Chairman Kaga wrote:I'd also like to see some better arguments on Bill's show about Iraq but instead Bill seems to continually go back to the same well of complaints (legitimate complaints but mostly complaints about past fuck ups). I'd rather see critical thought about the present rather than dig up the past bullshit over and over.
i agree, this has been annoying me for a while. i think the show would be a lot better without an audience (except for the 9/11 conspiracy people, but that's just so maher can go into the audience and beat them up). i think a lot of times certain guests play to the audience, or they have an agenda and pursue it single-mindedly, regardless of what the other people on the panel actually say. like the iraq guy they brought out at the end, when scarborough took issue with calling paul bremer 'little saddam' that guy just went off on him... never mind that scarborough agreed with everything else he was saying and said both bush and bremer had been stupid for disbanding the iraqi army. maybe if they'd shut up and listened to him for a few seconds, they would've realized he was agreeing with them.
but whenever someone on the show says something about iraq that maher or his guests don't agree with, they end up resorting to the whole "we shouldn't have gone in in the first place"... which i totally agree with, but is also irrelevant at this point because we can't go back in our time machines and change history. i'd rather hear them talk about, now that we ARE there, what's the best way to get out of there?