Tag Archives: book

Justin Bieber’s Got Big Post-VMA Plans

Bieber has movies, videos, a memoir and a new album in the works. By Jocelyn Vena Justin Bieber performs at the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images He performed on the VMAs and even took home a Moonman for Best New Artist , so it looks like Justin Bieber’s plan to take over the world is working. What will be his next steps to global domination? Here, we’ve gathered everything we know so far, but given how fast his career has moved in the past year, we’re sure there’s much more to come. Bieber recently revealed plans to release a new album sometime next year and has mentioned some dream collaborations he’d like to get for the follow-up to his successful sophomore release, My World 2.0.

Excerpt from:
Justin Bieber’s Got Big Post-VMA Plans

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: Will GOP Landslide Be a ‘Blessing in Disguise’ for Obama?

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday tried to find the upside to a possible Democratic landslide in November. Talking to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, he wondered if major Republican gains could be ” a blessing in disguise for President Obama. ” [Audio available here .] Stephanopoulos touted the historical model of Bill Clinton losing the Congress in 1994, but being reelected in 1996.The host, who was a senior advisor to Clinton when the Republicans won the Senate and House in 1994, didn’t seem very happy at the time. In his book, All Too Human, he recounted with gloom: ” Our nemesis Newt Gingrich was now Speaker– two heartbeats from the White House. If Clinton really were a prime minister, he’d have been out of a job. ” [Page 322. Emphasis added] O’Reilly dismissed the comparison: “It’s a different world…Bill Clinton was like Martin Van Buren, I mean, as far as the media’s concerned. This is a hyper medium. Everything is blown up the second it happens on the internet and cable.” At one point during the interview, O’Reilly derided the President’s plan to let tax cuts for upper income groups expire as “class warfare.” He pressed the ABC host, “Would you agree with that?” The ABC journalist unsurprisingly quipped, “Not necessarily.” After O’Reilly described a tax rate of 40 percent as too high, the argumentative Stephanopoulos asserted, “That’s what the rates were under Reagan and people did pretty well.” (Of course, the top marginal tax rates under Reagan were actually going down, a point Stephanopoulos ignored.) A transcript of the September 14 segment, which aired at 7:08am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more now, we’re joined live by the host of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly. Also has a brand new book: Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama. Welcome back. BILL O’REILLY: Hey, George. How are you? STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m doing great. Thank you. O’REILLY: George never looks tired in the morning. Can you get a close-up of George? STEPHANOPOULOS: Not too close. O’REILLY: Eight o’clock at night. Here’s George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you’re my bedtime TV watching. I go to bed early. O’REILLY: I appreciate that. STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to talk about the book. Let’s get into the tax fight first. Because, I was struck by the Wall Street Journal this morning. They think that John Boehner, the Republican leader made a big bungle on Sunday when he said he would vote for the extension of middle-class tax cuts, even if all the tax cuts weren’t extended. O’REILLY: Well, I think he was caught in the tanning bed in the salon and he didn’t really hear what was going on. Look, the whole thing is class warfare. Would you agree with that? I mean- STEPHANOPOULOS: Not necessarily. But, go ahead. O’REILLY: No? But, really though, what the President is selling is he’s saying the upper tier are going to have to be responsible for the tax revenue, primarily. And the other people will get a tax cut. He’s saying, “Look. I don’t care about these people, who earn a lot of money. But, you know, I want to help you.” I think that’s class warfare. STEPHANOPOULOS: He’s saying we can’t afford it. He’s saying there’s $700 billion in costs there that we can’t afford. That’s his argument. O’REILLY: Yeah. And who imposed those costs? STEPHANOPOULOS: Who did? O’REILLY: George? He did. So, you know, look. I think 35 percent to the government is a fair deal. I think it is. And then, if you get over 40, which is where he wants to put it, that’s kind of punishing people. So, I don’t buy the tax cuts for the rich. STEPHANOPOULOS: No. That’s what the rates were under Reagan and people did pretty well . O’REILLY: Look, I don’t care whether it was under Reagan or George Washington. All right? I work hard for my money. Do I want to fork over 40 percent over to the feds and then pay property taxes and sales taxes and every other tax in the world? Come on. STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you think is going to happen? O’REILLY: I don’t know. You know, look, it’s going to be another brawl. Republicans will stretch it out just because they want to create, the Republicans do, an image of chaos for November. They want to say that President Obama just can’t govern. That’s what the end game is. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about these midterm elections? We’re seeing, a lot of these states, the Tea Party on the rise, on offense again. You write about the Tea Party in your book. You say- unfortunately, I hope we can put it up right now- “Unfortunately, some Tea Party people play into the bogus far-right stereotype by demonizing President Obama in crude ways. I admire what the President has accomplished in his life. Please, don’t tell Rush Limbaugh. And how he overcame a childhood that could have ruined him.” So, do you think on balance the Tea Party has been a net plus or a minus? O’REILLY: Well, there’s two separations. I say in Pinheads and Patriots that the Tea Party, primarily, patriots because they tell people what they believe and get involved. That’s patriotic. I don’t care, really, what your ideology is. If you’re out there, and you’re sincere and telling people this is the way I’m see my country and I want to improve it, you’re a patriot. Whether, you’re a liberal, a Tea Party person, whatever. Okay? However, if the Tea Party people basically attack President Obama personally, that diminishes their movement. STEPHANOPOULOS: You say, stick to policy. O’REILLY: If they say he’s a Muslim. If they say he was born in, where, Indonesia. This really hurts their overall message of “Get off our back.” The Tea Party message is “Get off our back.” That’s a good message. I mean, I don’t want the feds on my back. I don’t want them in my living room, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: That message has toppled some Republican establishment candidates. Bob Bennett. O’REILLY: Who are deemed to be wishy washy on that. Look, the tea party is a simple movement. They want local control. They want the feds not to have as much power. Whereas, President Obama wants this huge federal apparatus. That’s a good debate. STEPHANOPOULOS: Bottom line, do you think Republicans are going to take control of Congress? And if they do, is that a blessing in disguise for President Obama? O’REILLY: I have no idea. I don’t really do the party politics thing. Morris over- Dick Morris. He thinks they will. But he’s got, you know, he’s rooting for them. But I’ll tell you what. President Obama has got a leadership problem right now. He has got a leadership problem. If he gets whacked, if he loses the House, that’s going to get worse. This is a huge election for President Obama himself. He has a leadership problem. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you think if he loses, that spells trouble for him in 2012? O’REILLY: Of course. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not the opposite, where for Bill Clinton lost in ’94, the Congress, it actually helped him. O’REILLY: It’s a different world. It’s a hyper world now. Bill Clinton was like Martin Van Buren, I mean, as far as the media’s concerned. This is a hyper medium. Everything is blown up the second it happens on the internet and cable. So, it’s no longer those rules. And the perception gets out there much quicker than it did. STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you’ve been weighing in on the controversy over the Islamic center sown at Ground Zero. I was struck yesterday that the imam, Imam Rauf, went to the Council on Foreign Relations, seemed to back off a bit. Said that all options are open. He may even consider moving it. O’REILLY: Did you see the Factor’s exclusive last night? STEPHANOPOULOS: I did. O’REILLY: Rauf is now tied in with this Kahn who is a Truther. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, there’s no evidence that Rauf believes anything like that. O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter. It’s his pal! His pal! STEPHANOPOULOS: They served on a board together. O’REILLY: He’s formed the Muslim organization with him. And the guy, Khan, has been talking down at the Burlington Coat Factory building. I don’t know whether he got a free suit. But, this guy, Khan, says that al Qaeda didn’t do it. And Rauf goes in and says I’m a man of peace. He may be. But who are you hanging around with? And then when we asked Rauf for a comment, he runs and hides. STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to talk to him as well at some point.

Originally posted here:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: Will GOP Landslide Be a ‘Blessing in Disguise’ for Obama?

The NY Times Splashes in the Shallow End with Meghan McCain, Brave Republican Rebel, Ugg Boot Wearer

Meghan McCain got star treatment on the front of the Sunday Styles section hyping “Dirty Sexy Politics,” her thin little account of her father’s 2008 presidential campaign. Frequent Times contributor Liesl Schillinger’s 2,600-word profile (” The Rebel “) of the 25-year-old daughter of Sen. John McCain  reads like a parody at times, so over-the-top is the praise for what sounds like an incredibly shallow read. Of course, McCain is the Times’s favorite kind of Republican, a surprisingly uninformed “progressive” whose arguments won’t convince anyone except shilling Schillingers. On a sweltering 109-degree August day, driving past election signs (John McCain, J. D. Hayworth, Ben Quayle) and cacti (saguaro), I pulled into a roadside mini-mall, hoping it was the right one. Entering a barnlike Mexican restaurant called Blanco, I scanned the bright blue banquettes for Meghan McCain. Ms. McCain, the 25-year-old politics and pop-culture columnist for The Daily Beast and daughter of Senator John McCain, is also the author of the just-published “Dirty Sexy Politics,” a frank, dishy and often scathing chronicle of her experiences during the 2008 presidential campaign. Her book is not only a front-row view of one of the most historic elections in recent American history, it is, as she told George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America,” a “coming-of-age story.” It’s hard to see the point of this paragraph: …in a corner booth, I at last spotted a fresh-faced woman with straight unfoofy hair and next to no makeup. Dressed in a black T-shirt with an eagle on it, cutoffs and black flip-flops with crystal peace-sign charms (from a friend’s boutique), she resembled the sunny girls I used to drive to lunch with in high school in Oklahoma (where we, too, had wide-open spaces and abundant Mexican restaurant options at our disposal). Some of the puffery come off as ridiculous: But I figured that, after three years as a highly visible blogger, writer, Twitter user (she has 86,000 followers) and speaker on college campuses, Ms. McCain had learned to control how she comes across. …. Her own book would make as gripping a read for vacationers on South Padre Island as it would for students at midterms or for politicos on the eve of midterm elections. But “Dirty Sexy Politics” is no young-adult memoir; it’s a strongly-worded political platform from which Ms. McCain attacks today’s moribund, inflexible Republican Party (“all the old dudes,” is one way she puts it) and clamors for change. We eventually get a hint why the Times is promoting McCain and her book so avidly: Throughout the book, she lays out her vision of a moderate, inclusive Republican Party that could win over young people like herself who have come of age with interactive social media and care about small government, defense, the environment and gay rights . It infuriates her when rigid Republicans accuse her of being a Republican In Name Only, a RINO. “I cannot stand the word RINO, because I think it’s an easy way to belittle someone who’s flexible with the kind of world we live in,” she said. “I’m pro-life, but I’m pro birth control. I am also pro being realistic about the kind of world we live in.” She supports marriage equality for gay Americans, she added, because, “I have friends who are gay, and I’d like to go to their weddings.” …. ….her progressive views have angered traditionalists within the Republican Party. In March 2009, she wrote a column in The Daily Beast that accused Ann Coulter, the conservative American political commentator and writer, of perpetuating “negative stereotypes about Republicans,” and called her “offensive, radical, insulting and confusing.” “I object to people who use politics as entertainment,” she told me. The column provoked Laura Ingraham, the conservative commentator and radio show host, to deride Ms. McCain on her show as “plus-sized.” Apparently it’s perfectly fine to insult Ann Coulter as “offensive and radical,” but commenting on McCain’s weight is an offense good for several overwrought paragraphs. Schillinger went on and on about it. But in Arizona, Ms. McCain admitted that she finds attacks on her looks hard to take. “It’s very harsh,” she said. “I’m of the belief that you should never say anything bad about a woman’s appearance, ever. It’s nothing I would ever do.” McCain seemed desperate to sound transgressive: “I’m a 25-year-old woman with tattoos,” Ms. McCain said, waving her left hand to show the black cross on her wrist, “I just live my life very openly. I don’t think in this climate that I could get elected, either. I like to go to Vegas and I like to play blackjack with my friends. Can you do that if you’re a candidate? No. I rest my case.” She still resents Ms. Ingraham’s remark but added, “I should send her a fruit basket. It’s one of the best things that’s ever happened to my career. I don’t care if she disagrees with me.” Schillinger and McCain squeezed several more dramatic paragraphs over enchilada-gate, an evident “snub” by Laura Bush which was literarily enriched with deep observations about who was wearing what: It was in March 2008, two days after Mr. McCain had won four presidential primaries, clinching the Republican nomination. Mrs. Bush had invited Meghan and her mother to the White House for lunch. Meghan dressed to the hilt, in an elegant black Diane von Furstenberg dress, a capelet and Tory Burch peep-toe heels, her hair swept up in plaits. …. But when Mrs. Bush, in a sweater and slacks, greeted her and her mother, she told them there’d been a misunderstanding. The invitation only applied to Mrs. McCain. Meghan was sent to the White House mess. “I was given a doggie bag of enchiladas,” Ms. McCain writes. “Want to talk about feeling stupid and unwanted? Try carrying a take-out bag as you leave the White House in sparkly glitter heels and your hair braided in three huge cornrows.” “I hope Laura and Jenna Bush won’t be angry with me for dishing like this,” she writes. “But I use Taylor Swift as a model: If you don’t want her to write a song about you, don’t give her a reason.” Zing! But at Blanco, Ms. McCain excused the Bush diss: “I think that it was a long eight years for them,” she said. “They’re not ill-intentioned.” After two fawning quotes saying that she could (totally!) pull off a “Meghan McCain Show” on politics, Schillinger gushed about “the book’s other juicy secrets,” such as (gasp) campaign sex: There was the crazy sex among overworked “drones and journalists” blinded by “campaign goggles;” thefts of Mitt Romney signs by misbehaving McCainBlogettes ; and even a Xanax mishap that left Ms. McCain “knocked out like a corpse” on a campaign plane (she gives a “special shout-out” to Cynthia McFadden of ABC, “for not putting it on ‘Nightline’ “). Schillinger doesn’t spell out that it was McCain herself that stole the Romney campaign signs. For Ms. McCain, the political is inextricable from the personal. And whether she would like to see it this way or not, her father’s presidential loss also marked a new beginning for her. Since her book’s release last week, she has appeared on “The View,” “The Rachel Maddow Show,” “Fox & Friends” and “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno.” “It was liberating to be able to tell my side of the story,” she told me in Scottsdale. But the new story she’s narrating is her own; she’s the front-runner in a race whose goal is still unknown, but whose progress is visible. Red State blogger Leon Wolf had some harsh but hilarious criticism of McCain and her book. Here’s some of the milder stuff. When I finished reading Dirty, Sexy Politics, I flipped to the acknowledgements section to find the name of the person who edited this travesty, so as to warn incompetent authors of the future away from utilizing this person’s services, but no such person was identified therein. Either this book had no editor, or the editor assigned to the original manuscript threw up his or her hands three pages in and decided to let the original stand as some sort of bizarre performance art, like Joaquin Phoenix’s appearance on Late Night with David Letterman. …. Meghan’s primary goal in writing Dirty, Sexy Politics appears to have been to show off her encyclopedic knowledge of who was wearing what clothes on what occasion. From all appearances, it is physically impossible for Meghan McCain to describe a given scene or occurrence without describing in detail what everyone in the room was wearing (and how their hair was done), most especially including herself. I stopped counting the number of times she informed me that she was wearing UGG boots on a given occasion at five. Dirty, Sexy Politics is 194 pages long; if you removed the descriptions of outfits and hairstyles so-and-so wore when such-and-such was going on, I doubt it would have scraped 120 pages.

View original post here:
The NY Times Splashes in the Shallow End with Meghan McCain, Brave Republican Rebel, Ugg Boot Wearer

Nostalgia Junkies Rejoice: Martin Scorsese May Cast Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino in a Mob Film

You’ve been praying for it ever since Gangs of New York and now maybe, just maybe, your prayers will be answered. Joe Pesci and Al Pacino are potentially joining Robert De Niro in a mob drama that Martin Scorsese developed with De Niro. The film will be titled The Irishman and based on the book I Heard You Paint Houses , which chronicles the messy life of hitman Frank “The Irishman” Sheeran.

Visit link:
Nostalgia Junkies Rejoice: Martin Scorsese May Cast Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino in a Mob Film

Nicki Minaj Calls Drake Twitter Marriage ‘Mischievous’

‘Drake is just my little brother, and I kid with him all the time,’ Minaj says. By Shaheem Reid Drake and Nicki Minaj Photo: Getty Images Nicki Minaj promises there were no “Drickis” born in the 24 hours she and Drake were “married.” This past weekend, Nick called into Atlanta’s Hot 107.9 and spoke to DJ Drama about a myriad of topics, including her recent Twitter marriage to (and divorce from ) her fellow Young Money rapper. “Drake is just my little brother, and I kid with him all the time,” said Nicki, who will be performing at this year’s VMA pre-show . “We were just being crazy. I think we were a little bit bored. There’s really never a dull moment. I wouldn’t say we were bored; I would say we were being mischievous. “I was doing an interview, and every day, I see some things written about me that aren’t true,” she added. “I wanted to give the blogs a bit of payback and put my own story out.” When asked if she were still single, Nicki coyly answered, “I’m always single. I don’t date boys. I don’t like boys. It’s true. I don’t change. I think boys are yucky, and that’s it. Nothing more to say.” When it comes to the kings of hip-hop, however, Minaj had plenty to say — especially when she’s on a track with them. Nicki recently appeared on the Kanye West/ Jay-Z collaboration “Monster,” which also guest-stars Rick Ross and Bon Iver. Minaj has gained a swell of support from fans who say she has the song’s show-stealing verse. “I’ve just been blessed to be on a song with two living legends. In my book, Jay and Kanye are icons, and I never in a billion years would have thought I would be on a song with one of them, let alone both of them,” she said. “I’m happy people think I murdered the record. It just feels exciting to be a part of that collab. Seriously.” Nicki also revealed that she has moved to Los Angeles and is still hard at work on her debut LP, Pink Friday. That means no days off — even on Labor Day. “I know a lot is riding on this album,” she said. “I wanna make everybody proud. There are some people that are rooting for me out there. I wanna go in.” What did you think of Nicki and Drake’s Twitter “marriage”? Let us know in the comments! Related Artists Nicki Minaj Drake

Visit link:
Nicki Minaj Calls Drake Twitter Marriage ‘Mischievous’

Nikki Sixx — It’s ‘Hard’ to See Kat with Jesse James

Filed under: Nikki Sixx , Kat Von D , Jesse James , Break-ups Before Kat Von D began dating Jesse James — she was in a relationship with M

‘Exorcist’ Author to Warner Bros: You Crossed Me

Filed under: William Peter Blatty , Celebrity Justice The guy who authored ” The Exorcist ” claims … when it comes to accounting for profits, Warner Bros. has a devil-may-care attitude … this according to a lawsuit obtained by TMZ. William Peter Blatty — who wrote the book and wrote the screenplay for… Read more

See the rest here:
‘Exorcist’ Author to Warner Bros: You Crossed Me

Democrats Imply a Publisher Promoting Republican Books Could Be Illegal

Over at stopnetregulation.org , Seton Motley reports that if the Democrats can’t ban books, they’ll try to ban book promotion. Democrats are furious that the conservative Threshhold imprint of Simon & Schuster (a corporate cousin of CBS) published a book by three House Republicans titled “Young Guns,” and included a promotional video:    That was too much free speech for the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which lawyered up and sent the publishing house an ominous letter intimating it may be in violation of several campaign finance laws – claiming the video was an in-kind contribution to Republicans. This despite the fact that… Corporations are permitted to make independent expenditures with no coordination with candidates… Or the simple possibility that Simon & Schuster has printed tens of thousands of copies and would now like to, you know, sell them. The DCCC’s attorneys suggest it’s improper for a corporation to host a video on its website that in turn directs viewers to Rep. Eric Cantor’s ERIC-PAC website that solicits contributions for Republican candidates for Congress. But consider this: if Simon & Schuster really wanted this book to fly off the shelves, or Republicans to be helped, wouldn’t they offer a much more prominent video presentation — on a CBS property like 60 Minutes? It wouldn’t be the first time. (They put Simon & Schuster-published  The Big Short by liberal author Michael Lewis in that promotional slot.) Seton continued: Never ones to let the facts get in the way of a good beating…. The DCCC is looking for an “assurance” that the book will be promoted legally. This is chilling language and a chilling move coming from the Party that is (for now still) in control of Congress – what with their ability to hold “investigative” hearings and haul anyone they wish before them for intimidation purposes disguised as interrogative ones.  Not to mention a Democrat President with the keys to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and what is quickly becoming the most ideological and partisan Justice Department in our nation’s history.  It doesn’t occur to Democrats and liberals that they too can write a book and get it published and promoted – in just the same manner as have the Republicans?  You know, meet free speech with free speech. Apparently not.  Instead they seek to drop the censorship hammer.  Again.

Here is the original post:
Democrats Imply a Publisher Promoting Republican Books Could Be Illegal

Kanye West Apologizes To Taylor Swift For 2009 VMA Interruption

‘I’m sorry, Taylor,’ West wrote on Twitter Saturday morning. By Paul Cantor Kanye West and Taylor Swift at the 2009 Video Music Awards Photo: Jeff Kravitz/ FilmMagic Kanye West took to his Twitter account Saturday morning (September 4) to readdress the 2009 Video Music Awards , when he fatefully interrupted Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech . “I’m sorry, Taylor,” he wrote. “We’re both artists, and the media and managers are trying to get between us. She deserves the apology more than anyone. Thank you [Twitter co-founders] Biz Stone and Evan Williams for creating a platform where we can communicate directly.” Expounding on the backlash he received, he wrote, “If you Google a–hole my face may very well pop up 2 pages into the search. … There are people who don’t dislike me … they absolutely hate me. People tweeted that they wish I was dead … No listen. They wanted me to die, people. I carry that.” Kanye went on to say that the media vilified him. He alluded to his claim during a 2005 NBC telethon for Hurricane Katrina that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” as a point for which the media was looking to pay him back. He noted that in the VMA aftermath, the media played the race card and turned it into an angry black man versus innocent white girl issue. “Even though the NBC telethon was widely praised y’all didn’t think they was just gone let me get away with that did y’all???!!!” he questioned, rhetorically. “The media has successfully diminished the ‘receptive’ audience of… KANYE WEST. …taking a 15 second blip the media have successfully painted the image of the ‘ANGRY BLACK MAN.’ The King Kong theory. With the help of strong will, a lack of empathy, a lil alcohol and extremely distasteful & bad timing … I became George Bush over night.” Kanye also said that he had a song he’d written for Taylor. Should she not be receptive to that idea, he said he’d perform it for her. “She had nothing to do with my issues with award shows,” he wrote. “She had no idea what hit her. She’s justa lil girl with dreams like the rest of us. Beyonc

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld Rip Richard Engel’s Silly Saddam Remarks

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld had some fun Thursday evening bashing NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel for absurd comments he made on the “Today” show this week. As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, Engel that morning told NBC’s Ann Curry: If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation. On Thursday’s “O’Reilly Factor,” substitute host Ingraham and guest Gutfeld had a field day with what the former labeled “The Dumbest Things of the Week” (video follows with transcript and commentary): LAURA INGRAHAM: In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight, “The Dumbest Things of the Week.” Is NBC News making excuses for Saddam Hussein? Regardless of your thoughts on Iraq, one thing most people agree on is that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But some are wondering if NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engle, doesn’t miss the good old days when Saddam was still around. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD ENGLE, NBC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: If there had been no invasion, Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the — into — by a lot of European countries. He was being welcomed in Eastern Europe, in particular. He was heading in a direction of accommodation. The sanctions regime that was holding him in place was starting to fail. So, I think it would be somewhat of a basket case, but it would be — Iran would be a lot more contained. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Joining us now from New York is Greg Gutfeld, host of “Red Eye” and the author of “The Bible of Unspeakable Truths.” So Greg, as far as I can tell, Saddam was on the verge of having his own reality show. GREG GUTFELD, HOST, “RED EYE”: I mean, you have to figure out he said he would be more moderate. You have to ask him, what does he mean by moderate? Was he talking about alcohol intake? Was he going to cut back on his booze? Or was he going to only gas half as many Kurds or tell his sons they could only rape women every other weekend? Pr maybe he was becoming more environmentally friendly and was going to use renewable car batteries when he electrocuted his citizens. So we need — we need to give specifics on what he meant by moderation. INGRAHAM: I think he was clearly going green, Greg. He was making inroads with Eastern Europe. I don’t know what countries in Eastern Europe? Poland? Old Czechoslovakia? What countries was he getting close to? I just don’t recall that. GUTFELD: He does have a point, though. He said that, if we didn’t have the war, Saddam would be more accommodating, which is true because you are more accommodating when you are not dead. It’s really hard to buy somebody dinner when you’re dead. So, in effect, he’s actually correct by accident. INGRAHAM: Well, Iran — Iran might not have been the problem it is today, but the idea that he — it was going to be Saddam the milquetoast if we didn’t invade. I just — I was desperately looking to follow that logic. But you know, when NBC is involved, Greg, all bets are off. All bets are off. GUTFELD: Yes. Can’t stomach victory. You’ve got a war that you’ve won. Enjoy it. INGRAHAM: Winning is not fun. We’re supposed to be America on our knees, begging for mercy all the time. You don’t understand that. We need to apologize, Greg. Get used to it. GUTFELD: I am. Believe me. I’m married. To give readers an idea just how absurd Engel’s comments were, even the liberal Mediaite found this segment to its liking. Now that’s saying something.

See the original post:
Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld Rip Richard Engel’s Silly Saddam Remarks