The Clinton-Brock-Blumenthal-Lyons-Conason groupies at Media Whores Online were
talking up a Brock appearance on Comedy Central's "Daily Show"
Tuesday night as the most impressive and learned interview yet.
Instead of asking readers to bombard the host with the usual hate
email, MWO provided a link urging readers to thank host Jon Stewart
for a job well done. All this for an interview that couldn't have
lasted much more than five minutes. Nonetheless I was urged to
watch it by a friend who'd sensed that for all his seeming
friendliness Stewart wasn't exactly awestruck by Brock.
So I caught Wednesday evening's replay, and am happy to report
that even Brock wouldn't have been awestruck by Brock -- badly
stooped shoulders, pasty complexion, and a formless mouth that's
been lying too long. In response to Brock's claim that there was a
Scaife-funded right-wing conspiracy, Stewart asked him what about
Larry Flynt's million dollar offers for dirt on Clinton critics? I
missed Brock's nonreply, but it sounded as if he said he never read
"Hustler," preferring "Profiles in Courage" instead. At one point
he averred there was nothing to the Paula Jones story. But then he
said Jones-Clinton was consensual. Which raises question about his
claims the Arkansas troopers shouldn't be believed, since his
source for the consensual version were those very same troopers.
Once the lying starts, it never stops. Old friends worry about
Brock's future. I don't. Yassir Arafat is bound to need a new
spokesman.
Then we might see Brock again on television, sympathetically
portrayed by Peter Jennings. Wednesday evening ABC's evening news
reported from Ramallah, where Arafat is defending his Alamo and
where the local Palestinian population is said to be feeling the
brunt of the Israeli military presence. The news segment showed
great amounts of U.N.-supplied food, but claimed none of it was
getting to residents too terrified to leave their homes. ABC then
interviewed members of two households said to be on the verge of
hunger and thirst. But if it could get an on-camera interview with
them, couldn't the network's crew also have done the decent thing
and brought them much needed food and water?
A new argument is now being used against Ariel Sharon's Israel.
Sharon hater Zbigniew Brzezinski
mentioned it on the Lehrer NewsHour a few nights ago, but it's
picking up steam in other quarters. The gist is that Israel in
oppressing the Palestinians is creating another Algeria -- the
former French colony which won its independence only after a
sustained urban terror campaign that by the early 1960s turned
Paris into a potential Beirut, leading President DeGaulle to set
Algeria free. The Sharon haters may think the Algeria analogy is
clever, but it may be too clever by half. In fact, it confirms what
we know full well about Arafat and the Palestinian terrorists'
intentions.
Namely, that they want Israelis out of Israel as completely as
the Algerians wanted the French out of Algeria. The French had
France to return to. Where are the Israelis supposed to go?
Which in turn explains why the Israelis, with nowhere to go, are
insisting on defending their country against a terrorist movement
that cannot conceive of coexistence. How long will the geniuses in
our midst continue to bash Israel for finding itself in a situation
from which it has no escape? They think Israel likes being
on permanent war footing every day of every year of its perilous
existence?
topics:
Television, Military, Israel
