King Impressed By ‘Thoughtful’ Portrayal of Harassing Morning Show Host

During a Friday interview with actress Reese Witherspoon about season two of AppleTV+’s The Morning Show, real-life CBS Mornings host Gayle King was impressed with the “thoughtful” and “very interesting” way the fictional series dealt with the all-too-real topic of a network news anchor being fired for sexually harassing co-workers. Without mentioning her disgraced former co-host Charile Rose, King marveled at how the #MeToo storyline humanized the perpetrator.

“Last season, Steve Carell’s character, Mitch Kessler, he was ousted from the morning show because of misconduct. You all could have ended his storyline there very easily. But yet, his storyline continues. Why?,” King wondered. Witherspoon claimed that it was an examination of “cancel culture” and lamented that “we’re dismissing people and exiling people,” though she admitted “some rightly so.”  

 

 

The actress sympathetically noted:

I think that there’s this whole human cost, and what does it mean to be publicly shamed? How do you put your life back together?… And I think it’s really – really thoughtful of our writers to think about what is the extent of the human experience that comes out of cancel culture….And also can we separate the person from their work. And it definitely makes you think.

In response, King seemed impressed: “Yeah, it does. It raises some very interesting questions.”

Later in the discussion, King asked: “Watching your show, Reese Witherspoon, makes me think morning TV is ruthless. Is it?” Witherspoon quipped: “I don’t know, Gayle. You tell me.” King chuckled and dodged: “I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate others.”

Perhaps the network news ruthlessness she referred to involved some of the following:

> The sexual harassment scandal of disgraced former CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose

> The sexual harassment scandal of disgraced former 60 Minutes producer Jeff Fager

> The sexual harassment scandal of disgraced former CBS CEO Les Moonves

> The sexual harassment scandal of NBC’s disgraced former Today show co-host Matt Lauer

> The sexual harassment scandal of ABC’s disgraced former Good Morning America producer Michael Corn

In addition, CNN still employs Zoom meeting masturbator Jeffrey Toobin and newly accused sexual-harassing anchor Chris Cuomo, brother of disgraced former sexually-harassing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.  

When AppleTV+ began running trailers for The Morning Show in 2019 – during commercial breaks for the real network morning shows – the parallels between it and the Rose and Lauer scandals were obvious.

King’s chat with Witherspoon about rehabilitating a fictional morning show sexual harasser was brought to viewers by Toyota and Comcast. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such content.

Here is a transcript of the September 24 exchange:

8:17 AM ET

GAYLE KING: It’s been 20 years since Reese Witherspoon became a household name. You remember Elle Woods in Legally Blonde. Since then, she has also become a powerful force in Hollywood, “powerful” is the word there. An investment firm recently poured hundreds of millions of dollars into her media company, Hello Sunshine. Isn’t that the perfect name for a Reese Witherspoon company? Yup. The investment is accelerating Hello Sunshine’s mission to tell diverse stories about women in all mediums. They produce hits series like Little Fires Everywhere and Big Little Lies, and The Morning Show, which just kicked off its new season on Apple. Reese plays anchor Bradley Jackson in the series. She joined us from Nashville to talk all about it.

Let’s talk about Bradley Jackson. I love this girl because she goes from someone who’s grateful to – “Oh, golly, gosh, I’m so thankful to have this opportunity” – to when she’s passed over for a job at the evening news that she thought she deserved, to basically telling the boss, “[beep] you. And by the way, I’m going to call in sick for the next month.” Why was it important for you – I laughed at that, too, Reese, because I’m thinking if I had done that here at CBS I’d be on Times Square going, “Taxi, please. Does Reese Witherspoon need an assistant? I play nicely with others.” Why was it important for you that she demand more?

REESE WITHERSPOON: Well, I think – I was reading this interesting thing about work and how we – the three stages of work are, “I can’t wait to get there,” and then the next stage is, “I’m so glad I’m here,” and then the third stage is, “Get me out of here.” So I think, you know, she’s so excited to be in the rooms where it happens, but she demands respect. And I think it’s kind of fun to pull behind the curtain and see, you know, when people go into negotiation tactics, they can be ruthless, even if they’re, you know, new to the job.

KING: Last season, Steve Carell’s character, Mitch Kessler, he was ousted from the morning show because of misconduct. You all could have ended his storyline there very easily. But yet, his storyline continues. Why?

WITHERSPOON: I think it’s an important time right now that we’re talking so much about cancel culture. You know, and we’re dismissing people and exiling people. And some rightly so. I think that there’s this whole human cost, and what does it mean to be publicly shamed? How do you put your life back together? Your life isn’t over, you have to reconstitute and rebuild. And I think it’s really – really thoughtful of our writers to think about what is the extent of the human experience that comes out of cancel culture. And also can we separate the person from their work. And it definitely makes you think.

KING: Yeah, it does. It raises some very interesting questions.

(…)

KING: Watching your show, Reese Witherspoon, makes me think morning TV is ruthless. Is it?

WITHERSPOON: I don’t know, Gayle. You tell me.

KING [LAUGHS]: I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate others.

(…)



Source link

Lame! Mika Plays Defense As ‘Morning Joe’ Blasts Biden’s French Submarine Fiasco

On Wednesday, Morning Joe — in the persons of Joe Scarborough, Richard Haass, Anne Gearan, and Willie Geist — tore into Biden’s mishandling of the cancellation of Australia’s submarine-building contract with France in favor of one with the US.

But Biden had one, lonely, backer: Mika Brzezinski. She piped up throughout the long segment, doing her best to defend Biden. Brzezinski expressed doubt as to whether the US, UK, and Australia really went behind France’s back. She said the situation isn’t “black and white”—to which Scarborough shot back, “it is black and white.” She suggested France should have known there was a problem with their subs. She claimed there was “more to the story.”

At one point, Scarborough mocked Mika, saying, “I know you’re doing your best,” to defend Biden.

Among the blasts at Biden by the non-Mika members of the panel:

  • “Bush league is too high of a compliment.”
  • “A failure . . . an amazing breach.”
  • “Kept in the dark so flagrantly.”
  • “Unforgiveable.”
  • “Stabbed them in the back.”
  • “The ambassador has never been recalled [even] under Donald Trump.”
  • “Can you imagine the outcry if Donald Trump had blundered this badly?”
  • “No explaining this away!”
  • “Totally, totally, mishandled.”
  • “Was it incompetence? Was it arrogance?”

Check out the screencap of Mika grimacing while listening to the panel’s indictment of Biden’s botching! She ended the segment by repeating her belief that there is “more to this,” and declaring that she would “go to the White House” and ask!

Note: There was a light-hearted moment. AP’s Jonathan Lemire, responding to Scarborough’s assertion that there needs to be a “make-good” to France from the US, said that France could be added into the sub-building partnership. That what has been called AUKUS [for Australia, UK, US], could be changed to FAUKUS.

Scarborough laughingly replied, “watch out now!”

Mika Brzezinski attempting to defend Biden’s French sub fiasco while the rest of the Morning Joe panel blasted him was sponsored in part by Discover, Walgreens, and Liberty Mutual

Here’s the transcript.

MSNBC
Morning Joe
9/22/21
6:12 am EDT

JOE SCARBOROUGH: How do you have [the French] on the outside of a conversation, and then they just learn suddenly that they’ve lost a $50 billion, $60 billion deal? That seems, seems, to say bush league.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Did it really happen that way?

SCARBOROUGH: It did. I think bush league is too high of a compliment for the way they handled this.

. . . 

ANNE GEARAN: There was a failure here to inform the French early enough on, bring them on board in some other capacity. And prevent what really is an amazing breach. The ambassador has never been recalled from the United States until now. I mean, it didn’t happen under Donald Trump, right?!

. . . 

JONATHAN LEMIRE: The French are also angry about how they were kept in the dark, kept in the dark–almost so flagrantly.

SCARBOROUGH: That’s what’s so unforgiveable.

. . . 

LEMIRE: This new alliance: the Australian-UK-US alliance: AUKUS. Which some have said, add France to that: FAUKUS. Easy enough!

SCARBOROUGH: [laughing] Watch out now! 

LEMIRE: I was careful!

SCARBOROUGH: Biden is talking to Macron, and on that same day— they’re talking in person—and he’s letting Macron say, thank God you’re here. Thank God this alliance is back where it needs to be. Thank God you actually give a damn about what your European allies think. 

On that very day, they’re stabbing them in the back!

. . . 

Can you imagine the outcry if Donald Trump had blundered this badly in dealing with an ally, stabbed them in the back like this, and broke off relations? I can’t. I mean, there would be howling from the mountaintops for six months. For good reason!

WILLIE GEIST: Yup.

SCARBOROUGH: For good reason. There’s no explaining this away. You don’t treat allies this way. You don’t stab them in the back. 

. . . 

MIKA: Okay. We do have the reality of the subs, right? The reality, there were some issues.

SCARBOROUGH: — Mika —

MIKA: The French knew that. They weren’t completely blind to that, were they? I’m just saying: it’s not black and white.

SCARBOROUGH: It is black and white. If that’s the case, you know what you do?

MIKA: What?

SCARBOROUGH: You talk to your ally. This is really — I know you’re doing your best, but this is –

MIKA: I just –

SCARBOROUGH: This is no defense.

MIKA: I feel like there’s more to the story. That’s all.

. . . 

RICHARD HAASS: It was simply totally, totally, mishandled. It’s ironic, it happens right after Afghanistan, which was another Trumpian sort of mishandling of allied consultations. And then, it’s really funny, then what did Joe Biden talk about at the U.N.? Relentless diplomacy. And the contrast between the words yesterday, and these two big problems with our oldest allies, can hardly be more stark.

. . . 

GEIST: And the question is why? Why did it happen this way? Was it incompetence? There are experienced people inside the State Department. There are experienced people inside the Biden administration. Was it arrogance?

. . . 

MIKA: I’m not making a defense for it [actually, you are, if ineffectually so.] And I agree, China’s the focus. But I, I just think there might be more to this. I will go to the White House and ask. 



Source link

“He Raped Me Every Morning”




“He Raped Me Every Morning” – Snopes Founder Mikkelson Accused of Daily Sexual Assaults by Second Wife and Former Sex Worker



















Tap here to add The Western Journal to your home screen.





Source link

Morning Joe: Milley Tipping China Sounds Great— Except It Collides with the Constitution

General Milley promising to tip off China to any attack ordered by President Trump? Why, that’s “helpful.” Milley “didn’t do anything wrong.” In fact, “we owe him a debt of thanks!”

The only “problem?” That Constitution thingy!

On today’s Morning Joe, everyone from Joe Scarborough to Jonathan Lemire to David Ignatius did his bit to downplay the seriousness of Milley’s dereliction of duty. 

 

Outrageously, Morning Joe once again suppressed any mention of Milley’s key offense: his promise to China to give advance notice of an attack. Joe Scarborough dishonestly described Milley as merely having “talk[ed] to his counterparts.”

And Scarborough teed up Washington Post columnist and Morning Joe regular David Ignatius to discuss his column in which he suggested that focusing on Milley is “missing the bigger point.”  Right! Let’s ignore the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff going behind the back of the President of the United States and promising to warn our biggest adversary of a coming attack. Instead, let’s focus on what’s really important: Orange Man Bad!

But at the end, Ignatius had to acknowledge the small matter of the Constitution, calling it a “problem.”

The problem is, and I think every single thing that was done by those three people, by Milley, were helpful for the country and our security.

But, under our Constitution, these people didn’t have authority to set their own policy. We have a strong executive branch under the Constitution. We have a Commander-in-Chief, and you don’t set up an alternative policy.”

It was very telling for Ignatius to then say that if generals pulled something similar with Biden, “people” would be offended.

Guess what? Many “people” are offended—and much more than offended—by how Milley undermined the Constitution and President Trump.  But Ignatius naturally sees the world from the viewpoint of the bien-pensant liberal establishment.  It’s only offensive if it’s done to a Democrat!

And there was something ominous about Ignatius’s final words, about the situation being something we need to think about “for the future.” Was he suggesting some kind of constitutional change to permit what would otherwise be Milley’s dereliction of duty or something even worse? Or was he merely suggesting that generals don’t need to contradict the president or warn about the president once Biden’s in office?

Morning Joe downplaying the seriousness of General Milley promising China he would tip it off if President Trump ordered an attack was sponsored in part by AT&T.

Here’s the transcript.

MSNBC
Morning Joe
9/20/21
6:14 am EDT

JONATHAN LEMIRE: These are routine—routine may be a bit much. But these are not out-of-the-ordinary conversations for U.S. officials to have with their counterparts particularly, a rival like China. But certainly it does show concern as to where things were going nine months ago.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: It does. But I mean, to act like this is some extraordinary moment, for an American general talking his counterparts, or for CIA directors or for Secretary of States, to make sure that things are calm on the other side, that happens an awful lot. David Ignatius, in a column you write on this, you say, we seem to be missing the bigger point by just focusing on General Milley.

. . . 

DAVID IGNATIUS: This question of the larger group within the Trump administration who were quietly and visibly, really, setting guardrails against erratic, dangerous actions by President Trump. I think this remains the real, untold stories of the last couple months of the administration. But by my reporting, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, until he left Attorney General William Barr, certainly CIA director Gina Haspel, were taking steps to make sure that the president didn’t do things that would destabilize the country, that would put us in dangerous situations. 

The problem is and I think every single thing that was done by those three people, by Milley, were helpful for the country and our security.

But, under our Constitution, these people didn’t have authority to set their own policy. We have a strong executive branch under the Constitution. We have a Commander-in-Chief. And you don’t set up an alternative policy.

If you can imagine generals trying to decide, well, we know more than, general, President Biden. We’re going to set guardrails for President Biden. People would be offended. So I think there is a real constitutional issue here. 

I don’t think Milley did anything wrong. I think we owe him a debt of thanks. But there’s something worth thinking about here for the future.



Source link

Sunday morning talking heads – HotAir

It’s booster week in the USA and no one’s sure what’s going on thanks to Joe Biden and his scientific brain trust having made a hash of the policy. The Sunday shows will try to make sense of it with America’s top two public-health bureaucrats, Anthony Fauci and his boss at NIH, Francis Collins. Fauci will be on “This Week,” “Meet the Press,” and “State of the Union” while Collins stops by “Face the Nation” and “Fox News Sunday” to clarify the state of play:

— Despite Biden’s promise last month, not all adults will be eligible for boosters. Only seniors will.

— Despite Biden’s promise last month, only Pfizer recipients will be eligible for now. The jury’s still out on Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.

— Despite Biden saying people would be eligible eight months after their second dose, the timetable at the moment is uncertain.

— Despite Fauci speculating repeatedly that three doses might be needed to fully protect people, most Americans will remain eligible for only two.

— Despite assurances that two doses are enough to keep adults out of the hospital, the CDC’s own data shows Pfizer recipients’ protection from severe illness declining over time.

Fauci and Collins will preview the CDC meeting scheduled for this coming week to find a way forward. Hopefully Fauci will also have to answer a hard question or two today about why he told Congress his agency didn’t fund gain of function research in Wuhan when documents obtained by The Intercept suggest otherwise.

Elsewhere this morning, GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy will tell “Meet the Press” that it’s time for Pelosi to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill that’s withering on the vine in the House. And former Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Mullen will weigh in with “This Week” on whether Mark Milley is a hero, a traitor, or a bit of both. The full line-up is at the AP.



Source link

Alex Murdaugh to surrender to police Thursday morning

Disgraced South Carolina lawyer Alex Murdaugh plans to turn himself in to authorities on Thursday for allegedly trying to commit insurance fraud, his lawyer said Wednesday.

A warrant was issued for his arrest Tuesday and a bond hearing for Murdaugh is set for 4 p.m. Thursday at Hampton County Magistrate Court, his attorney, Jim Griffin, told The Post.

Murdaugh checked himself into rehab for substance abuse earlier this month — two days after he allegedly orchestrated his own roadside shooting in a bid to leave his son with a $10 million insurance payout.

Curtis Edward Smitt, the man whom Murdaugh allegedly hired to shoot him in the botched plot, was arrested Tuesday.

Smitt, a former client of Murdaugh and suspected drug dealer, was charged with assisted suicide, assault and battery of a high aggravated nature, pointing and presenting a firearm, insurance fraud, and conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, authorities have said.

Alex Murdaugh plans to turn himself in on Thursday for allegedly trying to commit insurance fraud.
Facebook

Murdaugh, whose wife and 22-year-old son were shot dead in June, is a part of at least two other state investigations.

Shortly after he resigned from Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick on Sept. 6, the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division announced it was investigating allegations that Murdaugh stole money from his high-powered law firm.

Earlier Wednesday, the same agency opened a probe into the death of Murdaugh’s longtime housekeeper Gloria Satterfield.

Satterfield, 57, died in February 2018 after “a trip and fall accident” in the family’s home, according to a new lawsuit filed by the housekeeper’s children.

More than 3 1/2 years later, “the exact details of the fall remain unclear,” even to the housekeeper’s sons and heirs, a Hampton County lawsuit seeking unspecified damages said.



Source link

BLACKOUT: Morning News Shows Ignore Skyrocketing Meat Prices

The ABC, CBS and NBC morning news shows continued to shield President Joe Biden from bad economic news as meat prices for consumers skyrocketed across the country.

National Public Radio (NPR) said that beef prices have surged a whopping “12.2% over the last year,” based on a new Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation report.  Here’s the kicker: The data show that beef is now “one of the costliest items in the surging bills that consumers face today at the grocery store.” 

Food Dive reported in June of a spike in meat and poultry demand while meat processing companies were wrestling with worker shortages. The “surge in meat prices is contributing to high inflation,” NPR stated in its reporting. ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS Mornings, NBC’s Today and NBC’s 3rd Hour of Today failed to report the bad news during their Sept. 14, broadcasts.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 5.3 percent on a year-to-year basis, “still near the highest level in nearly 13 years,” NPR reported. Pork prices jumped “9.8 percent” in the last year while chicken prices jumped “7.2 percent.” One cattle farmer put the skyrocketing costs of meat into perspective for NPR: “‘It’s just outrageous. I can’t even understand how people are supposed to be able to pay that kind of money for basic stuff like ground beef.’” But the Big Three morning news networks couldn’t be bothered to share any of this with viewers.

GMA’s coverage was arguably the worst. The network spent a gigantic 375 seconds of its news coverage promoting the liberal elitist MET Gala in the minutes following the BLS’ inflation report drop at 8:30 a.m. There was zero coverage of the inflation data.

 

 

CBS Mornings coverage at 8:30 a.m. was just as despicable. Instead of covering the inflation news on meat prices, the network spent 85 seconds of coverage pushing a company’s mad scientist scheme to resurrect woolly mammoths in order to fight climate change.

 

 

NBC’s Today, instead of covering the inflation data, spent a whopping 325 seconds of useless news coverage on a cookbook by “Queer Eye” star Antoni Porowski. “Queer Eye” is a pro-LGBTQ show about gay professionals giving advice.

 

NBC’s 3rd Hour of Today was no better as it used up 199 seconds of news coverage talking about meaningless TikTok fashion trends.

 

 

Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News (818-460-7477), CBS News (212-975-3247) and NBC News (212- 664-6192) and demand they address the life or death concerns of everyday Americans such as the skyrocketing prices of basic American food.



Source link

Sunday morning talking heads – HotAir

A crowded agenda on the Sunday shows begins with Liz Cheney, now vice chairman of the January 6 committee and the proud target of a Trump-backed primary challenge in her home state of Wyoming. She’ll chat with “Face the Nation” about the progress her committee has made in investigating the insurrection, including a request to telecom companies to preserve the phone records of, among other people, Kevin McCarthy. She’ll also comment on Harriet Hageman, an ally and donor who’s now gone MAGA in hopes of replacing her in Congress.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy is also a guest this morning, tapped to appear on “This Week” and “State of the Union” to defend Biden’s sweeping new vaccine mandate for companies with more than 100 employees. A discussion of the legal merits of that mandate would be more interesting but the White House isn’t eager to engage in that for obvious reasons. Having public-health experts like Murthy make the moral case for mandates is firmer ground for them politically. RNC chair Ronna McDaniel will argue against the mandate on “Face the Nation,” which probably suits the Biden administration just fine. The more they can make this a partisan political issue while attacking anti-mandate Republicans as anti-vax, the happier they are.

Finally, the Democratic civil war over infrastructure will play out on “This Week” and “State of the Union” with visits from Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. (Manchin will also be on “Meet the Press.”) Bernie wants to go ultra-mega-big on reconciliation spending, of course, while alleged fiscal hawk Manchin is prepared to draw the line at mega-big, with a cap of $1.5 trillion. Manchin’s take on Biden’s vaccine mandate will also be interesting given that he represents a blood-red state. The full line-up is at the AP.



Source link

On Morning Joe, Wash Post Book Critic Laments American ‘Blood Lust’ After 9/11

Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Friday, Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada chose to remember September 11th by scolding America for succumbing to “fervor and blood lust” while fighting the war on terror in the two decades since the attack. His way of marking that tragic day was to accuse the nation of racism and following its “lowest impulses.”   

“Our next guest says 9/11 was a test and the books of the last two decades show how America failed. Pulitzer Prize-winning book critic for The Washington Post, Carlos Lozada, joins us now,” co-host Joe Scarborough noted as he introduced the left-wing journalist who just authored an essay on topic in the Post. The anchor explained that Lozada recently “read and re-read 21 books about 9/11 and America’s response to the attacks” in order to make his harsh political judgments.

 

 

Moments later, Lozada proclaimed: “The test of 9/11 that I write about in the essay you mentioned is whether we could respond to this horrifying assault on America and still be America, still uphold the values that we profess….Yet in our prosecution of the war on terror, we didn’t always display those highest values.” He further ranted:

We sometimes revealed some of our lowest impulses, whether that was deception or brutality or overreach or even delusion….We engaged in the brutal interrogation of terrorism suspects, as chronicled in the Senate torture report. The irony is that after spending so many years attempting to spread democracy around the world, democracy at home feels weakened. And the same building that Al Qaeda attempted to strike on September 11, 2001 and failed to, the U.S. Capitol building, was assaulted by our own citizens 20 years later.

After Scarborough urged him to talk more about all of America’s post-9/11 “mistakes,” Lozada nastily declared the United States to be the real villain:

And, you know, on that evening of 9/11, President Bush said, look, we’re the brightest beacon for freedom in the world and no one, no enemy can keep that light from shining. And he’s right in the sense that Al Qaeda was not what dimmed America’s promise. We, in some ways, did that to ourselves. And I think trying to get a handle on that kind of, you know, fervor and blood lust that comes in the initial aftermath of an attack and trying to think through long term on the potential consequences of our response to the attack is – is vital.

Near the end of the discussion, the bitter book reviewer launched into yet another unhinged tirade in which American anti-terror efforts were to blame for all manner things he detested:

There is some continuity, I think, as well as disruption. And in many ways, the legacy of the war on terror is the country that we’ve become today. You know, it’s hard to imagine a political candidate coming to power on the strength of the birtherism lie, by denigrating the sitting president as foreign and illegitimate, you know, absent the war on terror. Absent the war on terror, it’s hard to imagine a travel ban against Muslim-majority countries. Absent the war on terror, it’s hard to imagine domestic protesters being denigrated as terrorists. Absent the war on terror, it’s hard to imagine DHS, which of course didn’t exist, you know, shifting from an anti-terrorism organization to an anti-immigrant organization. And so I think we’ve seen a lot of kind of gradual encroachment and continuity in the world that 9/11 wrought, into what we have become today.

Amazingly, over on CNN’s New Day, political analyst David Gregory went off on a nearly identical left-wing screed:

 

 

I think that sense of vulnerability, the sense that we are under attack, that there’s forces out there that are meant to hurt us, I think that came into sharp relief that day. And I think there’s a through line between that and Donald Trump. You know, where our politics kept evolving and degenerating to the point where a political force like Trump could say, “This person’s out to get you. This person will hurt our way of life. You know, watch out for the Mexicans and the immigrants and, of course, the Muslims, and then the Chinese.” All of that really began out of the ashes of 9/11.

He was also similarly outraged over America defending itself against future acts of terrorism: “Well, the question then was, who’s a patriot? You know, you’re with us or against us….Like you’re either on board in this kind of war-footing, this counterterrorism enterprise that went on for decades or you’re not. I think it was very divisive.”

It’s extraordinary how the liberal media so routinely rush to find America guilty, even in the wake of thousands being brutally murdered. In their warped minds, is the U.S. ever justified to fight back against its enemies?

The outrageous 9/11 20th anniversary coverage was brought to MSNBC viewers by Safelite and brought to CNN viewers by Fidelity. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such content.

Here is a transcript of excerpts from the September 10 segment on Morning Joe:

6:50 AM ET

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Our next guest says 9/11 was a test and the books of the last two decades show how America failed. Pulitzer Prize-winning book critic for The Washington Post, Carlos Lozada, joins us now. Ahead of the 20th anniversary, he read and re-read 21 books about 9/11 and America’s response to the attacks. And Carlos, what you wrote, in summation, was extraordinary. A lot of failings.

(…)

SCARBOROUGH: Carlos, on this 20-year anniversary, it’s so important that our leaders, whether in politics or whether they’re thought leaders, reflect on the 20 years, what we’ve gotten right and what we’ve gotten wrong. It’s so important to look back and figure out, as you said, what parts of the test we failed. You re-read these 21 books, so many of them so important. What was your great takeaway, or your takeaways, from what we got wrong over the past 20 years?

CARLOS LOZADA: The test of 9/11 that I write about in the essay you mentioned is whether we could respond to this horrifying assault on America and still be America, still uphold the values that we profess. The very values that our leaders told us were the reason behind the attacks. Remember President Bush, on the night of 9/11, said the reason we were targeted was because of our values, because we stand for freedom and openness and opportunity and democracy and the rule of law.

Yet in our prosecution of the war on terror, we didn’t always display those highest values. We sometimes revealed some of our lowest impulses, whether that was deception or brutality or overreach or even delusion. You know, we entered an unnecessary war in Iraq, turned a war of liberation into a war of occupation there, we prolonged the war in Afghanistan by being less than forthcoming about how that war was progressing, as my colleague Craig Whitlock has chronicled in his book, The Afghanistan Papers. We engaged in the brutal interrogation of terrorism suspects, as chronicled in the Senate torture report. The irony is that after spending so many years attempting to spread democracy around the world, democracy at home feels weakened. And the same building that Al Qaeda attempted to strike on September 11, 2001 and failed to, the U.S. Capitol building, was assaulted by our own citizens 20 years later.

(…)

LOZADA: I mean, the overarching test that we passed, that we did not fail, is that there was not a second 9/11-scale terrorist attack in the United States. And that’s an enormous success. The one note of – the one caveat I would add to that, though, is that on 9/11 and that evening – you know, Andrew Card just mentioned the President’s speech that night. He didn’t just say that the job of the United States was now to protect American citizens, he said it was to protect the American way of life and those American values. And I think in that regard, perhaps, we were somewhat less successful.

(…)

SCARBOROUGH: You know, Carlos, you’re so right. It is extraordinary what has been accomplished over the past 20 years as far as stopping another 9/11-type attack, scale attack on this country. I want to go back to lessons we can learn. If somebody is watching today, and I know we have a lot of people in Washington that watch the show, who’s in power, if God forbid we have another attack like this. Let’s look back over the past 20 years, where we came up short on values, contextualize it to – like for instance, the Sedition Act of 1918 during World War I, where you actually had a law that said you could get arrested to saying anything disloyal to the government. The internment camps in World War II, 20 years of lies during Vietnam from leaders on all sides. What do we do if we’re faced with another attack, if we’re faced with another large-scale war, to hopefully not keep repeating these same mistakes?

LOZADA: I think one of the overriding lessons is that sometimes underestimating threats ahead of time leads to overreacting to them after the fact. And, you know, on that evening of 9/11, President Bush said, look, we’re the brightest beacon for freedom in the world and no one, no enemy can keep that light from shining. And he’s right in the sense that Al Qaeda was not what dimmed America’s promise. We, in some ways, did that to ourselves. And I think trying to get a handle on that kind of, you know, fervor and blood lust that comes in the initial aftermath of an attack and trying to think through long term on the potential consequences of our response to the attack is – is vital.

(…)

WILLIE GEIST: Hey, Carlos, it’s Willie Geist, I’m at Ground Zero this morning. I’m interested in your view on a question we were just discussing with Joe and Jeh Johnson, and that is the country we live in today, many of those books you’re reading and you write about so well, in some ways are to the story of a different country in terms of how divided we are. So if God forbid we ever encountered a moment like that, how different would the lessons be? How would we apply those lessons to a country where reflexively so many people would object to whatever the President says or does because of the party he’s in or whatever a member of Congress says or does because of the party he or she is in? How different are we today than we were 20 years ago?

LOZADA: I think that’s a great point. And I think if you look at 9/11 at one point and 2021 in another, it certainly looks like a different place. But I think that in many ways, these things happen incrementally. There is some continuity, I think, as well as disruption. And in many ways, the legacy of the war on terror is the country that we’ve become today. You know, it’s hard to imagine a political candidate coming to power on the strength of the birtherism lie, by denigrating the sitting president as foreign and illegitimate, you know, absent the war on terror. Absent the war on terror, it’s hard to imagine a travel ban against Muslim-majority countries. Absent the war on terror, it’s hard to imagine domestic protesters being denigrated as terrorists. Absent the war on terror, it’s hard to imagine DHS, which of course didn’t exist, you know, shifting from an anti-terrorism organization to an anti-immigrant organization. And so I think we’ve seen a lot of kind of gradual encroachment and continuity in the world that 9/11 wrought, into what we have become today.

SCARBOROUGH: Alright, Pulitzer Prize-winning book critic for The Washington Post, Carlos Lozada, thank you so much. We greatly appreciate you being here, appreciate your time.

Here is a transcript of the segment on New Day:

7:29 AM ET

(…)

JOHN BERMAN: David, in September 11th – on September 11th, you were traveling with President Bush in Florida. You know, you were there that day. I was reading some of your thoughts on September 11th and what’s happened in the 20 years since. And what I find so interesting and I think you hit on is we have such a knee-jerk tendency to say, “Oh, that was the moment when the whole country came together,” which is true for a second, right, but I think you point out that over time it was also the beginning of some divisions that really still stand.

DAVID GREGORY: Yeah, I mean, we were just talking about Trump. I think that sense of vulnerability, the sense that we are under attack, that there’s forces out there that are meant to hurt us, I think that came into sharp relief that day. And I think there’s a through line between that and Donald Trump. You know, where our politics kept evolving and degenerating to the point where a political force like Trump could say, “This person’s out to get you. This person will hurt our way of life. You know, watch out for the Mexicans and the immigrants and, of course, the Muslims, and then the Chinese.” All of that really began out of the ashes of 9/11.

And I think that there was just this hardening of our partisanship that emerged out of that time. I think it was building, really, back into the ’80s. But I think 9/11 hardened – I think about questions like, who’s a real patriot? Right, I mean, you see echos of this now, over the question of freedom and the vaccine. Well, the question then was, who’s a patriot? You know, you’re with us or against us. That was a charge by Bush, you know, to our allies around the world. But that was true internally as well. Like you’re either on board in this kind of war-footing, this counterterrorism enterprise that went on for decades or you’re not. I think it was very divisive.

BRIANNA KEILAR: What do you think the lesson is, with the benefit of hindsight now, looking back when America is hit the way it was, a victim, yes, of 9/11, and then the question of, okay, well what do you do in response? What do you do? Who is it going to hurt? Who is it going to help? We now have 20 years of war behind us to look at that question. We also have, like you said, unity except if you were say a Sheikh American or a Muslim American, you say, “I sure didn’t feel safer or more unified.” What’s the lesson?

GREGORY: You know, I think what countries and particularly governments do when they’re scared is often not very pretty with the benefit of hindsight. You know, during the Civil War, suspending habeas corpus for Confederate soldiers that Lincoln did. And the internment of the Japanese, I mean, these are ugly episodes in our history. And I think whether it was Abu Ghraib or whether it was torture – which in many cases did not work, still debated by some – of those suspected terrorists. I think those things have a real impact.

And you know, we have to weigh – look, we have not been hit again. And that was something that the President said – President Bush at the time – would be very important. He also said if we take the fight to them, we won’t have to fight here. That has largely been true. But at what cost? You know, to our politics, to the fact that people don’t believe in institutions anymore. By the way, the splintering of the media was a big by-product of all of this. That was happening beforehand. That had a real impact on the legacy of 9/11, I think, 20 years later.

But you know, all of those things, that lack of trust in – whether it’s media or government to be competent and to do things. You know, fighting two big wars to at best a draw leads to all kinds of thoughts about, well, what is America? What influence does it have around the globe? It has a lot by the way, but all of those things, I think, have hurt our politics and hurt our ability to deal with big things like a pandemic, like climate change. I think we struggle right now as a country to meet a big threat.

And I think the one thing that President Bush understood – and, John, you remember this – when he began his presidency, was he says the president has political capital, only so much political capital. He drew all of that down and he lost it in the course of Iraq as well. Government, as a general matter, only has so much capital. And I think we’ve seen the diminution of that capital over these couple decades.

KEILAR: Look, it’s a logical time, 20 years out from 9/11, to have some reflection, some lessons learned, right?

GREGORY: Yeah.

KEILAR: I think that’s sort of a period that we’re in right now. David, thank you so much.

GREGORY: Thanks.



Source link

Sunday morning talking heads – HotAir

Weeks of relentless bad news for America require a visit to the Sunday shows by a White House A-lister to do damage control. That means Biden’s de facto prime minister, Ron Klain, is booked for “State of the Union” this morning to discuss, well, everything. The U.S. has more COVID cases this Labor Day than it had last Labor Day; the latest jobs report was a miserable bust; we stranded American citizens and the majority of Afghan SIV holders during our frantic bugout from Kabul; New Orleans is still without power due to Hurricane Ida; Biden’s infrastructure package is suddenly hanging by a thread thanks to Joe Manchin; and the president’s job approval has slipped to Trumpy levels.

Other than that, though, the past month has been great.

Klain will do his best to put on a happy face and hopefully clarify what’s going on with booster shots, which were supposed to begin two weeks from now until they turned into another fiasco for the administration.

Speaking of which, Anthony Fauci will try to sort through the booster mess with “Face the Nation.” And Amy Klobuchar will follow Klain on “State of the Union” to discuss the odds of Congress codifying Roe v. Wade in the wake of SCOTUS’s decision to let Texas’s new abortion law take effect. Spoiler: Those odds are zero. The full line-up is at the AP.



Source link