Only on Fox: Panel discussed video of "Rep. Ancy Lagosi" attacking FDR during WWII
The "All-Star Panel" segment on the December 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report contained a clip from This Is DNN, a "satirical video" in which World War II-era "Congresswoman and House leader Ancy Lagosi" attacks the war and then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the segment of This Is DNN that aired on Special Report, "Lagosi" says that "250,000 of our finest [have come] home in wooden boxes ... [t]o support a lie." When "Lagosi" asks, "What has Germany and Italy got to do with Pearl Harbor?" the audience at her speech responds, "Nothing!" and then chants, "Roosevelt lied, millions died." Special Report host and Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume described the film as "filled with sepia-toned scenes from ... what purports to be an old newsreel of modern-style coverage of World War II." He then asked the panel, "[I]s that a realistic picture of what it might have been like if today's politics and today's news media coverage had prevailed in World War II?"
As panelist and Roll Call executive editor Morton Kondracke noted during the discussion, Adolf Hitler's Germany, an ally of Japan, declared war on the United States after the United States declared war against Japan on December 8, 1941. The United States then declared war against Germany as well.
This Is DNN: What if Today's Media Covered WWII was produced by Clear Glass Productions and featured at the recent 2006 Liberty Film Festival, which, as Media Matters for America has noted, is meant to "provid[e] a forum in the heart of Hollywood for conservative and libertarian filmmakers." At the festival, ABC Vice President of Synergy and Special Projects Judith Tukich was presented with the festival's "Freedom of Expression Award" for her role in assisting the production and promotion of the factually challenged ABC "docudrama" The Path to 9/11. The screenwriter of The Path to 9/11, Cyrus Nowrasteh, an outspoken conservative, was also given a "Freedom of Expression Award."
This Is DNN has been promoted on right-wing weblogs, including Little Green Footballs and Michelle Malkin's Hot Air. On November 20, Malkin featured This Is DNN in the first edition of Hot Air at the Movies, a series she said showcased "conservative and anti-jihad documentarians and film producers." The film is also being sold on the book service of the right-wing magazine World Net Daily.
From the December 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, featuring Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes and Fortune magazine Washington bureau chief Nina Easton:
HUME: We'll be back in just a moment, when we discuss what would've happened in World War II if today's political and journalistic atmosphere had prevailed then. We'll be right back.
[commercial break]
[begin video clip]
ANNOUNCER: According to Pentagon sources, this now brings the official total of Americans killed overseas to over 250,000. Congresswoman and House leader Ancy Lagosi took time out from her re-election campaign to mark the occasion.
LAGOSI: 250,000 of our finest coming home in wooden boxes, for what? To support a lie. What has Germany and Italy got to do with Pearl Harbor?
CROWD: Nothing!
LAGOSI: That's right, nothing.
CROWD: Roosevelt lied, millions died. Roosevelt lied, millions died.
[end video clip]
HUME: And that is a brief excerpt from a new satirical video that's out called This Is DNN.
And it is filled with sepia-toned scenes from an old -- what purports to be an old newsreel of modern-style coverage of World War II. Back with our panel to pose the question, well, is that a realistic picture of what it might have been like if today's politics and today's news media coverage had prevailed in World War II?
KONDRACKE: Well, clearly, you know, every battle, if it had been transmitted live and in color back to the United States, it would have been horrific.
HUME: Well, what about even in sepia tones like that, when you don't have all the battles, but you have the newsreel footage?
KONDRACKE: Look, there's no question about whether it's harder to run a war nowadays than it was back then, when you had censorship and generally the country was supporting it. But the idea that Iraq is the same as World War II is just not right. I mean, we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. We were attacked. And Hitler four days later declared war on the United States after he had overrun Europe. And everybody in the, or most people in the country -- by the way, Congresswoman Lagosi would have been a Republican in those days. The isolationists were mainly Republicans, not Democrats, as they are now. So, you could -- you know, there were people around who say, "Ah, Roosevelt maneuvered us into this war. He put an oil embargo on the Japanese and forced them," but the fact is that we were attacked. In this case, in the case of Iraq, this was a war of choice. This was a pre-emptive war that we decided that we were going to wage and, you know, I think -- you know, I hope we win, but the fact -- and it was popular in the beginning. But the fact is that it has not been successful, and the president is suffering for it.
BARNES: Mort, I appreciate the distinction you made between Iraq and World War II, but that wasn't the question and that wasn't the point.
KONDRACKE: I answered the question.
BARNES: No, you didn't, really.
KONDRACKE: Yeah, I did.
BARNES: You didn't even touch on the question. The question is what would today's media have been like covering World War II? For example, I think it would have been brutal. I think -- I mean, think of the six weeks when American troops were stuck in Normandy just off the beach and they couldn't break out.
HUME: Not to mention the hideous bloodshed of the Normandy invasion itself -- the Normandy landing.
BARNES: Right. Which was a great miscalculation. All the bombing that was done by the naval ships and the Air Force -- Army planes that had bombed the Germans on Omaha Beach didn't clear them out at all, didn't have any effect and so on. I'm sure there would have been -- the press would have jumped on that. Think of the whole North Africa campaign, which was almost a disaster from beginning to end in World War II. Think of the airborne jump on Sicily, when hundreds of soldiers got blown out to sea and drowned and so on. The press would have been merciless. And it wasn't, as it turned out in World War II.
HUME: What do you think -- Nina.
EASTON: That's absolutely true, and hundreds of thousands people died. And Vietnam, 58,000. Korea, 54,000. Yeah, it would have been very difficult to fight those wars. But I also say -- I say now, so what? I mean the point -- your point -- going back to Mort's point, so what?
HUME: Well, the question that it raises is whether those standards were the right standards to apply or -- which would, I think, it can be argued, have crippled the American war effort, or are the standards of today the right ones to apply?
EASTON: That's, in some ways, beside the point. Because -- there is a reality today that a president --
HUME: So, you don't want to answer the question, or what?
EASTON: No. There's a reality that a president has to factor in today when you ask the American public to go to war, you need to realize and understand what --
HUME: What the news media can do, right?
EASTON: -- the role of casualties. And the media is not -- it's no longer a question of the media in Iraq. The Pentagon --
HUME: That's it for the panel.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Did someones 3rd grader make that for them? If so the kid shows promise after years of training, if an adult made it...
is not humorous. How I long for the days of the good commentators (Will Rogers, Mark Twain, etc) instead of this off the wall, deeply partisan MBBE.
As an aside, Merry Christmas to all. May the blessings of the season be yours and your families duing this time of year. Take a moment or two to do something nice for a friend, family member or even a stranger. See you all next week!!!!
Merry Christmas to you.
Merry Christmas and Happy Festivus to all my cyber friends here at Media Matters.
we've had our differences, but i never felt like you were one of the trolling under 50 names conservatives, just coming on here to stir things up. guys like you, jeter and bruce [hope i didn't miss anyone] come here and don't pretend and don't try to deliberately mislead. i'm sure we will disagree again, but merry christmas.
you remember mark twain? ok, joke. the guy was brilliant. i've read his nonfiction stuff like roughing it and life on the mississippi.
that's why I said knee-jerkers, there are enough of them to go around the entire spectrum, not just cons.
Tommy's going to say something about how this ISN'T misinformation because it's a SATIRICAL film!! It's just some peoples' OPINIONS!! Dammit people, get a sense of humor!
So, Millions dead via the Nazi's evil and they think this is funny?
Bizarre!
This is more nonsense attempting to link Iraq to 9/11. Loved the "What has Germany and Italy got to do with Pearl Harbor?" attempt to draw an analogy.
Yes, Germany declared war on us after the Japanese attacked and thus has a link.
NO, Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11.
are the ONLY honest, sane members of this panel. This is such a PATHETIC reach by Hume & Barnes [and the filmakers] it's embarrassing.
Yes of course WWII would likely be covered differently TODAY. For instance we'd PROBABLY be getting 24/7 LIVE coverage.
HOWEVER, the clip they are using makes little sense. We declared war on Germany AFTER they declared war on us. Therefore there are ZERO parallels to Iraq, which Kondracke [and Easton to a lesser degree] correctly pointed out.
So guys, spin, twist, out & out lie....We KNOW the TRUTH. And Bush WILL be held accountable.
These guys keep trying to compare Iraq to WWII, which either demonstrates their dishonesty or their ignorance of history. Hitler had the strongest military on the continent when the war began; Saddam's army had never recovered from the Gulf War. He was a threat only to his political enemies inside his own state. If Saddam had conquered Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt, and was threatening to overrun Iran while bombing Israel daily...the comparison might be valid. Instead, their feeble attempts just make them look like desperate apologists for a failed foreign policy.
In WWII, the US generals agreed that the folks back home should see the pain and the suffering of the troops to remind them of how tough it was for the boys at the front, to remind them to help them out. While in Nazi Germany, the horrors were hidden from the people, they only got images of happy healthy smiling soldiers.
With Iraq, we're not allowed to see the bodies coming home. Noone brings the maimed and injured troops onto their tv shows. All we get are pundits and news conferences with generals in clean uniforms. They even screamed 'Foul!' when the Arab media showed the reality, the dead bodies, the injured children.
Says a lot about what's going on, don't it? They keep wanting to comapre this to WWII...but they won't admit they're the ones playing the fascist agressor this time around.
point.
So you're ok with Savage showing Nick Berg getting beheaded, and I assume you're ok with showing our people jumping from WTC to their deaths. I'm Ok with it too. Whatever conclusions are drawn, let's show the facts.
It's all their fault! It's their fault we attacked an INNOCENT nation that did not participate in 9/11 and never threatened the USA! It's Islam's fault! Kill them moslems! KILL!
But don't show the folk back home all the dead babies, right?
The statement behind the questions is that people didn't support Vietnam and don't support Iraq because of TV news. If the news didn't cover the bloodshed, the thinking seems to go, people would be more willing to support the war.
In Vietnam, as in Iraq, people felt the rationale for the war was bogus. At least it was consistent in Vietnam (domino theory); today's war has had so many justifications (smoking gun/mushroom cloud, 'fight them there so we don't have to fight them here,' democracy, stay the course, and finally just "victory") I think people have stopped even trying to follow it.
They are gearing up to blame the media for this one, too, and we shouldn't let them.
So I think its bringing the Iraqis freedom. I thing Tuesday is they will follow us home day
It's such a fundamental truth, of what I guess you would call "Civics", but could as easily call LAW...
You and I (and Nations) have a NATURAL RIGHT to DEFEND ourselves... to fight and go to war... when we are attacked or otherwise fought with (or "warred" with, if you will)...
We may even exercise that NATURAL RIGHT of self DEFENSE (or National Defense) when simply faced with the simple 'threat' of attack or war...
Although to initiate the fighting or the war, based simply on a threat, is to risk being judged by the LAW (or mankind) as having fought or "warred" UNJUSTLY, and without reasonable cause or RIGHT...
Which is why our Founding Fathers declared their reasons, out of a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind", when they Declared their Independence... which was in truth a Declaration of War (which you may read and find to be true for yourself).
It's simple and fundamental, to Civics and LAW, the truth of a person's (or a Nation's) RIGHT to DEFEND themselves from attack or war or simply the threat thereof.
And so we ask ourselves again, what are we defending ourselves from in Iraq?
What attack or war or threat of attack or threat of war impelled the U.S. invasion of Iraq?
What specific act by Iraq was it, prior to the invasion, that JUSTIFIES an act of U.S. National Security against that nation... an act of war?
All of these questions may also be asked of Vietnam... what was it that Vietnam did, as an attack or war or threat thereof, that impelled the U.S. to invoke it's National Security... it's NATIONAL DEFENSE against that nation?
But no one asks these questions about WWII...
For the simple reasons that the bombing of Pearl Harbor (attack) by Japan, and the German declaration of war against the U.S. (threat), impelled the United States of America to take up it's RIGHT of NATIONAL DEFENSE, and take up arms and make war against those nations...
Our RIGHT of NATIONAL DEFENSE was obvious to all mankind (and we didn't even need to declare our reasons, out of a "decent respect" to mankind's opinions... that's how obvious it was).
And so there we are... in possession of these simple truths (which seem "self-evident" to me):
The U.S. JUSTLY invoked it's NATURAL RIGHT to NATIONAL DEFENSE against the nations of Japan and Germany in WWII... and the American People, being in their RIGHTS, fought unreservably and with all sacrifice, to win that war... and they did.
What about Vietnam... what about Iraq...
Why does Fox News Channel (to come to the point of this post, and to leave the "Civics" lesson)... why do they intentionally twist historical events (hysterically twist those events!) to somehow confuse the truth of the FACTS:
That no National Security interest is being served to the American People by making war on Iraq (nor was one served in Vietnam).
That such NATIONAL SECURITY was served, and the United State's NATURAL RIGHT to NATIONAL DEFENSE was JUSTLY taken up, in WWII.
And so you see what Fox News Channel has so dishonestly done here? (Of course you do)
They have confused the historical FACTS... literally morphed them one into the other (hysterically!)... by taking the legitimate argument against the invasion of Iraq, and applying it (falsely) to the circumstance of WWII.
It's more than false, it's malicious, seeing as it so cleverly attempts to make one it's "fictional character's" names appear like that of a real person.
And all of this is done, supposedly, against the backdrop of discussing the "media"...
As you will note in the transcription, the thing called HUME substitutes "today's political and journalistic atmosphere" for what is truly meant as today's political argument against Iraq, made by the American People (and re-typed here by me)...
He asks if "today's politics and today's news media coverage had prevailed in World War II", when he means to confuse his audience, by falsely (fictionally) applying today's argument (politics) against Iraq, to WWII...
It's not simply comparing apples to oranges...
It's calling an apple an orange! And calling an orange an apple!
What a lie.
These people have no shame.
They can make all of the comparisons they want to between the War in Iraq and World War Two. Every time I hear these claims, the first thing that comes to mind is my father and my 6 uncles. Every one of them was down at the enlistment office within a week of December 7, 1941. Every able bodied man of age in my family volunteered. My mother and her three sisters all worked in the local aircraft factory. Every person, not fighting was collecting material that could be recycled for the war effort. I don't know the specifics of any other family buy my own. But I think it would be safe to say that my family was typical of most families back then.
While the War raged in Europe and in the Pacific, every neighborhood in America was burying their heroes. Every neighborhood knew about the different campaigns in the war zones. Americans were informed and supportive of our nations efforts.
As meaningless as the War in Vietnam was, the War in Iraq is even more so. They don't like comparisons being made between these two wars. They are similar, yet very different. During Vietnam, every family had members at risk of being drafted. Every family that sent a son, saw a stranger return to them, if he came home. Those on the right who shirked their responsibility back then but who were supporters of the war nonetheless, try to blame the media. The media just forced the nation to look into the faces of the children that this country sent half way around the world to fight an immoral war. It wasn't the media, it was Americans looking into those faces that ended the War in Vietnam.
...but in my eagerness to the subject matter, I wrote too much and repeated myself. I know you got the point to the post, but to simply make it again, w/o the civics lesson...
That the item cites Fox News Channel as taking the legitimate argument against the invasion of Iraq, and applies it (falsely) to the circumstance of WWII...
Which is intentionally dishonest, because as they (and you and I) know, WWII involved indisputably the NATIONAL SECURITY of the American People...
And yet no such argument can be made against Iraq (or none that I know of, or else why wouldn't we all hear it made, again and again)...
Which is why the American People are largely against this tragedy in Iraq... because they know that there's no NATIONAL SECURITY issue to them, in Iraq...
As there was, indisputably, in WWII.
And the simple concept of NATIONAL SECURITY and NATIONAL DEFENSE is so key here, as it obviously should be in any discussion involving a matter of war...
Yet it seems beyond belief, how seldom we hear the idiot pundits, and all the others employed by the hack "media", even say those words, or speak about that concept...
NATIONAL SECURITY and NATIONAL DEFENSE
...it's suspicious to me, how they manage to almost completely ignore those words and that concept, when they discuss war and Iraq.
"cut and run", "stay the course"... we had recently the apparent flop "go big, go long, or go home"... not long ago, the next flop, "double down", was replaced by the word "surge"...
How can the hack "media" trade in such nonsense as that, without ever saying NATIONAL SECURITY or NATIONAL DEFENSE, or even discussing the concept, when they speak of war.
It's beyond belief.
You son of a motherless goat. Let the woman finsh just one sentence.
...is kinda funny though.
Credit where credit is due, in honour of the holiday season.
What a pathetic attempt at humor. Do these losers really think they're on some cutting edge of social critique? Ugh.
But we should not be blind to the subtext here. Namely:
"Wouldn't it be great if we had censorship and a non-critical press again that never questioned our leaders (esp. when they want to go to war)?" (well, we do, but that's another topic . . .)
Peace.
Fox is suggesting that if you oppose this war in Iraq, you would have opposed WWII. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making the ridiculous comparison. This is just another way for Fox to attack and intimidate those who are against the Iraq war, who happen to be most Americans. Previously, the neocons attacked those against the Iraq war as unpatriotic. This piece is much more subtle propaganda.
The right is obsessed with comparisons to WWII. During WWII the NYT documented the enormous casualties after battles, heavy fighting, ships lost, Japanese and German victories. Dec 7th banners on NYT(from my NYT mugs)-"Bombers Strike Hard at Our Main Base"-"Battleships Afire"-"1,104 soldiers killed" (later this figure would rise to almost 3,000) Also noted was that Malaysia was invaded. Several weeks later Singapore will fall- NYT will note that it maybe the worst defeat ever for Britain. The press noted for weeks that a break out had not occured after D-day. The defeat at Kasserine Pass was noted but I am sure the press left out the panic of our troops and men fleeing the field.
It is necessary to point out that this is different war. This is not armored warfare. There are no great naval battles, no air campaign, no massed armies. We have not mobilized 8 million men nor transformed all elements of our society for war making. (for good reason it took decades for Britain to just economically recover) We are not being outclassed in technology or overwhelmed by military might. No our enemy is attacking our weakest points. His largest army fielded may number several hundred. Our enemy does not need victory on the battlefield. He does not believe in battlefields. He merely needs to creat chaos and survive. He is not overly concerned with inflicting casualties. He is more concerned about disrupting electricity, water, education, oil revenues and the like. William Hammond, US military Historian, did a study for the Army in 89. He examined the press coverage in Korea and Vietnam and found that it was not the cause of dissaffection at home. It was the death toll-when casualties rose, support dropped. Robert McNamara and the Pentagon Papers have documented how administration officials serially misinformed the public during the Vietnam War. The press reports were more accurate then statements made by administration officials. Presently the Pentagon is again refusing to report levels of violence in Iraq, or in fact under-report. The press is correctly reporting that Bush is ignoring military advice about his surge idea. The press is reminding us why war is a last resort and diplomacy is good thing. In Kristol's world this war would be so sanitized and glorified that people would actually support expanding the war into Iran.
is just that. fdr proposed the "lend lease" program to help countries like britain that were at war with germany before we were. it passed in both houses of congress but only because of large democratic majorities. the republicans voted against it by about 2 to 1 in both houses.
HUME: That's it for the panel.
==========================================
LMAO....just like Hume to throw in the towel when the "panel" doesn't go the way he wants.
Hey, Brit, Merry Christmas ... I got you a membership in the "Kneepads of the Month Club"...
And Merry Christmas to the rest of you ....
Is that "Ancy Lagosi" would have been a republican.
This is a completely different war. There was plenty of news coverage of WWII.
there was not anywhere near the concentration of media ownership. many major cities in this country have one newspaper. decades ago there were three four, and more, in many cities.
Unfortunately, Hitler had weapons of mass destruction related program activities.
I believe he may have had a little something to do with our national security, too. Have to check on that.
You know what bothers me the most? This whole idea that liberals are just there to criticize and are anti-war at all costs. No. You're wrong.
If someone attacks you, you fight back until they relent. If someone attacks your ally, you fight with them until the enemy relents.
Is it unfortunate? A sad state of humanity? Yes. But sometimes.. yes, sometimes.. it's necessary.
By the way, I don't seem to recall Nancy Pelosi constantly criticizing Israel for its occupation of Palestinian territories. In fact, of the new book "Peace, Not Apartheid" by Jimmy Carter, she said it does not reflect the Democratic stance.
40% of the DNC funding comes from the Israel Lobby. Many Democrats are far more zionistic than some Repubs. Hillary is the darling of AIPAC right now, Kerry whined that the World Court ruled the West Bank ghetto wall a crime, Lantos supports Israel bombing Lebanese civilians, Obama wants US bombs raining on Iran. They support the war on Iraq because Israel wants it.
Makes one ask the question: "Who are our politicians loyal to? The US or Israel?" And the answer comes back: "Israel."
your opinion? israel says it was because of the suicide bombers. remember those? those were happening on almost a daily schedule for a while there. now there is one every great once in awhile.
Roosevelt was Commander-in-Chief in WWII so the difference is so obvious compared to the pathetic non-leader in the White House right now..........
is pretty boring, Every righty talker resorts to it when they're getting whupped on the subject of the Iraq war.Hannity uses it a quite a bit, being the dumbest of the lot.
"we'd all be speaking German if the liberal media were around in WWII" See? because WWII was a war, and the media has been nice enough to call what we're doing in Iraq a war, so you can do one of two things;
You can do some further research, read/listen from different sources and do some thinking to see for yourself if there is any difference between the two "wars".
Or you can put a "support the troops" sticker on your car, and boycott France.
Half of our fellow Americans were scared or lazy enough recently to choose the latter, but thankfully it seems more of them are gettinng their brains and backbones recovered.
I think the whole BS plays to the glamorization of war as it gets more distant. As much as WWII was a justified war, it was also filled with horror and death (being a war, and all), but that gets cleaned up over several decades of treacly movies and tributes to the Greatest Generation.
I think the idea of a war without any substantial sacrifice appeals to a certain group who want to be remebered in connection with something great, while not actually committing themslves in any way.
My Dad served in World War II (sort of, to you Army and Marines, he was Navy) and he never spoke about it too much, just the occasional funny story. He was a ship's medic, and I could tell when he was getting into unpleasant territory with the stories. Although he wasn't in combat, he saw the results.
He and his brothers served, and the country served by sacrificing and rationing.My old man was also one of those freeloaders who took advantage of the GI bill.That allowed the son of a cat from Limerick, Ireland who pushed a produce cart around Hell's Kitchen in New York to go to NYU and Columbia, and he praised that system his whole life.
But then, he had that Un-American sense of entitlement.
Thanks for sharing it.
And when you hear those snearing righties retreat to the Neville Chamberlain appeasers of Hitler frame, you can remind them had they been alive during the American Revolution we would all be subjects of the crown as they would have supported the might makes right crowd.
My Dad served in World War II ... he was Navy... He was a ship's medic - HBL
Damn. So was mine. In the Pacific.
my Mom is from Dublin (naturalized American). The rest are in County Cork. Her aunt, who sailed over with them on the Coronia (pronounced that way, but may have been the Corona), in 1925, spoke Gaelic; she was a saint, if ever I knew one.
I'll buy ya a drink sometime. Or maybe more.
Spelled just that way. Her maiden name was Holland, changed from MacHolland, and my last name is Welch. Irish and Welsh. I am about as Anglo-Saxon as it gets.
I enjoyed your little piece of family history because it reminds me of my own. My fathers mother was from County Cork. And you father and mine did serve in war in the US Navy. They weren't on the beaches but more than enough sailors went into the water and some are still there. It took just as much courage to stay at your post in the engine room or sick bay of a ship under attack as it did to huddle in a fox hole.
My dad is gone now. So are all but one of my uncles. My uncle that remains is furious with all of the comparisons being made between WWII and Iraq. He is a lifelong liberal member of the Democratic Party. He was also a sailor who lost his ship in the South Pacific.
Enjoy Fresno and have a great holiday.
I could accept this if it were on The Daily Show at Comedy Central. But at least John Steward would just let the piece speak for itself - and not have to paraphrase it with... "[I]s that a realistic picture of what it might have been like if today's politics and today's news media coverage had prevailed in World War II?"
I guess he just knows how stupid his audience is - so much so that he has to explain his jokes?
And Brit, on any given day your show by itself is funny enough for me - even without the "satire".
Yeah, it's EASY to run a war when you have censorship. It is much easier to lie to people. Also, if Saddam Hussein had invaded ALL of his neighboring countries, then there would have been ample reason to go to war over that. If we had entered the European theater of WWII simply because we thought that Hitler may have WMD, then the decision to go to war would have been as tenuous as our decision to invade Iraq.
We went to war with Germany and Italy because they declared war on US!! after we declared war on Japan. Any first year history student knows that. That would be the same as going to war in Iraq because they declared war on us after we went after bin Laden but of course we all know that isn't what happened. These morons just love o cloud the issue with invalid comparisons
HUME: Well, the question that it raises is whether those standards were the right standards to apply or -- which would, I think, it can be argued, have crippled the American war effort, or are the standards of today the right ones to apply?
Has this man ever asked the all stars about the incompetence in the White House and the Pentagon that has crippled the war effort? Jack Anderson must be rolling in his grave like Orwell.
She wrote a good book about the rising right titled Gang of Five and she brings a little more than Liasson IMO but I must correct her. 33,000 Americans died in Korea. Not the number she cited. Nit picky, but she should be embarrased though I know she could give a shiite. Or a sunni for that matter.
Brit Hume, I feel your pain. You tried so hard to get your panelists to say what you wanted them to say: The press should just shut up. And you failed miserably. What a bummer.
At the same time, I know when I have to rely on Morton Kondracke to be the voice of sanity and reason, we're in trouble.
Lagosi would have been a Republican.... The isolationists were mainly Republicans, not Democrats, as they are now. - Kondracke
Okay, so he almost maintained sanity and reason. But while neither major party could be called isolationist, the isolationists now, as in the past, are found mainly on the radical right (think Pat Buchanan) and thus more likely to be GOPpers than Dems.
Sorry, Morty babe, neither anti-imperialist nor antiwar equals isolationist.
.......of the continuation that we have to look forward to of the demonization of critical thought and so-called liberalism. This is going to intensify to a degree that will pale in comparison to the levels that it reached even during the Clinton years. Any semblance of the "liberal media bias" myth will be exposed as myth to all but the most delusional (I hope I did the html tag thing right. It's my first attempt.). For people who want to minimize the MSM's effectiveness in promoting the power elite's agenda, I say keep an eye on how anything approaching progressive (read: pro worker or domestic humanitarian aide) legislation is framed by the press during these next two years. We've seen it before, but we are now closer to a climate of the acceptance of creeping fascism than we've ever been because of homeland security concerns (legitimate and otherwise).