Food for Thought:

(Published in the Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil, [linked below], as “Media Should Leave Cronkite Alone” on January 19, 2006)

A couple of things caught my attention over the January Holiday weekend.

First, there seems to be an awful lot of bipartisan talk about the use of force against Iran, over their obvious development of a nuclear bomb. I'd like to point this out, because none of the Democrats will remember anything they're currently saying, if force becomes a necessity. Just pointing out that words have meaning, and parsing the historical effect of them seems to be a current trend among those on the left. Shouldn't we hear some thoughts from our local pundits, on the matter, or will they simply remain quiet, leaving the decisions to George W. Bush, for later critical review?

Secondly, I couldn't help but notice that the formerly revered and self-avowed liberal commentator, Walter Cronkite took it upon himself to announce that "it's time for the U.S. to leave Iraq." Maybe he hasn't noticed that the vast majority of America stopped listening to him, decades ago. Senility is something that a family member should try to monitor, don't you think? No wonder Charlton Heston's family keeps him sequestered. It's the right thing to do.

Cronkite also opined that he should never have retired, and given up his job at CBS to Dan Rather. He pointed out that "Rather never really worked out, all that well," and said that he's still available for rehire, if they really want some experience to replace Rather on a permanent basis. He also said that he's regretted that retirement announcement since about twenty-four hours after having told his bosses at CBS, (proving my senility point). Why can't the media just leave the likes of Walter Cronkite and Charlton Heston alone?

Dan Larsen
Council Bluffs



Reader opinions:


Jim Thorn Jan, 19 2006
While you're earmarking things for future recollection, Dan, note your statements about Cronkite for your own future complaints about "personal attacks." At no point do you actually engage any point raised by Cronkite, you merely criticize him personally -- and inaccurately as well, since whether one agrees or disagrees with him he is plainly not suffering from a tragic degenerative disease like Heston.

As for using force against Iran, I'm happy to go on record for you. I have no blanket objection to the use of force in international relations, but I do feel that force should be used only when ethically justifiable and when realistically practicable.

All of the force options I'm aware of having available against Iran would almost certainly be counter-productive. Similar spellings notwithstanding, Iran is far larger and far better-armed than Iraq was, its nuke operations are too widespread for an Osirak-style surgical airstrike to have any reliable effect, and -- to be blunt -- we have inadequate resources available to use on a large scale against Iran because we're already painfully overstretched next door in smaller, weaker Iraq.

I will actually be surprised if in the case of Iran even the Bush Administration is foolish enough to do more than talk force for their political base while they walk diplomacy.

Now you go on record, Dan. Exactly what military action(s) do you propose employing against Iran?


Dan Larsen Jan. 20, 2006
I’m sorry, Jim. If you’re unfamiliar with Cronkite’s track record, the search is only a google away. I often forget the level at which liberals like yourself view these things. Until sometime in the early 1990s, (a full decade after he retired), Cronkite was viewed by nearly all recognized media polling as the most recognized and reliable source for any/all news and opinion. But time marches on. Maybe you cannot remember those statistics, either, but you don’t’ seem to put the same criticism toward my commentary on Heston, because you DO remember his record. I’m sure you’ll find the search to be enlightening.

I see you’ve managed to straddle the fence, rather nicely in your non-position statements, too. Saying that “all the force options . . . against Iran would most certainly be counter-productive,” is nicely worded and allows you plenty of wiggle-room, to pull out the partisanship and politicize the issue at a later time. Thanks. It’s a wonderful demonstration why America should never consider election of a member of the Democrat Party to the leadership of the Free World.

As far as my position on this issue, let’s just point out two things: 1) I’m not the person who continually takes a position, only to flip-flop to the opposite side, when things go badly; and 2) I needn’t posture a position because that is the reason it’s so important to elect a President in an intelligent and deliberative way, just like happened in the last two national elections. Trust me, when I tell you, Jim – even though the Republicans have lots of problems doing what they were elected to do, those red states aren’t turning blue in the immediate future, partly because of the way Howard Dean is running your party, but mostly because you guys cannot seem to articulate a position of strength on any particular issue, except abortion.

Now that the Alito hearings are over, shouldn’t there be some performance/satisfaction polling on Senator Chappaquidick, Senator Schumer, Senator Feinstein, or the “plantation” comments by Senator Clinton?

God Bless,
Dan’L

Jim Thorn Jan, 20 2006
As usual, Dan, you respond to things I never said and avoid answering the direct question I asked you.

First, I never said Cronkite isn't liberal. I said he isn't senile, which is what you accused him of so you that could avoid addressing his actual statements in any substantive way. And I didn't say Charlton Heston has a tragic degenerative disease because he's conservative; I said it because he's been medically diagnosed as having Alzheimer's.

Second, the position I took isn't fence-straddling. I said "all the options I'm aware of" because this small box doesn't afford enough room to detail them all and because there must be some I haven't thought of. I did detail two that won't work: an Osirak-style bombing strike and an all-out invasion. Then I asked you which specific military actions you recommend, and you dodged the question by throwing up your usual smokescreen of non sequiturs and false accusations.

Third, you apparently accuse me of flip-flopping, although it could be that you just threw in an irrelevant snark at John Kerry for no apparent reason because it's a nervous tic you suffer from, like Tourette's. If you did mean me, though, please specify the issues on which you accuse me of flip-flopping.

As for Hillary's "plantation" comment, I found it appalling; I'm not a fan of hers, although I still like her far better than your guy.