|
America’s most trusted man has gone publicly bonkers
Regarding the Osama bin Laden tape that Al Jazeera broadcast on Friday, Walter Cronkite went on Larry King Live Friday night and said this:
… I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign. [Emphasis added.]So, not only did that über-Macchiavellian Karl Rove “set up bin Laden to this thing,” but, when we remember that the missing-munitions story had only broken around October 26, and that, according to Cronkite, Rove used the bin Laden speech to displace the munitions story from the front pages, that means that Rove “set up bin Laden to this thing” in just three days. Think of the global reach of that man. As soon as the Al Qaqaa explosives story came out, Rove thought, “This is really hurting Bush, we’ve got to create a distraction, real fast, or we’re going to lose the election.” But what distraction? Then it came to him in a flash. Brilliant. He got in touch with bin Laden in his trackless mountain hide-out in Waziristan or wherever (don’t ask how), persuaded him to cooperate with the Bush campaign, had a speech written for him threatening and cajoling the United States that would sound as though bin Laden himself had written it, dispatched a security-screened Moslem videotaping crew to bin Laden’s secret mountain fortress located hundreds of miles from the nearest city, got the speech taped, and had it sent it to Al Jazeera, who broadcast it. All in three days. Even Michael Moore wouldn’t have dreamed of a conspiracy theory involving such a superhuman degree of command and control. We should have realized that when Uncle Walter came out as a devotee of World Government a few years ago he was already losing it. Doesn’t the man have children or other relatives who can keep him out of the public eye at this stage of his life?
Perhaps, though, Cronkite does still have a legitimate public role to play, as the American equivalent of Chernenko, living symbol of the deterioration and senescence of the ruling leftist regime. Except, of course, that that role is already taken … by Carter. Comments
There is possibility that Comrade Cronkite was joking. Since Larry King was asleep at the time, we will never know for sure. Posted by: Mik on October 31, 2004 2:16 AMI’m laughing to the point of tears at the total absurdity of Krankcherenko. You’ve missed an important detail. OBL is actually in captivity in Diego Garcia and Al Jazeera is a division of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News. King and CNN are the victims, and Cronkite is a plant to make the progressives looks stupid. Posted by: Carl on October 31, 2004 3:10 AMIf Cronkite is the Chernenko of the Left, who will be the Gorbachev? Chris Matthews? Posted by: Eugene Girin on October 31, 2004 1:44 PMWith regard to the idea of Carter as a symbol of liberal decadence, I just came upon this e-mail I sent to a friend in May 2002: “Thinking about Carter on that AIDS visit in Africa visiting the home of an African prostitute and telling her how he, Carter, would rather have sex with a prostitute while using a condom, how far gone, deluded, lost in some liberal Christian haze he is to put himself, a former U.S. president in such a position, the thought occurs to me: who was the last Democratic president who was a sound man worthy of being president? Going backwards we’ve had Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Kennedy, Truman! Truman was the last Democratic president who wasn’t a more or less bent man, who was an upright, sound, sane man.” Great point Mr. Auster! Truman was the last sane Democratic president. Posted by: Eugene Girin on November 1, 2004 7:42 PMI have heard recording of this statement by Krankenhouse on radio. Not to take anything from his obvious senility, but it appears that he was joking. Posted by: Mik on November 1, 2004 10:31 PMTruman is somewhat more American than those who followed, but sane? Upright? Those who go on and on about Sherman’s attacking civilian property are silent about Truman’s firebombing women and children by the hundred thousand. (And why did he choose for a nuclear target the historic center of Christianity in Japan?) Did he view “just war theory” as merely a Popish parlor game? Truman was a “minority president” (i.e., more votes were cast against him than for) as were Clinton, Kennedy, Wilson and Cleveland. The only Democrats since the Civil War who got more votes than the combined total against them were FDR (four times), LBJ, Jimmy Carter (by a hair) and Samuel J. Tilden. And no, Tilden did not win. Posted by: Reg Cæsar on November 1, 2004 10:35 PMI don’t see how it’s useful for Caesar to take a policy disagreement that he has with Truman, on an issue on which the overwhelming majority of Americans then and now support Truman’s leadership, as “proof” that Truman was a bent human being. We were speaking, in the context of those later Democratic presidents, of manifest flaws of character and mind. The fact that Truman bombed Japan the way he did—which ANY U.S. president would have done in his place—does not prove Caesar’s point that Truman’s character was flawed in the manner of those later presidents. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 1, 2004 10:41 PM |