This morning I sat in anticipation of the POTUS's press conference. I surfed the dial because, well, quite frankly, as anybody who has visited my site regularly will know, I can't stand not actually watching news on the newsy shows in the morning. When they're going on about some fashion tips, or promoting an upcoming tv show on their network, I blow up and start groping about under the cats in search of my remote control. So, I happened upon Matt Lauer interviewing Chris Matthews. Like a person passing a nine-car flaming pileup, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. There was Matthews, telling Lauer that (a) the new Iraqi government seems to be doing quite well, (b) the death of the Zarq-man is a good thing, and (c) President Bush's visit to Baghdad was brilliant and positive and well-timed, and even necessary (not direct quotes, but the general tone was there).
O. M. G.
Chris Matthews mentioned the president's name, and he wasn't screaming angrily! And what's more, Matt Lauer didn't contradict him, interrupt him, or otherwise try to make him look like a moron or a foamer for making a positive statement about President Bush. And this all happened before the press conference.
So, my question is, Has American media reached a turning-point in Iraq, as well? Do they now admit that there is an end to this "quagmire", possibly a very good end? Or am I missing some deeper, darker agenda that they're hiding by suddenly acting all rational and reasonable-like?
okay, that's more than one question. I was never any good at math, anyway.
Update: Captain Ed, at CQ, says the WaPo has pretty much the same view as Matthews' about the trip. And they thumb their nose at John Kerry's suggestions to include Syria and Iran in the new Iraq. The apocalypse must surely be upon us!
No comments:
Post a Comment