14 October 2005

Shavua-ly Roundup

Over on Little Green Footballs, the myth of prepping soldiers for Bush has been uproariously debunked:

"But the only advice that the official was shown as giving was a suggestion to one solider to “take a little breath” before speaking to the president so he would actually be speaking to him. It was also stated that some of the soldiers practiced their comments so as to appear as articulate as possible. But there was no indication, or even allegation, that the soldiers were coached as to the substance of their comments or in any way instructed what to say. (Video available: Real Media or Windows Media Player)"

This type of prepping is standard practice for television directors. Just because something is impromptu and live doesn't mean it has to be absolute crap. In fact, by rehearsing their questions and comments, the soldiers not only illustrated the respect they have for the President, they also illustrated that live television doesn't have to be populated by jackasses making off-the-wall, impromptu comments like "George Bush hates black people."

The rest of the article, quoted from News Busters, was the icing on the cake:

"Today’s timing couldn’t have been worse. A preceding segment focused on the incessant rains and ensuing flooding in the northeast. For days now, beautiful, blonde - and one senses highly ambitious - young reporter Michelle Kosinski has been on the scene for Today in New Jersey, working the story. In an apparent effort to draw attention to herself, in yesterday’s segment she turned up in hip waders, standing thigh-deep in the flood waters.

Taking her act one step further, this morning she appeared on a suburban street . . . paddling a canoe. There was one small problem. Just as the segment came on the air, two men waded in front of Kosinki . . . and the water barely covered their shoe tops! That’s right, Kosinski’s canoe was in no more than four to six inches of water!"

Now that's the difference between live television and Reality programming. Where's Dan Rather when you need him?

***

Also via News Busters, we learn that George Clooney's new movie that praises the legacy of Edward R. Murrow was made purely as a result of Ann Coulter's monumental book Treason. Ann, if you're out there reading this, I'll have the Free Masons send a cake to your victory party!

You know, I used to have the ambition of writing a book that would someday be made into a movie. Now, I just want to write a book that will piss someone off so much that they throw money into a lavishly produced independent film the majority of America will never even talk about, let alone pay to see.

***
The Jewish Press is reporting that, according to Newsweek, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nixed the idea of a U.S. military attack on Syria earlier this month. Now, first off, this report is based on "off the record" remarks and it is printed in Newsweek; those two factors make me hesitant to believe the accuracy of the piece. However, the State Department (which should be renamed something to the effect of "Government-Funded Marxist Politboro") is notoriously pro-Arab, so it wouldn't surprise me if Condi put the nix on any military attack. If she's anything like her predecessor Colin Powell, she'll want to make at least three hardcore appoinment announcements ("Gee, Syria, is ten on Tuesday good for you? If so, we'll be invading then") before we do anything beyond "sanctions" against the tyrannical Assad regime.

The Jewish Press does make an interesting point:

"Any U.S. attack on Syria would have serious repercussions for Israel. Syria is widely believed to have stored large quantities of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Some security analysts suggest that Iraq may have transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria before the U.S.-led invasion of that country in 2003.

Some military analysts believe that Syria would choose to retaliate against Israel in the event of a U.S. attack, an action that likely would embroil the Middle East in a major Arab-Israeli war. Aside from attacking Israel directly, Syria could signal its proxies in Lebanon, particularly Hizbullah, to reignite the border with Israel.

Hizbullah reportedly has in its possession thousands of surface to surface missiles that could destroy targets as far south as Haifa."

These facts force me to ask some key questions:

When will the West realize that the entire battle in the Middle East is and always has been all about Israel's right to exist? Furthermore, when will the West realize that Israel's right to exist is tangential to the right of every citizen in every free and democratic society to exist? Therefore, when will the West realize that until they treat Israel as a real and true ally, they are ultimately contributing to their own defeat?

As previously discussed the popular option the United States is considering when it comes to sanctioning Syria involves Israel's eventual self-imposed eviction from the Golan. So, the U.S. now has it in mind that, either way, Israel must give up her land. It can either be bloody, as would be the probable result of a U.S. attack on Syria, or it can be psychologically traumatizing AND bloody, as would be the probable result of a withdrawal from the Golan. However, the first option, military attack, would give Israel justification in retaliation. The latter would give Israel no political room for military action. The sick and twisted psychology of "sanctions" combined with the above observations leads me to believe that Newsweek's off the record sources were absolutely correct in their statements, mainly because I'd never put it past the State Department to employ the psychology of the ghetto.

Thank you, Madame Secretary, for digging America's grave a little deeper.

***

***Note the addition of multiple links to the F.Y.I. section in the sidebar. Huzzah for Pajamas Media and the blogosphere.

Shabbat Shalom!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home