BellGab.com Archive

I thought he was a chip off the ole block, but it looks like he's gone full neocon.  His statements on spending "100 years in Iraq" to fight "Islamic radicalism" made me facepalm.

I just got around to the Jan 12 program with David Seaman and Larry Kelley.  While the first hour with Seaman was tolerable, the remainder with Kelley was embarrassingly bad -- do people really still buy into the "Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat we face in the West" bit?

I can understand how people can defend the Wells style of interview -- when he doesn't get sidetracked for a FEMA camp type ramble he's actually pretty decent.  What I don't understand is how people can defend the recent selection of guests.  They've been absolutely terrible.  How much of a role does the host actually have in selecting or accepting particular guests, anyway?