Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade Sees Advantage to London Attacks
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, July 7, 2005 |
The Lefty Blogosphere is in an uproar over the following statement by Fox News’ Brian 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. [emphasis in original]
Some sample quotes:
- Duncan “Atrios” Black: “Fox News. Who else?”
Steve Soto: “…a sickening display of how the right wing corporate media talking points are ready to go…”
Susan Madrak: “Despicable.”
I’m not all that familiar with Kilmeade’s work and didn’t see the interview, so I don’t have any context beyond the (somewhat longer) exchange between Kilmeade and Stuart Varney captured by Media Matters. Still, the remarks appear rather innocuous.
I don’t read him as saying, “Woohoo! It sure is fortunate all those people got killed!” Rather, he’s saying something that is almost universally true: Being attacked by one’s enemies often unites a country. The London Blitz had that affect. So did the 9-11 attacks.
Further, one would hope this would indeed unite the West. The bitterness of the Iraq War has undeniably strained relations between longstanding allies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. I haven’t seen the reactions in the French or German press yet, but I’m willing to bet that they’re quite sympathetic to London.
As much as these four major powers disagree with one another on matters of public policy, we share a common Western heritage. Whatever our differences–and they’re far from trivial–they pale in comparison with the chasm between the democratic West and the Islamist terrorists. Tragic as this morning’s attacks were, they serve as a bitter reminder of that fact.
Every cloud has its silver lining. One may recognize that and still prefer sunshine.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Caption Contest Winners
- What’s the Opposite of Schadenfreude?
- Posse Comitatus? Its a Stupid Law Anyways
- Obama’s Short National Security Team
- Wire Politics
- 10 Funniest Political Quotes Of 2008 -
- Memeorandum Beats Google News
- US in Recession Since December 2007
- Sex Offender Registry Stupidity
- Jim Jones Outstanding National Security Advisor Choice
- Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis) linked with The London bombings
- Jeff Quinton - Backcountry Conservative linked with Friday London Updates
Funny how the lefties go bananas when someone says something that is right on target
Churchill claimed, in his memoirs, that he was relieved by the news of Pearl Harbor.
As he noted, he "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and the thankful."
No doubt, also sickening and despicable.
But then again, Churchill was a warmonger who advocated preemptive war against a nation that had committed no aggression as of 1938 (by modern liberal standards). And hadn't even started killing Jews in batch lots yet.
Say, when Jews tried to get into Britain in the runup to 1939, how did it work out for them?
Also, I believe England was in charge of a colony called Palestine at that time where various Jews tried to go. Did Churchill let 'em in?
The moonbats are just looking to be offended, but their problem lately is it's the truth that is offending. I wonder how they got that way.
Jim Henley, you need to check out your facts before commenting. Winston Churchill was NOT the prime minister of Great Britain in 1939. He had been out of government for quite a few years (his view of the world was not thought of highly even by many in his own party). After the outbreak of WW II in September 1939, he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and then rose to Prime Minister in May 1940 when Chamberlain's feckless government fell. It was many of his previously stated positions that made others suddenly look upon him with a different eye as Europe fell to the Nazis.
Well, Media Matters couldn't harp on the media's use of the word "Borking" forever, I suppose. So they find something else to bitch about.
The transcript shows the full context, that it's important that the leaders of the world be together at a time like this. And Michael Moore (of Why-didn't-the-terrorists-target-Bush-voters fame) linking to this is rich.
Mr. Henley's attempted revisionist history of 1939 and 1940 England is more revealing of the propagandistic distortions rampant in Democratic elitist thought.
FDR, Churchill's great wartime friend and ally would turn over in his grave were he to hear this coming from his party's advocates. Thus proving the point of Zell Miller's book about his disenchantment with the party of his ancestors which he so nobly served.
Jim Henley:
When Jews sought to get into Britain, the same government that believed that Hitler's demands were reasonable, that believed that German failures to abide by treaties were not worth going to war over, that believed that aiding Spanish Republicans was less important than abiding by League of Nations rulings (even when they were being violated by the same Germans) said "No, go away" to them.
Apparently, some things don't change.
Of course, that was not the government of Winston Churchill, who was the political wilderness for advocating that the Chamberlain government go to war over the Anschluss and the Sudetenland.
Even after WW II, it was the LABOR government and particularly the foreign secretary Ernest Bevin that keep Jews out of Palestine. Jews stopped from entering Palestine were even held by the Labor government in former Nazi camps.
They removed the earlier part of the quote, FWIW. I'd have to go dig it up. Suffice it to say, "they" in that quote is referring to the G8 leaders. He's arguing that, if it was going to happen, the silver lining is that all the G8 leaders were in the same country to witness it, and that the shared experience could convince all of them that terrorism is important and that they have to work together. "They" is not the people of the UK.
Comments are Closed
