The Spectacle Blog

RE: Steve Irwin

By on 9.7.06 | 2:31PM

Phil: Saw your blog post yesterday, and I have to disagree. While your concern is understandable, if we were to follow your logic to its conclusion, it would mean that no one who is a police officer, fire fighter, or soldier could have a family either.

On a different note, I got back late from vacation Tuesday evening, and turned on the TV which one of my roommates must have left on CNN. I caught the end of a segment of Larry King Live before it went to commercial. All I saw was a picture of Steve Irwin and heard some somber music. I knew immediately. God bless Steve Irwin, and may He look over his wife and children

Steve Irwin was a pioneer. He transformed the wildlife show, turning the genre into something that was both educational and fun. He showed that you could be goofy and still take wildlife seriously. Without Irwin, someone like Jeff Corwin would probably wouldn't be on television.

RE: $$Media Matters$$

By on 9.7.06 | 2:16PM

Wlady: I particularly liked the phrase "reformed right-wing reporter," as though being a right-winger is tantamount to being a criminal or drug addict.

Clinton Throws Down the Gauntlet

By on 9.7.06 | 1:19PM

The letter written on behalf of Bill Clinton contains the statement:

We challenge anyone to read the 9/11 Commission Report and find any basis for the false allegations noted above or the tenor of the drama, which suggests that the Clinton Administration was inattentive to the threat of a terrorist strike.

Anyone up for the challenge?

Clinton Letter to ABC

By on 9.7.06 | 12:44PM

TPM has obtained a copy of the letter that Bill Clinton's lawyer, Bruce Lindsay, wrote to ABC chief Bob Iger , protesting "The Path to 9/11." Full text available here.

Gingrich on Bush and Lincoln

By on 9.7.06 | 11:45AM

In today's WSJ, Newt Gringrich argues that Bush, like Lincoln before him, must adapt to the reality of how difficult the current conflict is. While he gives Bush credit for understanding the magnitude of the threat we face, he says his strategies fail because:

(1) They do not define the scale of the emerging World War III, between the West and the forces of militant Islam, and so they do not outline how difficult the challenge is and how big the effort will have to be. (2) They do not define victory in this larger war as our goal, and so the energy, resources and intensity needed to win cannot be mobilized. (3) They do not establish clear metrics of achievement and then replace leaders, bureaucrats and bureaucracies as needed to achieve those goals.

Hmm...I wonder if Newt believes that somebody else might be able to do a better job.

RE: CNN Breaking News

By on 9.6.06 | 3:52PM

"-- President Bush today acknowledged that U.S. authorities have held suspected terrorists in secret CIA prisons around the world and said information obtained from them 'has saved innocent lives.'"

Now, why would he go and admit that, and exactly which communications guru advised that this was a good idea? There obviously has to be a good reason behind an admission like this (because all of us surely didn't believe that the CIA actually had secret prisons). Perhaps the NYT is preparing to blow yet another undercover op, as the adminstration certainly doesn't need to give "Speaker" Pelosi any more ammo.

Dems and the Middle East

By on 9.6.06 | 11:25AM

Kevin Drum attempts to lay out what most Democrats agree on when it comes to the War on Terror. That is, if you exclude "the Chomsky wing on the left and the Lieberman wing on the right." Among the many aspects of his Democratic national security plan is this:

Pages