Pretty words. Just pretty words. Only pretty words. I'm quoting Joni Mitchell ("The Last Time I Saw Richard"), if you didn't catch on already.
C.I. had a great point recently. I can't remember where she made it. Most likely, she expressed it in a snapshot but it could have been at Third or in one of her columns for the newsletters. But her point was that she got stuck reviewing various speeches Barack had made recently. What stood out to her was how awful the speeches were.
They had no poetry. They had nothing at all. They were simplistic and offered nothing.
I really think that is also a description of the Barack we see campaigning now.
No, Barack is not a great communicator. He never really was. Ava and C.I. caught on years ago. Read their April 2008 "TV: The Christ-child fumbles," for example. Or see their February 2009 piece "TV: Blustering Boys" -- it contains one of my favorite passages of the two of them on Barack:
We watched Monday in full as Barack uh-uh-uhed and spoke in that robotic manner that allows him to find more unnatural pauses than Estelle Parsons and Kim Stanley combined. "He's our Method president!" we quickly gasped while wishing we could have one president this decade capable of normal speech. If he gets any worse, he'll be Sandy Dennis.
If only more people had the courage to write like that.
"Media: Avoiding character and competence" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Reivew):
More annoying was realizing what they weren't talking about.
For example, the State Dept. knew it was a terrorist attack. When and how and when the 'protest' nonsense was dropped from the narrative Patrick Kennedy didn't want to speculate on, he said. He would need to review some documents -- it was pointed out to Kennedy that the topic of the hearing was known ahead of time so he should have already reviewed documents for this hearing.
What he did allow was that on September 12th, the day after the attack, he was telling Congressional aides that it was a terrorist attack.
This was known for a variety of reasons including that the attack was on camera.
Video exists of the attack. Kennedy kept trying to say a law enforcement agency had it. Issa told him to stop saying that, that they both knew the Justice Dept. didn't have it and a segment of government had the video and was refusing to allow Congress to see it.
The video makes clear it was a terrorist attack -- this from the statements of Kennedy and the State Dept.'s Charlene Lamb -- neither of whom was a 'whistle blower' at the hearing.
Here's what else you could learn from what the State Dept said and what a member objected to. There was a CIA operation in Beghazi. The 'safe house' was a CIA house. When the attack started, CIA agents were running for cover.
Wanting to try that lie about bad intel again? CIA agents were wounded in the attack.
Are we still going to play the bad intel nonsense?
Repeating, (A) video exists of the assault, (B) Patrick Kennedy was telling Congressional staffers September 12th that it was a terrorist attack and (C) CIA agents were wounded in the attack. How does the White House not immediately know it was a terrorist attack? CIA agents running to the safe house knew it was a terrorist attack when it was happening.
So the attack and the 9 day cover up of it by the White House is news and is an issue.
I thought Ava and C.I did a great job with that one. It was a lot of heavy lifting and they edited it three times to get it down to that length. There was a lot to cover and these are important topics, so they worked more on this one than they have in the past -- a lot more.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):