Wednesday, September 15, 2004

The Underachiever Strikes!

On Friday, September 3 on his Fox TV show, Bill O'Reilly went to the mailbag and read a missive from an alleged viewer...

Jack Mehoffer, Springfield, Massachusetts says, "O'Reilly, I see the new Fox definition of fair and balanced means interviewing DNC chief Terry McAuliffe at both conventions."

Well, right you are, Mr. Mehoffer. Newt Gingrich appeared with us at both conventions. So did Mr. McAuliffe. What's the beef, sir? It is long past time to stop the partisan nonsense. Fox News gives airtime to all responsible viewpoints. And our commentators are clear and lively. No hidden agenda here, just flat out stimulating TV. And that's memo.

Uh, given the correspondent's name and address, do you get the idea that Bart Simpson put one over on "Mr. No-Spin Zone?"

• Posted at 7:24 PM · LINK

Recommended Reading

Jay Leno discusses his political views and how they manifest themselves in his monologue.

• Posted at 2:37 PM · LINK

Today's Political Rant

Dennis Donohoe sends the following message with regard to what I wrote about the Iraq War...

I have my doubts about the Iraq war, but there is one thing that genuinely puzzles me (and this is not the start of an ideological rant). You say you were for the war at the start and now fault Bush for having the same view that you did, based on roughly the same evidence. Richard Cohen is more voluble, but essentially says the same thing. I don't see what your point is on this issue. Are you slamming Bush for agreeing with you on going to war (which seems ridiculous)? Or are you slamming him for not conceding the current reality (which is certainly a good point)? Bush has a lot of faults and some definite virtues, but omniscience is not one of his or anybody else's virtues. I sure wish the election were tomorrow and this would all be over.

I sure agree with that last sentence. What I don't agree with is that Bush had "roughly the same evidence" that I did — and God help us all if he did. He's allegedly the President of the United States and he ought to have had (and have actually read) detailed intelligence reports and be briefed by (and maybe even listen to) experts. If all he did was read a few newspapers and websites and watch C-Span a little, which is how I get my info, then something is very wrong. We should not be going to war based on even a rough version of the limited evidence that you and I get.

It wasn't so much that I was "for" the war as that I was not against it. That's a significant difference. I assumed, especially after Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N., that there was some solid evidence that Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was poised to use them on us. I also assumed our leaders were better planners and that the early estimates of the war's cost (Remember the $2.7 billion?) couldn't be that far off. It turns out all that was wrong, so my view changed. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to think that there's some value in being resolute and clinging to their old beliefs, even in light of new revelations...or that it's okay for our government to make that many mistakes over something so important. I don't expect omniscience from our elected officials...but I do think that there are certain kinds of misjudgements that warrant someone being fired. There are times I wonder if anyone in the Bush administration believes that.

• Posted at 1:30 AM · LINK