http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/03/26/wednesday-evening-read.php

Melissa, care to send us a link to this person jumping on you?

Talk about a story with no plot…

Nor was it a surprise that any viewer hoping for insight into why Cheney and Bush were so eager to attack Iraq was left with very thin gruel. It was more infotainment, bereft of substantive discussion of the whys and wherefores of what in my view is the most disastrous foreign policy move in our nation’s history.

Translation… there’s no substance in the production because there was no substance in the quest.

Thus, alot of waaay disappointed PBS viewers, hoping for that "smoking gun".  Not that it stopped the big 11 No Quarters posters from weighing in anyway…  Evidently, even a "non story" for the devoted.

Odd, tho… they often gave Bush a brush over as a naive dupe, and really went for Cheney’s throat.   It’s Cheney’s fault!  Alert Phillie Steve….  

Then, of course, Colin Powell… da victim!  ba BUM!  LOL

Being a former sound editor in the film/TV biz, I also had to laugh at the dramatic, minor key "suspense and evil" music  that was cue’d all thru the Cheney spots, and some of Bush’s.    Little Hollywood tricks to influence the viewer’s interpretations and moods.  I, however, have become immune to such nonsense after 17 years in post production LaLaLand.  Which, of course, makes me a miserable date to a movie theatre…

Just saw the debate with the PBS guy on the WashPost site and this guy is a raging lib.  Thinks Congressman should be written about impeaching Bush, poo poo’d Saddam/al Qaeda and is hook line sinker into the whole "Bushlied" canard.

This infuriates me being paid for by our tax dollars.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/talk/share.html

Much of my angle on the story was to respond to the McClatchy people who me and Scott went back and forth with in their comments sections.  He basically conceded that training, funding, arming of al Qaeda took place but that didn’t constitute a link or tie.  I told him he was playing word games, being pretty dishonest and that he should just lay out the specific support Saddam gave them and the readers can decide what label to ascribe to that support.  Of course he switched subjects and wouldn’t deal with that.

Scott REALLY hammered the guy hard.  I think the comments are down now though.  I couldn’t see them earlier.

I’ve seen some good analyses popping up here and there of late.  But, as I said on my blog, you went the extra mile on yours with your opening and closing paragraphs.  Meaning that well deserved, and gently delivered, slap on the wrists to those that like to play word games. 

Now if we could just get them to stop playing "what the meaning of is… is"  games with definitions of WMD and al Qaeda as the "lone" enemy….

Actually, we’d be in agreement.  I assumed you were speculating an invite from Saddam *to* OBL.  And a guessed that he would be inclined to do that because of the overt support for Iraq in the World Islamic Front statement.    But by then, OBL had a pretty good gig going for him in Afghanistan.

And it looks like you and I agree that the Taliban home was superior to any home in Iraq.

What I meant about the IAEA inspectors… no they weren’t looking for terrorists.  But it’s like holding a bag of weed, and loitering around, rubbernecking, at an accident scene crawling with cops.  Why put put yourself under such add’l scrutiny unnecessarily?

bin Laden (if the offer even took place) likely saw an environment where he’d be autonomous still (not under Saddam’s "operational" control) and possibly a better escape route and hiding places from someone trying to kill/capture him.