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?
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.