.
Read the full Podhoretz piece here.
"[T]he parlous decision to revive the dead immigration bill and fight for it, only to see it go down to defeat again, was an act of political suicide from which this White House will not recover."
and:
"[A]s someone out of step with my fellow conservatives on the issue, as someone with a very liberal view of immigration, including illegal immigration...the more I read about the bill, the more it was clear to me it was an unholy mess and that the nation would be far better off without it."
With regret, I agree wholeheartedly with both assertions.
Read the full Podhoretz piece here.
29/06: This Weekend on C-SPAN
Category: Courts
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
On Saturday, C-SPAN will carry John Roberts in the morning (tentatively scheduled for 9:30 EDT); he will address the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference and review the major decisions of the current Supreme Court term. Following the chief justice's remarks, a roundtable discussion will offer analysis. Discussants set to appear include Duke Law's Walter Dellinger and Akin Gump's Tom Goldstein.
Please note this handy resource from the court's website cataloguing the opinions issued during October Term 2006 here.
On Sunday, 1 July, Michael Barone will be the guest on C-SPAN2's ("Book TV") In Depth, the once-a-month, three-hour interview with a prominent person of letters. Generally, In Depth is a "can't lose" proposition--but Barone seems especially promising. The right-leaning Barone is well known for his encyclopedic knowledge of American politics and his cogent analysis.
Overview of In Depth here.
Specifics about the upcoming discussion with Michael Barone here.
Thanks to Tocqueville for pointing me to the John Roberts programming.
Please note this handy resource from the court's website cataloguing the opinions issued during October Term 2006 here.
On Sunday, 1 July, Michael Barone will be the guest on C-SPAN2's ("Book TV") In Depth, the once-a-month, three-hour interview with a prominent person of letters. Generally, In Depth is a "can't lose" proposition--but Barone seems especially promising. The right-leaning Barone is well known for his encyclopedic knowledge of American politics and his cogent analysis.
Overview of In Depth here.
Specifics about the upcoming discussion with Michael Barone here.
Thanks to Tocqueville for pointing me to the John Roberts programming.
28/06: Breaking News...
Category: Frivolity
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Flash...
Francisco Franco and Immigration Reform 2007 are still dead.
Update: in re Immigration Reform 2007: the reports of its resurrection were greatly exaggerated.
Francisco Franco and Immigration Reform 2007 are still dead.
Update: in re Immigration Reform 2007: the reports of its resurrection were greatly exaggerated.
I have ridiculed Good Morning America mercilessly over the course of my brief career as a blogger. No apologies; they have deserved every word of derision--and more. But, fair is fair, and this morning the GMA crew shocked me with their spin on the Elizabeth Edwards story.
This morning's program featured a live interview with Mrs. Edwards. Before Chris Cuomo began his questioning of the candidate's wife, he introduced a critical analysis piece by Jake Tapper as preface. Perhaps cynical or "unfriendly" is a more precise characterization of the report.
The phrases "political stunt" and "Coulter cash" kept coming up. The report questioned the timing of the clash with Coulter (we are up against a contributions accounting deadline) and the hypocrisy of denouncing Coulter but also unabashedly making use of her comments to raise desperately needed "cash" for the campaign.
These are obvious points--and dead on. But you can understand my surprise that they saw the light of day on GMA to be used against a Democratic politician.
You may read the Tapper piece here and also view the subsequent interview.
The line of questioning did not get any easier for Mrs. Edwards. After an obligatory and awkward compliment ("Mrs. Edwards, you are looking robust, today"), Cuomo played a longer clip of the Coulter comments on GMA that initiated this round of name-calling.
The original GMA (6-26) segment here via YouTube.
Note: I am posting the 7:23 full version (not the fifteen second clip that made the rounds). Ms. Coulter alludes to a Bill Maher comment in which he suggested that we would all be better off if Dick Cheney died in a terrorist attack. For what it is worth, you will note that Chris Cuomo did not seem to sense that Ms. Coulter had stepped over the line.
Cuomo to Edwards: "Hearing the quote in context, are you still angry?"
Mrs. Edwards responded with a litany of clichés and indirect answers.
A verbal mosaic (my interpretation of Mrs. Edwards's comments):
--Yes (I am still angry).
--Coulter is evil and she must be confronted
--I don't know or care what Bill Maher said; I am talking about Coulter
--What about the 9-11 widows?
--What about Hillary's "chubby legs"?
--We must stop Ann Coulter--not for us, but for the children
Cuomo: "Is this a political stunt?"
Mrs. Edwards:
--not self-interested, completely altruistic
--must make bold stand for future of America
Cuomo: "Was this a ploy to raise money on the eve of an important fundraising deadline?"
Mrs. Edwards:
--nothing to do with money
--had no idea it might help in polls or fundraising
--only for the children
--Just like I spoke out against racism in the South, I am speaking out against a similar evil
Wow! I was shocked. What had I witnessed?
Later: GMA ran a long puff piece on Hillary Clinton's female staffers: "Hillary Land." It was all cute stories, laughs and pictures of Hillary holding babies.
Now I was less impressed with GMA. Am I too cynical? If so, I cannot help myself. But it dawned on me suddenly why GMA was grilling Mrs. Edwards like she was the wife of a GOP candidate. Could it be that there is room for only one uber-mother in this campaign?
This morning's program featured a live interview with Mrs. Edwards. Before Chris Cuomo began his questioning of the candidate's wife, he introduced a critical analysis piece by Jake Tapper as preface. Perhaps cynical or "unfriendly" is a more precise characterization of the report.
The phrases "political stunt" and "Coulter cash" kept coming up. The report questioned the timing of the clash with Coulter (we are up against a contributions accounting deadline) and the hypocrisy of denouncing Coulter but also unabashedly making use of her comments to raise desperately needed "cash" for the campaign.
These are obvious points--and dead on. But you can understand my surprise that they saw the light of day on GMA to be used against a Democratic politician.
You may read the Tapper piece here and also view the subsequent interview.
The line of questioning did not get any easier for Mrs. Edwards. After an obligatory and awkward compliment ("Mrs. Edwards, you are looking robust, today"), Cuomo played a longer clip of the Coulter comments on GMA that initiated this round of name-calling.
The original GMA (6-26) segment here via YouTube.
Note: I am posting the 7:23 full version (not the fifteen second clip that made the rounds). Ms. Coulter alludes to a Bill Maher comment in which he suggested that we would all be better off if Dick Cheney died in a terrorist attack. For what it is worth, you will note that Chris Cuomo did not seem to sense that Ms. Coulter had stepped over the line.
Cuomo to Edwards: "Hearing the quote in context, are you still angry?"
Mrs. Edwards responded with a litany of clichés and indirect answers.
A verbal mosaic (my interpretation of Mrs. Edwards's comments):
--Yes (I am still angry).
--Coulter is evil and she must be confronted
--I don't know or care what Bill Maher said; I am talking about Coulter
--What about the 9-11 widows?
--What about Hillary's "chubby legs"?
--We must stop Ann Coulter--not for us, but for the children
Cuomo: "Is this a political stunt?"
Mrs. Edwards:
--not self-interested, completely altruistic
--must make bold stand for future of America
Cuomo: "Was this a ploy to raise money on the eve of an important fundraising deadline?"
Mrs. Edwards:
--nothing to do with money
--had no idea it might help in polls or fundraising
--only for the children
--Just like I spoke out against racism in the South, I am speaking out against a similar evil
Wow! I was shocked. What had I witnessed?
Later: GMA ran a long puff piece on Hillary Clinton's female staffers: "Hillary Land." It was all cute stories, laughs and pictures of Hillary holding babies.
Now I was less impressed with GMA. Am I too cynical? If so, I cannot help myself. But it dawned on me suddenly why GMA was grilling Mrs. Edwards like she was the wife of a GOP candidate. Could it be that there is room for only one uber-mother in this campaign?
27/06: Farewell to America's PM
Tony Blair is no longer Prime Minister of Great Britain. I feel melancholy and a bit less safe. He was a person of great strength and character. I felt confident with Blair steady at the helm of the British ship of state, our oldest ally and our next of kin in the international community.
Now he is gone. Perhaps, in time, Gordon Brown will earn our trust and admiration as his predecessor did. We can only hope. But not tonight. Tonight we face the fear of the unknown--an untested new partner in a treacherous moment.
I am also sad for Blair, who drew a raw deal from his home folks. Politics is a funny business. Although Blair resurrected his party's viability and proved a wise and judicious leader, he lost the confidence of his constituents. No one was more articulate or more sincere in defending unpopular policies than Blair, but it was to no avail. For all the pundits and disgruntled conservatives who sigh in exasperation with the President's inability to make his case on Iraq before the American electorate--I say look at Blair. Would it have made any difference?
Finding the right words to say goodbye. Language is an inadequate form of communication, especially so when one wants to speak from the heart and praise a person of heroic proportions. I am at a loss to explain my sense of dread at his passing from the public stage. I am unequal to the challenge of expressing of my depth of feeling for "our PM."
Now the next chapter. Good luck Tony Blair in the new task before you. It is an impossible charge that no mere mortal could accomplish. Having said that, I wish you well and I hold out a modicum of hope that you can make a positive difference.
Godspeed to our right honorable friend.
Painfully aware that my words are insufficient to convey the greatness and genuineness of the man, let me leave you with his parting words.
Blair on politics:
"Some may belittle politics, but we who are engaged in it know that it is where people stand tall. Although I know that it has many harsh contentions, it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster. If it is, on occasions, the place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes. I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. That is that. The end."
Hear, hear.
Now he is gone. Perhaps, in time, Gordon Brown will earn our trust and admiration as his predecessor did. We can only hope. But not tonight. Tonight we face the fear of the unknown--an untested new partner in a treacherous moment.
I am also sad for Blair, who drew a raw deal from his home folks. Politics is a funny business. Although Blair resurrected his party's viability and proved a wise and judicious leader, he lost the confidence of his constituents. No one was more articulate or more sincere in defending unpopular policies than Blair, but it was to no avail. For all the pundits and disgruntled conservatives who sigh in exasperation with the President's inability to make his case on Iraq before the American electorate--I say look at Blair. Would it have made any difference?
Finding the right words to say goodbye. Language is an inadequate form of communication, especially so when one wants to speak from the heart and praise a person of heroic proportions. I am at a loss to explain my sense of dread at his passing from the public stage. I am unequal to the challenge of expressing of my depth of feeling for "our PM."
Now the next chapter. Good luck Tony Blair in the new task before you. It is an impossible charge that no mere mortal could accomplish. Having said that, I wish you well and I hold out a modicum of hope that you can make a positive difference.
Godspeed to our right honorable friend.
Painfully aware that my words are insufficient to convey the greatness and genuineness of the man, let me leave you with his parting words.
Blair on politics:
"Some may belittle politics, but we who are engaged in it know that it is where people stand tall. Although I know that it has many harsh contentions, it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster. If it is, on occasions, the place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes. I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. That is that. The end."
Hear, hear.
