The Workday Liberal

There is a lot of attention being given to the rather ridiculous permutation of reality given us by White house toady Fran Townsend when discussing the continued freedom of Osama Bin Laden. This regards an interview by the White house correspondent for CNN, Ed Henry of Townsend. Here is a copy of the transcript of the exchange on CNN's Situation Room:

HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.

Look, we can't do it alone. We understand from the intelligence that he's most likely in the tribal areas. They are inaccessible. They're difficult to reach. It's difficult terrain. And, oh, by the way, it's part of the sovereign country of Pakistan. The Pakistani governments has reached agreements with tribal leaders. We've got concerns about that.

HENRY: Are there enough troops there to get him? You've heard that charge from the Democrats repeatedly, going back to the 2004 campaign.

Orwellian language could not be better demonstrated than to define failure as success that has not yet occured, but is not failure. I'm not actually poor either... that bag of gold the aliens are going to beam onto my porch simply hasn't materialized yet.

The obvious put downs and cry for an expression of logic, or even sanity to counter the stupidity of this Townsend toady is glaring. And it is this glaring lack of followup on the part of Henry in the face of such inanity that causes me to put finger to keyboard. Is Henry some type of zombie koolaid drinking robot from Mars to not interject in amazement when this happens during his interview? How can he not react to that?! It's like Townsend has just tossed forth another talking point which Henry was entirely expecting, which talking point Henry allows to float about in our collective consiousness, unrebutted... simply looking at a piece of paper with his questions bullet pointed for his robotic monologue.

Here is how the interview would have appeared had Keith Olbermann been the interviewer:

Olbermann: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure...

OLBERMANN: (interupting) You CAN NOT be SERIOUS Ms. Townsend. Do you realize the construct of the sentence you just uttered? You my good madam have crossed the line of decency in evidently questioning my and my audiences intelligence in such a bold manner. I call upon you, madam, to retract that statement.

TOWNSEND: Blubber blubber blubber, sputter, half apology, semi retraction, splubber, attempt to fillibuster etc...

OLBERMANN: Well I suppose that is the best we may expect from you maam. I will accept the... (pregnant pause) correction and follow on. Why is Osama Bin Laden, who is responsible for the deaths nearly 3000 Americans on 9/11 still broadcasting terrorist propaganda from Pakistan, but we are about hand Saddam Hussien, who had nothing to do with 9/11, over to his exectutioners, at the cost of another 3000 dead Americans madam?

Quite simply the non response of Henry to the Townsend silliness speaks volumes of the state of the media in America today. They are sleep walking, mailing it in, going through the motions... just not with it. I find it hard to comprehend how any self respecting journalist would let the Townsend gaffe just slide by like it was just another talking point... somehow just another point of view that needed to be an unchallenged part of the discourse.