Rick, no one is a bigger 24 fan than me, but this season is just awful and it goes well beyond just Garofalo. The whole thing is very stale to me. I don't know if it is just that the story lines have all been done. I don't know if the actors are horrible. Yet, I can't get into any of it. I don't like the President. I don't like the FBI. I don't much like the villains. I don't think Jack gets enough screen time.
I don't think there is one problem with the show this year. I think it is a giant mess and I don't know that it can be fixed easily.
The writing is not up to standards of previous years. No suspense, little action, too many plot threads, and not enough characters we can care about.
I keep hoping it will improve but I'm pretty much with you - it sucks.
ed.Comment Posted By Mike Volpe On 4.02.2009 @ 17:09
Rick, I have been a fan since the first show and I wasn't nearly as disappointed with last season as you were. Furthermore, I didn't find the show last night as predictable as you saw it. Of course, we all understood that Jack wouldn't trade their freedom for his. So what? The show was nearly over by then and this is the way to get him back to the states. Also, you didn't mention anything about the scene that will stick with me the longest, the scene in which Benton acts as a suicide bomber. Only Benton uses the technique for real asymetrical military strategy. There is something very powerful and perverse in showing a suicide bombing in such a way.Comment Posted By mike volpe On 24.11.2008 @ 16:43
Rick, fair is fair, but you, yourself were a skeptic of this policy, and as things were turning around, you were constantly playing devil's advocate highlighting the continued difficulties that lied ahead. As such, you have also softened your own position.
That said, there is one thing that people aren't giving enough attention to as far as Obama's Oped, in my opinion. This is what Obama plans to do with the "residual force"
"After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal."
Now, this is frankly the Rumsfeld strategy. He essentially wants to cut off a successful strategy in favor of a strategy we saw spin out of control for four years. What Obama wants is what American forces did for four years and watched the country nearly disintegrate. This is what we should be pointing out. Here is my full analysis...
You are basically correct, Michael. I still have doubts about many things in Iraq as far as how friendly they will be in the end, how close they'll be to Iran (or how much Iran will try to dominate), whether the Sunnis will continue to try and work within the system or whether they will become frustrated and go back on the warpath, and how secular and free the country will be among other doubts. Plus, there are troubling things about our success - walling off entire neighborhoods is just one item - that I don't know how things will work out.
I think we are rapidly approaching a time - less than 16 months - where we simply must hand things over to the Iraqis and let them take it from there. Ed Morrissey thinks we should keep around 40,000 troops there. I think half that would be adequate. But I would accept 40,000 plus pre positioning of equipment in the event Iran or Syria got any ideas if we began in September. Not a timetable but a rational drawdown with reviews every 3 months - pretty much what we're doing now. If things get dicey again we can halt and take a breather. But in another year, the Iraqi army will be able to carry out any mission we would carry out - albeit without the expertise or assurance of success - but carry it out they would.
In short, the time is rapidly approaching when the Iraqis simply won't need is anymore. And that's been our goal all along.
ed.Comment Posted By mike volpe On 15.07.2008 @ 14:16
Rick, please don't let what I am about to say go to your head or it will be counter productive. I believe that is one of the finest pieces written not only Iraq but frankly in the blogosphere and beyond. I am finishing up a story about Iraq and I will link to it.
I agree with you on everything and frankly I have to because you clearly understand it a lot better.
The only thing that I would add though is that while I totally agree that the situation remains unbelievably complicated that our forces have gotten through the worst, and more importantly, that I have confidence that they can overcome the complex nature of the battlefield.Comment Posted By mike volpe On 27.11.2007 @ 16:01
This is excellent analysis.
The article you referenced is from the Nation magazine. It is as left wing as Olbermann. The idea that they would shower him with such praise is not very surprising. The analysis is as biased as Olbermann himself.Comment Posted By Mike Volpe On 22.09.2007 @ 19:52
I have said this over and over. This whole fiasco is the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans. Of course, Rudy exploited this. There was plenty there to exploit. This story is so juicy that frankly no one knows when it will go away. Everyday something new comes out that advances it further and further. The Dems are in a horrible position. If they come out against it, they are through in the primaries, and if they don't it will haunt them relentlessly in the general election. The next shoe to drop on this story is George Soros. He is behind this group and most far left groups. He is a dangerous man and he is trying to buy the next election, and unless, we stop him, he will and then he will have bought the Democratic Party which will be in control of everything. Here is how Bill O'Reilly saw it...
The real story behind the MoveOn smear attack on General Petraeus is far left financier George Soros. He has given millions to MoveOn and other Internet sites that smear conservatives and traditionalists.
If you want to know the full extent of Soros' intrusion into the political process, read Investors Business Daily's editorial today. Go to their Web site. It is downright frightening.
Now the far left billionaire has bought politicians, journalists, an Internet character assassins. He wields tremendous power in this country. So much power that 24 Democratic senators were afraid to condemn MoveOn for its outrageous attack on General Petraeus. Those senators include Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and Harry Reid. Again, those senators would not vote to condemn the MoveOn ad.
Well, when an irresponsible far left outfit succeeds in frightening a quarter of the Senate, you know there's big trouble in this country. Not only that, some loons are even supporting the attack on Petraeus.
Elements at NBC News, for example, who parrot far left propaganda incessantly, insist the ad is a legitimate form of dissent.
The New York Times is happy to discount the ad more than 60 percent for MoveOn, as we've reported. And if you read the far left blogs, they're thrilled that General Petraeus was smeared.
All those people, of course, are disgraceful. Even if you disagree with the Iraq war, a general decorated for valor fighting on a vicious battle field does not deserve to be smeared by anyone.
The Democratic talking points say that the MoveOn situation is an attempt by people to divert attention away from Iraq. Well, that's false. Most Americans do not support the war. And that's fine, but they do support the troops in the field. That is called loyalty.
Once the public fully understands what George Soros is all about and what he is trying to do this story will take on a whole new angle.Comment Posted By mike volpe On 24.09.2007 @ 12:23
Rick, there is no doubt that we have made mistakes however I firmly believe that Middle Eastern societies are just plain F$^ked up, and it will take a long, long time before they can be turned around. Some will say that isn't our job, and I will say that their nature led to 9/11. The reason that things look grim is because that is how their societies are. These things will take a long time to manage, and I believe there will be troops in Iraq, in some numbers, long after I pass away. (I am in my thirties) So be it I say, because if their societies aren't turned around we will face the threat of terrorism indefinitely.
There is no middle ground. We either win or we lose. Winning will take a long time and a lot of blood, but the consequence of losing is too great and the consequence of winning is also too great.
I believe that you are trying to reach for a middle ground and washing our hands of it. This is nice on paper however the consequences to us is too great. Baghdad is turning around and citizens are standing up. The sectarian rivalries will be around for a long time, and so will the bombings and beheadings, and other killings, and all of it has to do with the structure of their societies. This may not be our fault, but if it isn't fixed now, it will be dealt with at some point, or we WILL eventually face another 9/11.
As a nation, we have to decide to be in it, all the way, for the long term. We have no choice. Losing in Iraq means AQ, Iran, and Syria winning and that is not good for the overall war on terror.Comment Posted By mike volpe On 5.09.2007 @ 10:59
I don't know if you saw this but apparently Almeida's character is coming back
I don't know how I feel about this. The show may officially jump the shark with this one. I was pretty sure he was dead. There didn't seem to be any doubt and if there was why would they all leave him there? This seems hokey. I hope I am wrong, but this is not a midday soap, people are not supposed to rise from the dead in this show.Comment Posted By mike volpe On 24.09.2007 @ 15:18
Pages (1) :