PDA

View Full Version : Fox News: London attacks a good thing



Mutaman
07-07-2005, 03:48 PM
The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney occurred during breaking news coverage of the attacks on London subways and buses on the July 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

KILMEADE: Yeah.

Media Matters 7/7/05

Johnny Footstool
07-07-2005, 03:55 PM
No one ever accused Fox News of being overly sensitive or respectful.

MWM
07-07-2005, 03:56 PM
Wow! Unbelievable! Mind boggling! Unreal! etc.......

LincolnparkRed
07-07-2005, 03:59 PM
Not that I am suprised at this but you would have thought they could have worked evil-doers into the conversation but I am sure that phrase is reserved for the birthday boy.

registerthis
07-07-2005, 04:05 PM
Not that I am suprised at this but you would have thought they could have worked evil-doers into the conversation but I am sure that phrase is reserved for the birthday boy.
How about "despisers of freedom"?

REDREAD
07-07-2005, 05:20 PM
Yeah, that's real advantageous :rolleyes:

RBA
07-07-2005, 08:59 PM
"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"
- Fox News's Brit Hume, 7/7/05

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-07-2005, 10:58 PM
C'mon guys...let's not start politicizing this one already. If you don't like FOX News there are about 568 other news sources from which you can get your information.

I primarily watch FOX but I do believe that global warming is of EXTREME importance and needs to be addressed in a serious (not just lip service) manner. But if today's attacks serve to strengthen ours and our allies' resolve toward fighting terrorism then the idiot Islamic militants will have again failed miserably at their goal. And that is a good thing.

Dom Heffner
07-07-2005, 11:03 PM
C'mon guys...let's not start politicizing this one already. If you don't like FOX News there are about 568 other news sources from which you can get your information.

So FOX can broadcast whatever it wants, and because there are so many other news choices, we should just ignore this?

FOX seems to be the ones doing the politicizing here.

alex trevino
07-07-2005, 11:06 PM
Sounds like Fox News are the ones "Politicizing" this.. watching FOX news to stay informed of current events is like listening to Andy Furman for to stay current on sports, neither is insterested in objectivity, only fanning the flames.

CrackerJack
07-07-2005, 11:37 PM
But if today's attacks serve to strengthen ours and our allies' resolve toward fighting terrorism then the idiot Islamic militants will have again failed miserably at their goal. And that is a good thing.


Oh I think Al-Qaeda is achieving it's goals and unfortunately doing quite well, as you saw today in London, see daily in Iraq, 2 years ago in Madrid, in Bali and even in Afghanistan still. It's increased ten fold and they are feeding off of our sensationalism and memorials of their attacks, they love the attention and reactions they inspire I'm sure, they are symbolic in nature for a reason.

I'm not really sure what "strengthening our resolve" really is? What does it do exactly? How has it helped thus far? You catch one, another one is born....and as long as we're willing to do the lion's share of the muscle work, the others will only play along to the extent they have to and make tough sounding quotes to appease.

The UN "strongly condemns" the attacks - really!!!??? As opposed to approving of them? What was that all about?

Big invisible war.

GAC
07-08-2005, 08:56 AM
Where did these commentators say it was a good thing that this happened? Didn't see it. Am I suppose to read into this?

It simpy reminded me that terrorism is not gonna go away, that these thugs are ruthless murderers who aren't gonna quit, and I hope it does strengthen our (the world's) resolve in going after them.

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 09:15 AM
I don't think Kilmeade was implying that this was a "good thing". I think he was saying that the fact that it happened with the G-8 summit a scant 500 miles away was good in that the leaders of many powerful nations are all gathered and the importance of the fight against terrorism could be emphasized to all of them that don't already have it as a top priority.

I highly doubt he meant it was good that 50+ people had been murdered.

Dom Heffner
07-08-2005, 09:37 AM
Where did these commentators say it was a good thing that this happened? Didn't see it. Am I suppose to read into this?

Well, when one commentator says that these attacks "work to our advantage" in bringing terrorism to the front burner and moves African aid and global warming to lower priority, I would say they are politicizing this.

The attacks are bad no matter what these leaders are meeting about. There's no need to even bring this stuff up. We've had 4 years since the last attacks to hold all the meetings on terrorism we have wanted to, and what we came up with is to attack a country that didn't have WMDs and who played no role in terrorism- ironically- until we invaded them.

What these guys fail to realize is that we can work on all of these things at the same time. They seemed almost giddy that a bomb went off so the summit couldn't talk about -let's face it- liberal ideas.

If the bombs would have went off in Washington the day they were passing a bill for one of Bush's programs, would this mean that Bush's ideas should not have been discussed or are any less relevant?

I seem to remember a flag burning amendment being passed in the House- I mean, there are more pressing issues like terrorism to consider aren't there? :)

And who could even think about Social Security at a dangerous time like this?

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 09:57 AM
I don't think Kilmeade was implying that this was a "good thing". I think he was saying that the fact that it happened with the G-8 summit a scant 500 miles away was good in that the leaders of many powerful nations are all gathered and the importance of the fight against terrorism could be emphasized to all of them that don't already have it as a top priority.

I highly doubt he meant it was good that 50+ people had been murdered.

The speaker claimed there were obvious benefits to this having occurred (benefits in world policy, I assume). It removes other issues and places terrorism in the forefront. Mince it however you wish, but I read that as saying it's a good thing. A sort of "that'll teach 'em to worry about other equally pressing world issues."

GAC
07-08-2005, 10:01 AM
Well, when one commentator says that these attacks "work to our advantage" in bringing terrorism to the front burner and moves African aid and global warming to lower priority, I would say they are politicizing this.

But it wasn't saying it was a good thing, like they are gleeful and happy it happened.


They seemed almost giddy that a bomb went off so the summit couldn't talk about -let's face it- liberal ideas.

I didn't get that from what was said one bit. But I am sure yesterday's attacks will be at the forefront of those G-8 leaders minds when they gather, while not causing them to dismiss the items of importance on their agenda. At least it hasn't from what I've seen/read today on the summit. Business as usual. But I do believe, the farther we get from 9-11, a type of apathy has set in amongst the peoples of the world. It seems that the fight on terrorism has taken a backset or they just wish it would go away, as if these terrorists will somehow stop if we ignore them or pay them no nevermind.

But I don't think these Fox commentators were suggesting that these G-8 leaders dump or dismiss discussing their regular agenda and focuss their attention solely on terrorism. it just still needs to be at the forefront. They'll find it awfully hard to address their, and other countries economic woes, when suicide bombers are blowing up their own citizens, casuing mayhem, and promoting economic uncertainty within.

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 10:06 AM
Mince it however you wish,

Everyone in this thread is playing the semantics game, not just me or you or GAC or Dom. My only issue is with the thread title which is I think misleading.

Johnny Footstool
07-08-2005, 10:12 AM
I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

Yeah, it reminds me of that Coke commercial from the '70s. "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect har-mo-ny..."

RedsBaron
07-08-2005, 10:16 AM
and what we came up with is to attack a country that didn't have WMDs and who played no role in terrorism- ironically- until we invaded them.


That statement is inaccurate to the extent it implies (well actually it bluntly claims) that Iraq had "no role in terrorism." Saddam Hussein was harboring known terrorists and was paying rewards to certain terrorists (or their families). Hussein's Iraq did play "a role in terrorism."
I'm not claiming that Hussein's Iraq played a role in the attacks on America of 9/11/01 or that it had WMD. I'm not making any argument in favor of invading Iraq. There was a massive failure of U.S. intelligence and the decision to invade Iraq is debatable at best. I'm just saying that Iraq did play a role in terrorism.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 10:18 AM
That statement is inaccurate to the extent it implies (well actually it bluntly claims) that Iraq had "no role in terrorism." Saddam Hussein was harboring known terrorists and was paying rewards to certain terrorists (or their families). Hussein's Iraq did play "a role in terrorism."
I'm not claiming that Hussein's Iraq played a role in the attacks on America of 9/11/01 or that it had WMD. I'm not making any argument in favor of invading Iraq. There was a massive failure of U.S. intelligence and the decision to invade Iraq is debatable at best. I'm just saying that Iraq did play a role in terrorism.
Yes, lost in the anger at the U.S. invasion of Iraq is the fact that Saddam was, in the end, a glorified thug. I would have had no problems with the U.S. hiring a couple of guys named Victor and Hugo to sneak into Saddam's palace at night and pop him in the head...

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 10:24 AM
I would have had no problems with the U.S. hiring a couple of guys named Victor and Hugo to sneak into Saddam's palace at night and pop him in the head...

As long as we coulda whacked Uday and Qusay on the same night...neither one of those guys would have been an improvement.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 10:27 AM
As long as we coulda whacked Uday and Qusay on the same night...neither one of those guys would have been an improvement.
They sure liked their sports cars though...

GAC
07-08-2005, 10:31 AM
Everyone in this thread is playing the semantics game, not just me or you or GAC or Dom. My only issue is with the thread title which is I think misleading.

That's all I was implying also. Very misleading. Should turn this into a 4-5 pager too. :lol:

registerthis
07-08-2005, 10:35 AM
Well, what were they trying to convey when they said

I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.
Anyone want to take a stab at how yesterday's bombings were "advantageous"?

RedFanAlways1966
07-08-2005, 10:41 AM
Where did these commentators say it was a good thing that this happened? Didn't see it. Am I suppose to read into this?

They never said that. Words being put into their mouths.

Are you surprised? Do you actually thing the FOX critics here actually watched or heard this? Nope... it came from one of their BLOG sites that they take for gold. I ask again... are you surprised?

registerthis
07-08-2005, 10:45 AM
So this

The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney occurred during breaking news coverage of the attacks on London subways and buses on the July 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends
is a lie?

GAC
07-08-2005, 10:48 AM
I would have had no problems with the U.S. hiring a couple of guys named Victor and Hugo to sneak into Saddam's palace at night and pop him in the head...

Why? After all, he had nothing to do with terrorism. ;)

Yet there is currently a ban on assassinating foreign leaders.

You talk often about a American principles (and preserving them), such as with the prison abuse scandals and how it has hurt or rep around the world. What do you think it would do if we started assassinating foreign leaders, even if it does involve a Saddam?

Is assassination a legitimate tool of foreign policy? Isn't assassination incompatible with American principles, international order and morality?

Yeah - hire someone. I guaranteee you that trail would be hard to cover in today's world of intelligence. And then people would be calling for Bush's head even more.

GAC
07-08-2005, 10:51 AM
So this

is a lie?


NO. The title of this thread and you guys putting words in their mouths as to what they said and meant is though. ;)

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 10:52 AM
So this

is a lie?

Reg, no it isn't a lie that the exchange took place, but nowhere in the quote provided in the first post of this thread did anybody say this attack was a "good thing". It is implied in the thread title that the evil warhawks of Fox News directly said the attack on London was a "good thing". I think that's the problem that a few here have.

Should Kilmeade have made the comment about it being advantageous at all? Probably not, it wasn't a very sensitive thing to say when people had just died but the implication from the title of this thread was that Fox News viewed the attack as a good thing, which they didn't.

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 11:02 AM
What's the difference between semantics and meaning or truth? When you boil it down, everything's semantics. So what?

I used to teach my kids in high school that there are many interpretations to a literary piece--it's just that some are good and defensible and some are stupid.

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 11:13 AM
What's the difference between semantics and meaning or truth? When you boil it down, everything's semantics. So what?

I used to teach my kids in high school that there are many interpretations to a literary piece--it's just that some are good and defensible and some are stupid.

OK FCB you're right, everything is semantics. Don't get ruffled the next time someone on here interprets something you believe the opposite way that you would. After all, it's ALL semantics.

As for what you used to tell your kids in high school, would you tell them it was good and defensible to put very direct and harmful words into someone else's mouth such as saying that they said a terrorist attack was a good thing? When in fact that person never made that statement?

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 11:16 AM
OK FCB you're right, everything is semantics. Don't get ruffled the next time someone on here interprets something you believe the opposite way that you would. After all, it's ALL semantics.

As for what you used to tell your kids in high school, would you tell them it was good and defensible to put very direct and harmful words into someone else's mouth such as saying that they said a terrorist attack was a good thing? When in fact that person never made that statement?

Did I not say that some interpretations are good and defensible while others are stupid?

Did you not read that?

To say we're arguing semantics is like saying traffic sucks and the sky is blue. Some interpretations are good, some are okay, and some are bad. Why doesn't that make sense?

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 11:20 AM
OK FCB you're right, everything is semantics. Don't get ruffled the next time someone on here interprets something you believe the opposite way that you would. After all, it's ALL semantics.

As for what you used to tell your kids in high school, would you tell them it was good and defensible to put very direct and harmful words into someone else's mouth such as saying that they said a terrorist attack was a good thing? When in fact that person never made that statement?

No; I don't tell my students to put words in others' mouths. But to say that the Fox commentators weren't arguing that there were benefits to the attack falls into the "stupid" interpretation. No, maybe they didn't giggle at the corpses being wheeled out, but there IS ABSOLUTELY a way to interpret their statements as "The attacks are good." You just choose not to believe that they're hard-hearted humans who only see "ends" and no "means." I believe they're coming from a different place, and this provides further evidence.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 11:23 AM
Why? After all, he had nothing to do with terrorism. ;)

Yet there is currently a ban on assassinating foreign leaders.

You talk often about a American principles (and preserving them), such as with the prison abuse scandals and how it has hurt or rep around the world. What do you think it would do if we started assassinating foreign leaders, even if it does involve a Saddam?

Is assassination a legitimate tool of foreign policy? Isn't assassination incompatible with American principles, international order and morality?

Yeah - hire someone. I guaranteee you that trail would be hard to cover in today's world of intelligence. And then people would be calling for Bush's head even more.
Um, GAC...

"Tongue in cheek." You know that, right?

registerthis
07-08-2005, 11:25 AM
NO. The title of this thread and you guys putting words in their mouths as to what they said and meant is though. ;)
I haven't done anything of the sort. Before you accuse me of putting words into people's mouths, please find the post where I did that. This will be interesting...

The only quotes I have attributed on this thread come from the direct transcription of the telecast. So instead of getting up in arms about the title of this thread, why don't you try explaining to me and the rest of "us guys" what, exactly, is advantageous about yesterday's attacks?

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 11:27 AM
Did I not say that some interpretations are good and defensible while others are stupid?

Did you not read that?

To say we're arguing semantics is like saying traffic sucks and the sky is blue. Some interpretations are good, some are okay, and some are bad. Why doesn't that make sense?

Well judging from your body of work on this side of the board my inclination was to think you were implying that it was good and defensible to say that the Fox commentator said the attacks were a good thing. Let's be honest, you are no big supporter of the Fox News network. As an aside neither am I but that's neither here nor there.

My apologies for assuming which side of the argument you came down on.

Dom Heffner
07-08-2005, 11:41 AM
They never said that. Words being put into their mouths.

If I told you that instead of arriving at 3:00 as planned, I would be arriving at 3:15, and you told everyone that I said I would be late would you be lying? I never said I would be late, I said I would be there 15 minutes later than planned.

It's the same thing, RFA.

Saying something is "advantageous" is saying that it is good. Please tell me about a time in your life when something happened that was advantagous to you that was bad. You can't, because that would be a contradiction in terms.

If being truthful is playing semantics, then I'm guilty as charged.

We can make inferences form what people say, especially when they are news commentators and they are playing word games themselves.

Here is the definition and some synonyms of advantageous (you might want to check out the sixth synonym):

adjective

1. Affording benefit: benefic, beneficent, beneficial, benignant, favorable, good

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 11:53 AM
I started the thread and I can call it anything I want. If you proFox guys want to start your own thread and call it "Fox News: London Attacks An Advantageous Thing", or "Fox News :It's Time To Buy", be my guest.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 12:02 PM
I started the thread and I can call it anything I want. If you proFox guys want to start your own thread and call it "Fox News: London Attacks An Advantageous Thing", or "Fox News :It's Time To Buy", be my guest.
:thumbup:

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 12:08 PM
They never said that. Words being put into their mouths.

Are you surprised? Do you actually thing the FOX critics here actually watched or heard this? Nope... it came from one of their BLOG sites that they take for gold. I ask again... are you surprised?

Actually the entire post (and blog) did nothing but set forth the transcript verbatim. Are you saying these "reporters" were misquoted? Are you saying the transcript was in error? The transcript speaks for itself. You can interpret it anyway you want, but to say " Words being put into their mouths" (sic) is pretty disingenuous considering that the entire post consists of their own words.

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 12:08 PM
I started the thread and I can call it anything I want. If you proFox guys want to start your own thread and call it "Fox News: London Attacks An Advantageous Thing", or "Fox News :It's Time To Buy", be my guest.

I'm not pro-Fox, I'm anti-BS. Which ironically sometimes makes me anti-Fox, but not in this case.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 12:18 PM
OK, OK enough.

Just answer this one question, and then we can close this thread.

Were, or were not, the individuals on Fox's news show saying that the attacks were advantageous? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

That's all I want to know.

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 12:23 PM
OK, OK enough.

Just answer this one question, and then we can close this thread.

Were, or were not, the individuals on Fox's news show saying that the attacks were advantageous? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

That's all I want to know.

Reg, I addressed this in post #29. The comment shouldn't have been made by the Fox News commentator. It also should have been quoted verbatim when this thread was titled.

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 12:24 PM
Well judging from your body of work on this side of the board my inclination was to think you were implying that it was good and defensible to say that the Fox commentator said the attacks were a good thing. Let's be honest, you are no big supporter of the Fox News network. As an aside neither am I but that's neither here nor there.

My apologies for assuming which side of the argument you came down on.

Right. Because I have a liberal bias I can't see the truth. I can't objectively and dispassionately parse text.

No, I haven't spent my entire adult life and my entire career devoted to analysis, research, and historical exegesis.

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 12:27 PM
Reg, I addressed this in post #29. The comment shouldn't have been made by the Fox News commentator. It also should have been quoted verbatim when this thread was titled.

That doesn't answer registerthis's question.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 12:27 PM
Reg, I addressed this in post #29. The comment shouldn't have been made by the Fox News commentator. It also should have been quoted verbatim when this thread was titled.
OK, then...

Would you have felt better if the thread was titled "Fox News Says Attacks Were an Advantageous Thing"?

If so, how is that substantively different from what is there now?

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 12:33 PM
Right. Because I have a liberal bias I can't see the truth. I can't objectively and dispassionately parse text.



I would contend that MOST people on this board, conservative AND liberal have a problem doing just that. Find me a topic on this board where you EVER came down anywhere short of extreme left in your analysis.

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 12:37 PM
OK, then...

Would you have felt better if the thread was titled "Fox News Says Attacks Were an Advantageous Thing"?

If so, how is that substantively different from what is there now?

Yes I would have felt better about it if that were the title because that is what the commentator said. It is different because to say the attacks were a good thing is to imply that it is good to murder innocent civilians. To say they were advantageous, while being a horrible blunder in etiquette, is saying that maybe some good can come of it given the fact that so many world leaders were in such a concentrated area not far from where this happened and it may better focus them on the issue of terrorism.

Note that I don't agree with what he said, it was an amazing lapse in judgement on his part but it is far from him saying "Yay! Some civilians just got murdered.!"

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 12:39 PM
I'm done with this one guys, it's obviously becoming a little too heated with some (not you Reg) and I'd prefer not to take an unplanned day or week vacation from being able to post.

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 12:43 PM
I would contend that MOST people on this board, conservative AND liberal have a problem doing just that. Find me a topic on this board where you EVER came down anywhere short of extreme left in your analysis.

Extreme left? Me? Really. Maybe to you. But you may not remember a time (15 years ago) when my leanings were *left*--the shift has forced my ideology to the *far left* apparently.

But parsing the logic of a contention or a proposition can be done without deference to political leanings--you know that, right? Does bias cloud logic? It can certainly. But there is truth to the topic heading in this case. I don't need to access my political leanings to figure that out. Just as I don't need to access my political leanings to find out the sky is blue or the earth is round or 2 + 2=4. Facts are separable from moral truths.

RBA
07-08-2005, 12:44 PM
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2005/nq050708.gif

Pretty much nailed Fox News. ;)

GAC
07-08-2005, 01:09 PM
Um, GAC...

"Tongue in cheek." You know that, right?

hard to tell tongue in cheek from printed script/text.

Use some smilies next time! :lol:

GAC
07-08-2005, 01:14 PM
I haven't done anything of the sort. Before you accuse me of putting words into people's mouths, please find the post where I did that. This will be interesting...

The only quotes I have attributed on this thread come from the direct transcription of the telecast. So instead of getting up in arms about the title of this thread, why don't you try explaining to me and the rest of "us guys" what, exactly, is advantageous about yesterday's attacks?

"advantageous" and "good thing" are not the same.

And if you aren't one of them "yous guys", then don't worry about it because I wasn't referring to you then. ;)

But I'm not up in arms - just simply pointing out, as I did earlier, that the one who started this thread (Mutaman) used language that was wrong and misleading - but it did achieve it's desired effect since he hates Fox as any discerning liberal is suppose to do.;)

GAC
07-08-2005, 01:30 PM
OK, then...

Would you have felt better if the thread was titled "Fox News Says Attacks Were an Advantageous Thing"?

Yep. Because the way the thread was started/titled, Mutaman's intent was to skewer these Fox commentators, and Fox network (whom he hates with great passion), and to make everyone think that they said these attacks were a good thing.

There is a huge difference between saying something is a "good thing" or that it is "advantageous".

Saying this tragedy is a good thing would give the appearance that these commentators are unfeeling and were gleeful/rejoicing that it happened.

Using "advantageous" (while not the greatest choice of words; but not as bad if they HAD said "good thing") simply meant to me that they hoped it would bring the focus back on terrorism and not to the exclusion of the other items on the G-8 agenda. But yes, bring it to the forefront where it belongs.

In other words - some are trying to make more out of this then it deserves.

You mention Fox on here and an awful lot of liberals are falling out of their chairs to make comment. We already know alot of you hate them with great passion. ;)

M2
07-08-2005, 01:58 PM
I think the larger issue with Iraq, and it was my concern at the time, was that Hussein (even with a meager pile of WMD and some terrorist ties) wasn't a threat to the U.S. Every Arab nation can get its hands on some WMD and every Arab nation has got its share of terrorist ties.

Hussein, however, was a proven incompetent whose only current interest was in keeping himself propped up. I wouldn't have had a problem with booting him out of power except that it was going to create an obvious power vacuum (there was no opposition or reasonable alternative to the Ba'athists other than the Muslim clergy, who are, generally speaking, worse than the Ba'athists) and bog down U.S. forces (and cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives - now tallied in the hundreds of thousands) in an increasingly impossible situation.

We used a shotgun to take out a fly and got ourselves in the foot.

As for Fox and the G8, just wait until the water tables in the south and midwest begin to drop out of sight and then tell me global warming wasn't something we should have prioritized in 2005.

REDREAD
07-08-2005, 02:21 PM
Where did these commentators say it was a good thing that this happened? .

advantage = good



they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. [cut..]. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 02:33 PM
"advantageous" and "good thing" are not the same.
Really?


Main Entry: advantageous
Part of Speech: adjective 1
Definition: helpful
Synonyms: acceptable, accommodating, adaptable, agreeable, aiding, appropriate, assisting, available, beneficial, comfortable, commodious, conducive, contributive, decent, favorable, fit, good, handy, opportune, proper, ready, serviceable, suitable, suited, well-planned


But I'm not up in arms - just simply pointing out, as I did earlier, that the one who started this thread (Mutaman) used language that was wrong and misleading - but it did achieve it's desired effect since he hates Fox as any discerning liberal is suppose to do.;)
No, he used language which aptly described the situation. A someone else asked earlier, if you are going to disagree with the English language that "advantageous" does not mean "good", then please describe how a thing or event that was advantageous to you was NOT good.

GAC
07-08-2005, 03:25 PM
Really?



No, he used language which aptly described the situation. A someone else asked earlier, if you are going to disagree with the English language that "advantageous" does not mean "good", then please describe how a thing or event that was advantageous to you was NOT good.

Look. I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with you or anyone else concernng what Mutaman was trying to insinuate with that title. The commentators never said it was a good thing, which was leaving everyone with the implication they were joyful/glad it happened.

You want to believe that - then go right ahead. I wouldn't want to ruin a good partisan rant. I've disagreed with Fox before on many issues and statements that I felt had validity to be contested. This ain't one of them IMO. ;)

registerthis
07-08-2005, 03:47 PM
I was going to reply and disagree...but, you know, if presenting a dictionary definition of the word isn't enough to convince you that the words are synonyms, then short of calling the Fox commentators over here and explaining why they believe the attacks are "advantageous", I'm not sure what evidence it would take to convince you that an 'advantageous' thing is also a 'good' thing.

RedFanAlways1966
07-08-2005, 04:01 PM
Words being put into their mouths" (sic) is pretty disingenuous considering that the entire post consists of their own words.

I did not see anywhere in the transcipt where someone said LONDON ATTACKS A GOOD THING.

I am sorry that my post implied that the story was make-believe. Not my intention... but the title also makes many people imply a different meaning than the context of the conversation on Fox News. You know this. Others defending your title know this. It is obvious to all here. But in the name of "I can call my own thread whatever I want" and "word games", you will not budge and others will defend you. But that still does not change the fact of a false impression that the title gives. Bring out the dictionary and thesaurus... it doesn't matter. The title is misleading. Some people may see the title and think a Fox News commentator thinks gladly of the London bombings b/c he/she dislikes Brits. But why bother... it is obvious and no one is budging.

The commentator's choice was poor, but when you read it... it does not say LONDON ATTACKS A GOOD THING. And the bad choice of words by two workers at Fox News is not representative of the choice of words of the whole station. That title tends to falsely imply that too. But it is your thread.

No biggie. They said what they said and you wrote what you wrote. And I think we all agree that the choice of words was bad.

Redsfaithful
07-08-2005, 04:22 PM
Registerthis, I really don't know why you bother. But it's impressive, I will say that.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 04:39 PM
Registerthis, I really don't know why you bother. But it's impressive, I will say that.
<sigh>

:bang:

Rojo
07-08-2005, 04:57 PM
Anyone here know what the definition of "is" is.

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 06:01 PM
Yep. Because the way the thread was started/titled, Mutaman's intent was to skewer these Fox commentators, and Fox network (whom he hates with great passion), and to make everyone think that they said these attacks were a good thing.

I don't hate Fox. Its moronic, biased and unfair, but its so unitelligent that I no longer watch it and therefore I don't have any great emotion for it one way or annother. All Aruba, all the time. But i do hate that sanctamonious Brett Hume.
And that wierdo Krautheimer. And Mr. Homophobic Fred Barnes. And Tony Snow. And that punk Neil Cavuto. But everybody else I speak very kindly about.

pedro
07-08-2005, 06:06 PM
I reserve my loathing for Sean Hannity, but *maybe* that's just me.

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 06:31 PM
I reserve my loathing for Sean Hannity, but *maybe* that's just me.

I used to loath him until I found about his splendid military record and his courage under fire, not. Charlie Rangle knows how to shut him up. Whenever Hannity attacks Charlie, a genuine war hero, Charlie just smiles and says "You don't understand Sean, you've never been in combat." Silence.

GAC
07-08-2005, 07:08 PM
I don't hate Fox. Its moronic, biased and unfair, but its so unitelligent that I no longer watch it and therefore I don't have any great emotion for it one way or annother. All Aruba, all the time. But i do hate that sanctamonious Brett Hume.
And that wierdo Krautheimer. And Mr. Homophobic Fred Barnes. And Tony Snow. And that punk Neil Cavuto.

That pretty much is everybody!

You obviously watch Fox more then I do. :lol:


But everybody else I speak very kindly about.

And who would that be? The after hours cleaning crew?

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 07:13 PM
You obviously watch Fox more then I do. :lol:


I used to cause I liked to see how long it would be before somebody said something that would really piss me off. The longest was one minute and thirty seconds. But I stopeed watching when O'Reilly settled that sexual harassment suit. I wanted to see that big blowhard take it to trial.

GAC
07-08-2005, 07:14 PM
I'd like to know who on Fox you'd say kind things about? Because you pretty much went down the list of all the main players and dissed them.

Redsfaithful
07-08-2005, 07:26 PM
I'd like to know who on Fox you'd say kind things about? Because you pretty much went down the list of all the main players and dissed them.

I think that was kind of his point GAC.

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 07:35 PM
I think it's hilarious that the "new" conservatives are either Jewish (Kristol, Wolfowitz) or Irish Catholic (William Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Sean Hannity), two groups that for centuries have been maligned, disenfranchised and spat upon in this country, yet who are now getting their licks in on people they think they're better than (Blacks, Hispanics, and Palestinians). Talk about racial/ethnic self-loathing gone awry.

GAC
07-08-2005, 08:04 PM
I think that was kind of his point GAC.

Kinda already figured that one out RF - a lonnng time ago. Just wanted to call him on it, and play along, since he was the one who claims his intent in starting this thread was not due to any hatred/prejudice toward Fox, when actually it was all along. And that is evident anytime the name Fox is mentioned on here. Sure wouldn't want him to be seen as being disingenuous. :lol:

GAC
07-08-2005, 08:05 PM
I think it's hilarious that the "new" conservatives are either Jewish (Kristol, Wolfowitz) or Irish Catholic (William Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Sean Hannity), two groups that for centuries have been maligned, disenfranchised and spat upon in this country, yet who are now getting their licks in on people they think they're better than (Blacks, Hispanics, and Palestinians). Talk about racial/ethnic self-loathing gone awry.

Huh?

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 08:13 PM
Huh?

Maybe you're not aware of this if you're not either Jewish (which I am) or Irish Catholic (which I am to a lesser extent). But take a look at the new power structure in the Neoconservative movement: a bunch are either Jewish or Irish Catholic. That simply would not have been possible 60 years ago.

westofyou
07-08-2005, 08:17 PM
Maybe you're not aware of this if you're not either Jewish (which I am) or Irish Catholic (which I am to a lesser extent). But take a look at the new power structure in the Neoconservative movement: a bunch are either Jewish or Irish Catholic. That simply would not have been possible 60 years ago.

Just ask Al Smith.

dsmith421
07-08-2005, 08:48 PM
Yeah, cause London has never experienced terrorism before. Ever heard of the IRA?

Thanks, Fox News, for jamming the chickenhawk agenda down our throats while at the same time implying the deaths of dozens of innocent people is a 'good thing'!

GAC
07-08-2005, 09:01 PM
Maybe you're not aware of this if you're not either Jewish (which I am) or Irish Catholic (which I am to a lesser extent). But take a look at the new power structure in the Neoconservative movement: a bunch are either Jewish or Irish Catholic. That simply would not have been possible 60 years ago.

So you're both Jewish and Catholic?

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 09:03 PM
So you're both Jewish and Catholic?

Actually neither (I'm agnostic). But Jews and Catholics are defined not just religiously but culturally by their religions.

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 10:34 PM
I'm a fallen away catholic who attended Catholic schools. I remember what it was like in 1960. Catholics were thrilled that JFK was a catholic running for president. It was a really big deal and I bet he got about 90% of the Catholic vote. No Catholic ran again until Kerry who by all accounts is a strong practicing Catholic . But Bush got the majority of the Catholic vote. Unbelievable. How times change.

redsrule2500
07-08-2005, 10:44 PM
The topic title is so misleading it's pathetic. They never said anywhere that it was a good thing.

Although, realistically it might just be that.

Consider the stupidity of not focusing on terrorism, being in the dark - and forgetting about the terrorists around the world. Then, a huge attack comes, killing many many more people than this attack.

But now, focus might be put on global terrorism, and save MORE lives down the road. Just a thought...

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 11:04 PM
uly 7th (slightly updated)
Posted by James Wolcott

I was relieved to learn that my friend Rhoda Koenig was safely out of harm's way when the bombs ripped through London this tragic morning. Condolences to those who weren't so fortunate and to their grieving survivors.

Always looking for the silver lining in a choking cloud of smoke, that great humanitarian Brit Hume, reflecting on the financial ramfications of the attacks, said on Fox News that when he woke up and saw how steep the stock futures had dropped, he thought, "Hmm, time to buy."*

And yes, he actually said, "Hmm," as if he had been thoughtfully stroking his chin as he watched those numbers drop. As bodies were being borne into ambulances, Brit was considering what a keen opportunity this was to place a buy order.

Leaving aside what this says about his cold-fish character, it's not even an intelligent investment response. It's one of those contrarian go-against-the-crowd moves that's so obvious that the crowd itself figures it out and nullifies any contrarian advantage. It's like when someone gets the bright idea, "Since everyone is going to be leaving town for the long weekend on Friday morning, I'll leave late Thursday night to get a jump on traffic." Only to find out that a couple hundred thousand commuters had the same bright idea and there you are stuck on the Van Wyck at 2 AM.

The only way an investor could make serious money on a terrorist event would be if the market truly cracked and the next day didn't recover and a sense of panic took hold. At a certain point the weak hands holding stocks would be washed out, values would return, and that'd be the chance to be strike.

But as we saw today, the market opened modestly lower, recovered, and closed modestly up, denying a true opportunity to buy on weakness. If anything, today's action reflects the dangerous complacency in the market, the bullish groupthink that sees every event, good or ill, as a buying opportunity.

That complacency carries over to the pundit realm. I'm baffled by those who argue that these attacks indicate Al Qaeda's weakening threat (assuming Al Qaeda is behind them), that if they'd been really ingenious they would have hit juicier targets and run up the death toll. NRO's The Corner quotes, evidently with approval, from an instant editorial from the Economist: "As The Economist went to press, the toll in the four London bombs was not clear, but the estimate of at least 33 deaths was thankfully far smaller than in Madrid. By the terrible calculus of terrorism, the attacks should thus be counted as a failure—a sign of weakness, not strength."

Well, suppose the death toll climbs in the following days as those critically injured die in hospital--what death-toll number would qualify the attacks as a "success" according the Economist's abacus? Does it have to hit three digits?

Whoever carried out these attacks managed with a minimum of expense and a modest amount of planning and ruthless execution to upstage the G8 Summit, instantly deflate London's euphoria over winning the Olympic nod for 2012, and wipe the smile off of Tony Blair's face--Blair, for whom the G8 summit was to be his big comeback stage and an opportunity to get out from under his poodle image by taking the high moral ground over Bush on the issues of global warming and African relief. It's been over three years since 3000 Americans died on 9/11, Bin Laden is still at large, Iraq is turning into quicksand, oil has crested $60 a barrel, and yet the Steadfast and Resolute politicians and pundits still insist on underestimating the strategic and tactical intelligence of Al Qaeda. Why, I don't know.

*I was working from handwritten notes on Hume's comment. Media Matters has a transcript of the Fox exchange and, to be fair, to be just, when you see Hume's musings in a fuller context, he comes across as even a bigger ghoul.
07.07.05 4:39PM · LINK

BUTLER REDSFAN
07-09-2005, 12:40 AM
hey people its not that hard--turn the channel if u cant hack it--go back to cbs and watch dan rather make up another story

Mutaman
07-09-2005, 02:33 AM
hey people its not that hard--turn the channel if u cant hack it--go back to cbs and watch dan rather make up another story

I turned the channel a long time ago. So what. If I don't like something, I not only have the right to turn the channel, I have the right to complain about it. Is this a great country or what.

KittyDuran
07-09-2005, 07:59 AM
hey people its not that hard--turn the channel if u cant hack it--go back to cbs and watch dan rather make up another storyI don't watch network news anymore - but didn't Rather retire?

RedsBaron
07-09-2005, 08:15 AM
I don't watch network news anymore - but didn't Rather retire?
Rather retired as anchor of the CBS Evening News. He will continue to appear on other CBS news programs.

GAC
07-09-2005, 08:59 AM
Maybe you're not aware of this if you're not either Jewish (which I am) or Irish Catholic (which I am to a lesser extent). But take a look at the new power structure in the Neoconservative movement: a bunch are either Jewish or Irish Catholic. That simply would not have been possible 60 years ago.

I don't know - Thanks to the responses by numerous posters on here (not just this thread), alot of backslidden, fallen way Catholics are Democrats. And I'm assuming it's due to philisophical differences with the Church (i.e. abortion, etc).

But I don't accept this notion that the "power structure of the Neoconservative movement" (whatever that animal is?) is primarily headed by Irish Catholic and Jews. If one would look within the Democratic Party/progressive movement, they'd see quite a few prominent leaders representative from those two groups...Kennedys, Kerry, Pelosi, Lieberman (just to name a few). And throw a Mormon into that mix (Reid).

Falls City Beer
07-09-2005, 10:25 AM
I don't know - Thanks to the responses by numerous posters on here (not just this thread), alot of backslidden, fallen way Catholics are Democrats. And I'm assuming it's due to philisophical differences with the Church (i.e. abortion, etc).

But I don't accept this notion that the "power structure of the Neoconservative movement" (whatever that animal is?) is primarily headed by Irish Catholic and Jews. If one would look within the Democratic Party/progressive movement, they'd see quite a few prominent leaders representative from those two groups...Kennedys, Kerry, Pelosi, Lieberman (just to name a few). And throw a Mormon into that mix (Reid).

Yes, but for years Catholics and Jews were avowedly Democratic, almost exclusively fighting for the little guy. Now you see that once they're enfranchised, many have jumped to Republicanism. Once you get power, it seems, some people turn conservative to "conserve" their power. I'm just saying it's a bit ironic.

GAC
07-09-2005, 11:06 AM
Yes, but for years Catholics and Jews were avowedly Democratic, almost exclusively fighting for the little guy. Now you see that once they're enfranchised, many have jumped to Republicanism. Once you get power, it seems, some people turn conservative to "conserve" their power. I'm just saying it's a bit ironic.

So you're saying that once the Dems get back in power that many will jump ship again? I don't think it's a power issue at all. IMO, alot of the Catholics and other various religious faiths that have jumped ship to the Republican Party have not done so due to retain power (an awful lot of powerful and influential Dems are Catholic); but because of social issues that they feel are important to them, such as abortion and gay marriage (among others). And just as one can say that the Republican Party is beholden to this neoconservative movement (which I have always doubted), one could also sight the heavy influence on the Democratic Party of the far left-wing of the progressive movement that has shown disdain for established religious orthodoxy and basically told them they are not welcome. You have to admit that the "religious vote" is an important voting bloc in this country. and the Democratic Party has done an excellent job in alienating it. They get a small percentage of the religious vote just as it's the same with Republicans and the black vote.

Redsfaithful
07-09-2005, 12:01 PM
And just as one can say that the Republican Party is beholden to this neoconservative movement (which I have always doubted)

Well, there's your first problem.

Redsfaithful
07-09-2005, 12:02 PM
They get a small percentage of the religious vote just as it's the same with Republicans and the black vote.

I guarantee you that Democrats get more of the Christian vote than Republicans get of the African American vote. It's not hard to beat 10%.

Falls City Beer
07-09-2005, 03:53 PM
So you're saying that once the Dems get back in power that many will jump ship again?

I really don't think you understand what I'm saying, though I might be the one who is unclear here.

I'm merely pointing out that many of the architects of the neocon movement are members of ethnicities long considered lowdown scum in this country, and that that's a reversal of position for said ethnicities. Not that they don't necessarily "believe" what they're spouting now on the right or that they're mercenary necessarily.

GAC
07-09-2005, 04:01 PM
Well, there's your first problem.

I don't have a problem. You're the one on the outside looking in, remember? ;)

GAC
07-09-2005, 04:22 PM
I guarantee you that Democrats get more of the Christian vote than Republicans get of the African American vote. It's not hard to beat 10%.

My point is that the "religious vote" overwhelmingly voted for and supported the Republican ticket, [b]which cost the Dems dearly. Among evangelicals - Bush got 78%. That presents a HUGE problem for the Democratic Party.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Redsfaithful
07-09-2005, 04:52 PM
My point is that the "religious vote" overwhelmingly voted for and supported the Republican ticket, [b]which cost the Dems dearly. Among evangelicals - Bush got 78%. That presents a HUGE problem for the Democratic Party.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

78 < 90, not to mention the fact that evangelicals are extremists and I, along with most Democrats, don't want them in the party anyway. As long as Democrats have a pro-choice platform evangelicals are going to vote Republican. And that's fine with me. National elections are still winnable, Gore won the popular vote, and Kerry lost by 2%. Those were both pretty close elections, so I don't really think Democrats have a HUGE problem at all.

Falls City Beer
07-09-2005, 04:57 PM
78 < 90, not to mention the fact that evangelicals are extremists and I, along with most Democrats, don't want them in the party anyway. As long as Democrats have a pro-choice platform evangelicals are going to vote Republican. And that's fine with me. National elections are still winnable, Gore won the popular vote, and Kerry lost by 2%. Those were both pretty close elections, so I don't really think Democrats have a HUGE problem at all.

Good post. I happen disagree with Mr. Dean--we don't need no stinkin' General Lee voters. The 'Pubs can keep 'em. We just need to pick up the lion's share of the Latino vote and 2008 should be very interesting.

Mutaman
07-09-2005, 10:19 PM
78 < 90, not to mention the fact that evangelicals are extremists and I, along with most Democrats, don't want them in the party anyway. As long as Democrats have a pro-choice platform evangelicals are going to vote Republican. And that's fine with me. National elections are still winnable, Gore won the popular vote, and Kerry lost by 2%. Those were both pretty close elections, so I don't really think Democrats have a HUGE problem at all.

Think about it-- if Nader hadn't run in 2000, Al Gore would be in the middle of his second term.

Mutaman
07-09-2005, 10:28 PM
Good post. I happen disagree with Mr. Dean--we don't need no stinkin' General Lee voters. The 'Pubs can keep 'em. We just need to pick up the lion's share of the Latino vote and 2008 should be very interesting.

Im not sure I agree. The last time a democrat from the north was elected was 1960. Which is why I hope Wes Clark makes a serious run in four years. There's plenty of good people in the Red States. The democrats just need to convince them that their policies are a lot more beneficial to working class southerers than keeping Terri Schiavo alive, keeping two homosexuals from getting married, and refusing to allow some poor single mother from choosing to terminate her pregnancy. I think one of Kerry's biggest mistakes was writing off the south. Even a minimum effort would have forced Bush to shore up his base by demonstating his true reactionary colors. And that might have cost Bush a lot of moderate republican votes.

alex trevino
07-09-2005, 10:31 PM
Perhaps the terrorist who bombed London were expecting the crowds there to welcome them with flowers as conquering heros.

Mutaman
07-09-2005, 10:34 PM
Perhaps the terrorist who bombed London were expecting the crowds there to welcome them with flowers as conquering heros.

Now who would be so incredibly stupid as to believe something like that? aah..., oh yeah, thats right, I forgot.

Falls City Beer
07-09-2005, 10:41 PM
Im not sure I agree. The last time a democrat from the north was elected was 1960. Which is why I hope Wes Clark makes a serious run in four years. There's plenty of good people in the Red States. The democrats just need to convince them that their policies are a lot more beneficial to working class southerers than keeping Terri Schiavo alive, keeping two homosexuals from getting married, and refusing to allow some poor single mother from choosing to terminate her pregnancy. I think one of Kerry's biggest mistakes was writing off the south. Even a minimum effort would have forced Bush to shore up his base by demonstating his true reactionary colors. And that might have cost Bush a lot of moderate republican votes.

I think that's wishful thinking. While I appreciate the sentiment of Dean's remarks, I think it's bad strategy.

The Dems are guaranteed to win at least the blue states from this go-round. They just need to push double-hard to flip Nevada and New Mexico, and probably Iowa.

RBA
07-09-2005, 10:58 PM
Don't forget Arizona and Colorado. The Hispanic population is going to grow in those two states; big time. And the Dems would be smart to make a couple stops in Texas for a change. That's was one of Kerry's biggest mistake, he should of went into the big urban centers in Texas and made it look like he was taking the fight to Bush's homestate. He wouldn't won Texas, at any rate, but he could of put the message out that Bush was on the ropes. It's all about "SPIN".

GAC
07-10-2005, 09:23 AM
78 < 90, not to mention the fact that evangelicals are extremists

And one could say the very same thing about those on the extreme left.

I would love to hear your definition of what "extremism" is. You always love to throw that one out there without any explanation/justification. And I love the way you lump all evangelicals as extremists. Totally untrue and without merit; but it serves your purpose since you have no idea what an evangelical is, or what they believe.

We're extreme because we have a differing opinion with guys like you?

You couldn't see the ideological center with the Hubble telescope! But then you see people who portray themselves as moderates as being wishy-washy or filled with uncertainty and not knowing what they want. Totally untrue.

You'd see a moderate as extreme from your position.


and I, along with most Democrats, don't want them in the party anyway.

So now you speak for most Democrats? That's funny. I doubt you do. I don't find most Democrats hold the extremist views that you do. ;)

But so much for Democratic diversity and inclusiveness. It's a mirage.

Why are people like Hillary, and others within your Party, then trying to move to the center and reach out to evangelicals? I think they realize the importance of that voting block. But at the same time, her/their efforts are not one of sincerity, but more of necessity.

RBA
07-11-2005, 07:20 AM
Another MORON commentary from Fox News Anchor


Missed Opportunity
Wednesday, July 06, 2005

By John Gibson

http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

You may have noticed the news out of Singapore Wednesday:

The host city for the 2012 Olympics (search (javascript:siteSearch('2012 Olympics');)) was picked. New York was out early and that was a big relief to me, personally. I think New York needs a rest from big events. All that security wears on you.

Then it was down to Paris and London. And the Olympic big wigs picked London.

All day long people have been saying to me, "Wasn't it great they didn't pick Paris?" And I've been saying, "No, no, no."

Paris was exactly the right place to pick and the Olympic committee screwed up.

Why? Simple. It would have been a three-week period where we wouldn't have had to worry about terrorism.

First, the French think they are so good at dealing with the Arab world that they would have gone out and paid every terrorist off. And things would have been calm.

Or another way to look at it is the French are already up to their eyeballs in terrorists. The French hide them in miserable slums, out of sight of the rich people in Paris.

So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.

What would the French have done about rounding up their own citizens?

Would they have afforded their own terrorists the rights they insist we give the detainees at Gitmo? Not a chance. They'd throw them in the clink, or ship them off to North Africa pronto.

Would they have blocked terrorists at the border with unreasonable search and seizure — precisely what they say we should not do? Of course they would. Anybody looking faintly Arab would have had the gendarmerie on them in a flash.

It would have been a delight to have Parisians worried about security instead of New Yorkers. It would have been exquisite to watch.

But, alas, they picked London. I like the Brits. I like London. I hate to see them going through all this garbage when it would have been just fine in Paris.

C'est la vie. Goes to show the Olympic committee doesn't recognize the perfect opportunity when it presents itself.

That's My Word.

Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: myword@foxnews.com (myword@foxnews.com)