Baker/Hamilton Interview, Report Fallout, And Guess Who's Having A Baby (Wednesday's First Hour)
Hi everyone. We're in Washington D.C. tonight due to the official release of the Irag Study Group report. It's in book form and everything! It actually looks a lot like the 9-11 Commission report and seeing as how a lot of those recommendations still haven't been implemented over five years later, I'm not feeling too hopeful right now. We begin with a piece from John Roberts and it is made clear that this report is a harsh critique of Bush Adminstration policy. It contains 79 alternatives. 79! You'd think one of them could help get us out of Iraq.
Moving on now to a taped interview with the report's co-chairs, Lee Hamilton and James Baker. The general consensus between the two of them is that we're not winning, but we're not losing either. Anderson notes that the US has been training Iraqi troops all along and wants to know
what's gone wrong in that area. Hamilton thinks there hasn't been enough manpower behind the task and the job doesn't have the incentives to attract the best and brightest of the military. I didn't think people actually got to chose their jobs, but I don't know much about the military. Anderson also brings up the fact that there are a lot of qualifiers in the report (in relation to the situation on the ground) and Baker kind of laughs. WTF? Hamilton states that Al Qaeda is not the chief cause of violence in Iraq. Uh, somebody wanna tell Bush that? Baker then says that we can't completely leave the region because it contains our national interests. National interests is spelled "O", "I", "L". Hey, at least he's being honest. It's no surprise really since it's all pretty much laid out in a paper from the Project for the New American Century. We will never completely leave Iraq. I should point out that during this interview Anderson quoted The Weekly Standard and Charles Krauthammer, a neoconservative and a neoconservative publication. What's up with that? First of all these are people that are right now advocating regime change in Iran. They have no credibility, so quoting them is pointless. Secondly, if it was simply a devil's advocate quote, why two from one side? There are plenty of people/publications on the left he could have gone to. I do not feel like I got "all the angles".
On now to a Candy Crowley piece about how Bush is a stubborn little child who doesn't want to listen to anyone. He's the decider! Most likely what will happen is he'll wait a few weeks to do anything about the report, hoping people will forget. Then he'll pick and choose what he wants to do. And he'll totally get away with it...if the media lets him. Let's hope no pretty blond goes missing in the next month or so. I mean it CNN, stay on the ball. After the piece David Gergen joins us live and he's pretty chipper about the report. He thinks Bush is going to be under enough pressure that he'll have to do something. The Gerg says this was a good day for America and the report is a Walter Cronkite moment. Oh Gerg, you better lower the bar a bit before you get your little heart broken. Anderson thinks that the democrats and republicans making politics out of Iraq is inappropriate. Can't argue with that.
Transitioning now to Nic Robertson live in Iraq and he tells us that just today 10 soldiers have been killed and 30 so far in the month of December. He also goes through what is a very long list of the day's violence. Good Lord. And NBC got flak for calling it a civil war. BTW, still waiting on CNN to do the same. Next we go to a taped interview with Former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen and Anderson brings up the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Cohen thinks the US hasn't done enough to help Abbas. He notes that extremists have been providing social services, thus winning the hearts and minds. Same thing with Hezbollah. You'd think we would learn by now that people like food better than exploding things. That reminds me of a Calvin Trillin poem: "At night our bombs rain down on them/By day we drop them bread/You think that they'd be thankful/Unless, of course, they're dead."
Up next we have a piece from Mary Snow on the fact that Cheney's having a baby! No, not THAT Cheney, silly. Mary Cheney. Yeah, the gay one. Somewhere, Rick Santorum is quietly weeping. There's no word on the father, but Cheney's partner will have no legal rights to the child, which is just completely messed up. To discuss all this, we have openly gay journalist Dan Savage and Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women For America. Apparently the concern these women have is all about kids not having a mother and a father because Janice here thinks
the pregnancy is unconscionable. However, I'll wager she's also pro-life, so I'm wondering how she can think a pregnancy is unconscionable. Anyway, she spouts out that there are all these studies proving that kids that don't grow up with both mother and father turn out worse. Oh, WTF? My dad died when my brother was only 12, leaving him to go through his teens all alone in a house with three women. Yet shockingly, he's not an ax murder, but in fact a well adjusted college student. Dan backs me up here, stating that Janice's studies have all been debunked and children fare just as well with gay parents as they do with straight. He notes that Mary's child will most likely be in better shape than Britney Spear's spawn. Bwah! So true.
Janice keeps harping on the mother/father thing and Anderson acknowedges that having both is great and all, but sometimes it's just not going to happen. People get divorced. People die. Stuff happens. Would you rather be the child of two loving gay parents or two abusive alcoholics? Her argument is so ridiculous. And it's apparent Anderson feels this way too. See, this is one of those times where his blank slate gets betrayed by his true feelings coming through. It's funny because though both guests were talking over each other, Anderson kept making sure Dan got his comments in. I don't blame him one bit. Pretty good show tonight. B
Screencaps by stormi0611.
Okay, give me your take on the Savage/Crouse interview. You know you wanna.
Moving on now to a taped interview with the report's co-chairs, Lee Hamilton and James Baker. The general consensus between the two of them is that we're not winning, but we're not losing either. Anderson notes that the US has been training Iraqi troops all along and wants to know
what's gone wrong in that area. Hamilton thinks there hasn't been enough manpower behind the task and the job doesn't have the incentives to attract the best and brightest of the military. I didn't think people actually got to chose their jobs, but I don't know much about the military. Anderson also brings up the fact that there are a lot of qualifiers in the report (in relation to the situation on the ground) and Baker kind of laughs. WTF? Hamilton states that Al Qaeda is not the chief cause of violence in Iraq. Uh, somebody wanna tell Bush that? Baker then says that we can't completely leave the region because it contains our national interests. National interests is spelled "O", "I", "L". Hey, at least he's being honest. It's no surprise really since it's all pretty much laid out in a paper from the Project for the New American Century. We will never completely leave Iraq. I should point out that during this interview Anderson quoted The Weekly Standard and Charles Krauthammer, a neoconservative and a neoconservative publication. What's up with that? First of all these are people that are right now advocating regime change in Iran. They have no credibility, so quoting them is pointless. Secondly, if it was simply a devil's advocate quote, why two from one side? There are plenty of people/publications on the left he could have gone to. I do not feel like I got "all the angles".On now to a Candy Crowley piece about how Bush is a stubborn little child who doesn't want to listen to anyone. He's the decider! Most likely what will happen is he'll wait a few weeks to do anything about the report, hoping people will forget. Then he'll pick and choose what he wants to do. And he'll totally get away with it...if the media lets him. Let's hope no pretty blond goes missing in the next month or so. I mean it CNN, stay on the ball. After the piece David Gergen joins us live and he's pretty chipper about the report. He thinks Bush is going to be under enough pressure that he'll have to do something. The Gerg says this was a good day for America and the report is a Walter Cronkite moment. Oh Gerg, you better lower the bar a bit before you get your little heart broken. Anderson thinks that the democrats and republicans making politics out of Iraq is inappropriate. Can't argue with that.
Transitioning now to Nic Robertson live in Iraq and he tells us that just today 10 soldiers have been killed and 30 so far in the month of December. He also goes through what is a very long list of the day's violence. Good Lord. And NBC got flak for calling it a civil war. BTW, still waiting on CNN to do the same. Next we go to a taped interview with Former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen and Anderson brings up the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Cohen thinks the US hasn't done enough to help Abbas. He notes that extremists have been providing social services, thus winning the hearts and minds. Same thing with Hezbollah. You'd think we would learn by now that people like food better than exploding things. That reminds me of a Calvin Trillin poem: "At night our bombs rain down on them/By day we drop them bread/You think that they'd be thankful/Unless, of course, they're dead."
Up next we have a piece from Mary Snow on the fact that Cheney's having a baby! No, not THAT Cheney, silly. Mary Cheney. Yeah, the gay one. Somewhere, Rick Santorum is quietly weeping. There's no word on the father, but Cheney's partner will have no legal rights to the child, which is just completely messed up. To discuss all this, we have openly gay journalist Dan Savage and Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women For America. Apparently the concern these women have is all about kids not having a mother and a father because Janice here thinks
the pregnancy is unconscionable. However, I'll wager she's also pro-life, so I'm wondering how she can think a pregnancy is unconscionable. Anyway, she spouts out that there are all these studies proving that kids that don't grow up with both mother and father turn out worse. Oh, WTF? My dad died when my brother was only 12, leaving him to go through his teens all alone in a house with three women. Yet shockingly, he's not an ax murder, but in fact a well adjusted college student. Dan backs me up here, stating that Janice's studies have all been debunked and children fare just as well with gay parents as they do with straight. He notes that Mary's child will most likely be in better shape than Britney Spear's spawn. Bwah! So true.Janice keeps harping on the mother/father thing and Anderson acknowedges that having both is great and all, but sometimes it's just not going to happen. People get divorced. People die. Stuff happens. Would you rather be the child of two loving gay parents or two abusive alcoholics? Her argument is so ridiculous. And it's apparent Anderson feels this way too. See, this is one of those times where his blank slate gets betrayed by his true feelings coming through. It's funny because though both guests were talking over each other, Anderson kept making sure Dan got his comments in. I don't blame him one bit. Pretty good show tonight. B
Screencaps by stormi0611.
Okay, give me your take on the Savage/Crouse interview. You know you wanna.
posted by eliza at 6:32 PM
3 Comments:
This whole story got me to wondering about something and I don't mean any disrespect to Anderson. I think we all agree that he loves children. You can see this in his reports when children are involved. I still remember his reporters notebook from last year, when he was in the Congo and was at the hospital where 3 little boys ended up dying.
Now here is my question. Do you think that he believes in same sex marriage? If it was legal, do you think he would do it? I could then see him and his partner adopting a child, even if from a third world country and I think that would be great.
I guess what I am saying is, it is such a shame that in 2006, that people have to hide their sexuality, just because they are someone famous (or not) and would have to deal with all of the negativity that people would heap on them. And these comments are coming from a hetrosexual woman wouldn't care if Anderson came out if that is the way he is, (or not)
Just some thoughts. I hope they are all right to express
I think the entire discussion was so lame from both sides. To argue that Britney Spears is the poster child of ideal heterosexual parenting is deserving nothing more than eye rolling. As far as the woman who was offering the counter argument, she could have approached the argument from a religious stand point instead of making comments like gay couples are more likely to raise alcoholics, drug-addicts,....can't remember what she said exactly.
As far as Anderson is concerned, for a man who prides himself of not wearing his heart on his sleeve, I saw way too much heart. I'd rather make up my own mind Anderson.
Gissou
@anon-I think Anderson has a big step to take first before doing anything like that. And that's basically all I want to say about his personal life.
I completely agree with you that it's a shame that someone should feel negativity just for being gay.
@Gissou-But that's the whole point with the Britney Spears reference. She's not anywhere close to an ideal parent, yet using that woman's reasoning, she and K-fed are automatically better parents than a gay couple simply because they're male and female. And that's ridiculous, which is what the guy was getting at. Those kind of discussions never go that well, but I find them entertaining to watch.
I kind of like it when Anderson shows his opinion since we see if so rarely. But that's just me. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home