Because when it comes to explaining Syria, Russia, chemical weapons and the historical, cultural, politcal, economic and military complexities involved in the Obama Administration trying to gavotte through the minefield that is the Middle East, who better than panel featuring Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald and Charlie Rose:
Heads UpSEP 9 2013 @ 2:31PMI’ll be on Anderson Cooper’s CNN show tonight at 10 pm on Syria with Christiane Ahmanpour, Charlie Rose, and Glenn Greenwald, among others. I’ll be on the show every night this week – and will be a regular guest in the coming months.
11 comments:
It would be really mean for me to wish for a salmonella outbreak in Anderson Cooper's green room, wouldn't it?
Is Greenwald abandoning the NSA story already?
Is Greenwald abandoning the NSA story already?
Are you volunteering to watch for us to find out? I would* but I have beer to drink.
*(no I wouldn't)
Discussing Syria with those guys must make Christiane Amanpour feel just like Paul Krugman when they bring him on to discuss the economy with the likes of Peggy Noonan.
I don't know. Sully's discernment abilities seem suspect. I'm just looking at some of the things he got wrong. Greenwald saw the light at the tender age of 40. Then again, those are the people bringing back Crossfire. May a 1000 condors shit on their station.
Vic78
Dear God.
An amazing thing really. That balance calls for pundits who got the last war wrong to be paired with pundits who wouldn't take a position. That being grossly wrong does not disqualify you from pontificating on TV about the next war; being right about things is not a requirement.
I'm a big Greenwald fan. He's smart, personable, and efficient in ways that most blogs are not. He has written in the past about AIPAC, but otherwise I'm not sure he has much to offer about the immediate situation in the Middle East.
But seriously, is this your first experience with the compulsion to stay the hell away from television? Shoot, I had one in the '80s and I've never been back.
Well, Greenwald doubtless has information that the rest of them don't have.
I'm rooting for injuries.
Our little metro newspaper up here had an article on Monday regarding the looming US intervention in Syria. It was a point/counter-point argument between two opinion columnists. The subject was "Should the US intervention in Syria be limited to air strikes" and, I shit you not, the two positions staked out by the participants were "Worrying about the methods of intervention is the not the most important thing" and "Boots on the ground will strengthen the impact of air strikes".
I found myself looking for the crazy pills I had accidentally swallowed.
I was sorely tempted to write in to pitch the rough outlines of a nuclear response to Assad's perfidy.
So, while I have some pretty strong problems with Glenn Greenwald, I am happy that there will be *something* on the MSM that isn't operating from the assumption that intervening in Syria is a super great, wholly justified idea.
-- Nonny Mouse
Post a Comment