I was dumbfounded and my jaw dropped when I read the exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Lawrence O'Donnell posted by Ed Morrissey over at HotAir. I mean... this is incredible and unbelievable!! Pardon the emotional response, but...
We have men on television (e.g. O'Donnell) offering "informed opinions" (!!) who don't know the first thing about what they are talking about. We may have suspected that... but to have it blatantly demonstrated on the air, and in black and white. Oh my.. Here's part of Morrissey's post:
If you didn’t get a chance to hear Hugh Hewitt dismantle MS-NBC’s Larry O’Donnell last night, Hugh made sure you have the opportunity today. The entire transcript of the interview appears on his blog, with a link to the podcast of the 35-minute conversation. It’s long, but well worth the time. Here are a couple of highlights:
HH: What was the last book you read about terrorism?
LO’D: The last…I don’t think I’ve read a book about terrorism.
HH: Ever?
LO’D: No.
HH: About al Qaeda?
LO’D: No.
HH: About…how about the mullahs in Iran?
LO’D: No.
HH: I’m just stunned.
LO’D: Well, I’ll tell you, I’ve read Bob Woodward’s books about the accounts inside the Bush administration from what they were doing from the day they got sworn in, okay?
HH: You’ve never read a book about terrorism?
LO’D: There is no, there is absolutely no evidence, and I defy you today, Hugh,
HH: Larry, you’ve never read a book about terrorism?
LO’D: I defy you to point to me, point to me a citation of one memo or one meeting that Dick Cheney was in where he says anything about al Qaeda.
HH: Larry, I’ve got to go lie down. I really do. Do you think you’re a well-informed MSNBC, by MSNBC standards, do you think you’re above the grade of people on that network?
LO’D: That’s a trick question, Hugh.
He never read anything about terrorism? Not in seven-plus years after 9/11, when he works as a political analyst for NBC? That’s a rather amazing admission, but given O’Donnell’s statements, one that only mildly surprises, if that.
Hugh then presses O’Donnell for factual support for one of his statements, and O’Donnell crumbles: [more. . .]