Remember, I did not say that Israel will win if the Palestinians embrace violence as their primary tactic.

I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "THEY WILL LOSE."

I'm just saying they're pretty well-assured of a tie.

I think what that's usually called in the real world is "a stalemate," which is pretty much what we've had for the past forty years: a wrenching, brutal process of dehumanization and cruelty punctuated by spasms of violence on both sides.

"A tie" only happens in games.

Who said it is "their land?"

Nobody of consequence... just the anti-Zionist Arab-lover known as Ariel Sharon, who pulled all the settlers out in September 2005 and destroyed their houses.

"Limbaughwald." That's cute.

Thesis:

Here is the truth of the situation. The logic of fault is irrelevant. Only Israel has the power to make peace with the Palestinians, and it can only do so by making a deeply concessionary agreement involving land and reparations. Whether you believe that to be just or not is irrelevant. It is the only way.

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2008/12/wholey-land.html

Discuss.

That's "four-decades brutal occupation" there, smart guy.

Or are you really going to make the case that everything that has happened in Gaza since September 2005 is Hamas's fault? Every? Last? Thing?

Please. Proceed.

Political Engineer, Greenwald is not.

Indeed. He's not much of a cook, either. I'm still waiting on that sandwich.

I'm not a student of the history of 50s/60s politics, but I have a hard time believing that there's no analysis of Johnson's political skills. I recall that when Caro's Master of the Senate came out (last year?), it was met with some positive reviews.

Since you brought it up, care to enlighten us on how LBJ could be a role model for the current political environment? Or do you just want to wait for Glenn to get the mustard?

<>Paul Daniel Ash could probably list them all

I admit to a certain fascination with this commenter. He's got a certain wit, which he seldom displays around here anymore... it's almost as if he's set a quota for comments deleted and just spits out the most randomly offensive thing he can say at any given moment. But a lot of the screen names - Merry Christmas From Hell, The Screaming Steam Hammers of Hate e.g. - show a creative, almost poetic mind. Albeit one drenched in vitriol.

To get some idea of his motivation, this comment is probably the most telling:

http://tinyurl.com/59ur9o

One gets one's emotional stimulation where one can, I suppose.

I think there is something to be said for seeing these people (Rice, Axelrod, etc.) up close and listening to their words, even if the interviewer was uncritical.

Okay. What is that "something?" Is there anything about the mere presence of a politician in a TV studio that imparts anything different than what you would get just watching them give a speech?

I think omooex's point is a good one - what is there to be gained in information value by giving famous political figures yet another forum to recite talking points? One would imagine the point an interview program would be to elicit more information.

As it stands, the appearance of famous people on a program is merely a way of boosting that program's ratings. It's a "get:" Meet the Press is literally no different than Entertainment Tonight in this regard.

The interviewing and the critiquing would have to be separate media functions, and it's unreasonable to expect that one person would do both (esp. on the same program).

Unreasonable how? Exactly how?

I wouldn't come on your program and be treated nicely if I knew you were going to rip me to shreds later...

What is being "rip[ped] to shreds" in your estimation? Asking tough questions, as the British media does not infrequently?

I guess that we differ in that you don't seem to see TV interviews as a potential means for getting information to the people about what the powerful are up to. Is it that you don't think it's an appropriate venue... or that you don't think it's an appropriate activity regardless of venue?

don't discuss, just lob rockets.

I'm sorry, but that's a little whiny in my opinion. You appeared on this thread and asked a question, and you've gotten responses (including one from me at some length). As far as I've read, you haven't responded to anything other than the comments that hurt your feelings.

I have yet to find an online discussion forum that was even remotely within normal conversational standards of "politeness." But for all its faults, this comments section is head and shoulders above any similar venue.

Now, would you like to address the questions raised by any of your interlocutors here - not just myself?

Christ, for the last time, I wasn't defending the current Meet the Press & clones, merely making some observations and wondering how all the critics here could get what they waned.

Be at peace, my son. :) I think the "feasible" line, in addition to your statements about "critical" questions and the "rip to shreds" bit sounded like a defense or a justification to some of us. Thanks for your response and your clarification.

By the way, look at the "allowed html" notification above the letter box: use <i> for italic, <b> for bold, etc. At the end of the section you want to italicize, put a </i> - it's old-school but you get used to it. It makes reading quoted passages easier.