Careening from the accusatory to the adoring, there was only one constant in Ann Curry's interview of Benazir Bhutto aired on this morning's "Today": an over-the-top emotionalism that had the show's news anchor lurching from shouted accusations to the verge of tears.
Curry is in Pakistan this week, and scored an exclusive with Bhutto, whose triumphal return to the country where she has served as Prime Minister ended in tragedy as terrorist bombs on her motorcade route killed about 140 people. Curry began her interview by focusing on Bhutto's feelings of responsibility for those deaths. While the transcript is telling, only the video completely conveys Curry's mawkish meltdown.
View video here.
ANN CURRY: You have gone to the hospital. You've seen the wounded. You have sat with families who've lost. You've seen women crying, and show you their children who will not have fathers.
Bhutto said how hard that was and that there were really no words to lessen the families's grief. That wasn't enough for Curry.
CURRY: If you had not returned, these women would have their husbands, they would have their children. These 140 people [Curry's voice breaking] would be alive, these 500 people would not have been wounded. Do you regret coming back now, seeing what has happened? You knew it was going to happen.
BENAZIR BHUTTO: I knew an attempt would be made.
CURRY: So, you knew that people would be at risk!
BHUTTO: I knew that people would be at risk.
CURRY [shouting]: So was it worth that risk, given what has happened?
Bhutto thought it was, for the sake of Pakistani democracy.
CURRY: This was a very slow-moving motorcade, surrounded by millions of people. Did you make the right choice [pause for dramatic effect, then shouting again] TO COME BACK IN THIS WAY?
BHUTTO: Ann, I find this question very uncomfortable.
CURRY: Of course you do, it's a painful question.
BHUTTO: I'll tell you why. It means that terrorists can dictate the agenda.
A bit later, having virtually accused Bhutto of responsibility for the deaths of her supporters, Curry shifted effortlessly into near hero-worship.
CURRY: You're a mother of three. You could be living in London. Fine, you've already been Prime Minister. You [voice near-cracking again] don't have to do this. The torture of your husband, the death of your father. Lost two brothers. You've been in solitary confinement. Thrown in jail. After all of that, you have given enough. Why? [Shouting again] PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY!
"Given enough"? Some might say that Bhutto has taken enough. Although there was surely politics behind the charges of corruption leveled against her, have a look at the seemingly substantial record, including the apparent fact of her $1.5 billion in Swiss bank accounts.
In any case, is it too much to ask Ann to conduct a straight-up interview with a world leader, and save the schmaltz for her next schmooze-in about a pop tart's latest rehab stint?
Note: the day before Bhutto returned to Pakistan, Captain's Quarters presciently raised the threat of violence.
Bonus Coverage: It was a rough morning for NBC-MSNBC women who ventured into the sports world.
On "Morning Joe," host Joe Scarborough, a Red Sox fan, and panelist Willie Geist, a former sports reporter and producer at CNN, were discussing at length the Sox's ALCS-clinching victory over Cleveland last night. Mika Brzezinski, trying to establish her own sports bona fides, proudly announced that she had watched Temple beat "Miami" in football. Upon questioning, it became clear that she didn't realize that Temple's opponent was Miami of Ohio, not the former national-champion Hurricanes. For that matter, it appeared that Mika was unaware of the very existence of Miami of Ohio. The screencap shows the moment in which a perplexed Mika shouted "what?" as Willie and Joe laid the news on her.
View video here.
Later, on "Today," Massachusetts native Meredith Vieira triumphantly proclaimed that the Red Sox had won "the World Series." When Matt Lauer began to protest, "no, no, no, let's not get ahead of ourselves," Vieira corrected herself, saying the Sox had won "the playoffs."
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
}}---> OMG Curry's a hateful pig
October 22, 2007 - 09:03 ET by Cool ArrowYou'd think she was interviewing Eric Rudolph rather than a Pakistani patriot.
She must equally hate Dr. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Shouldn't she condemn Abraham Lincoln for not allowing secession?
I'm lost here. Why does Curry think standing up for what's right is so wrong?
I love the part where she
October 22, 2007 - 09:19 ET by motherbeltWhy does Curry think standing up for what's right is so wrong?
Because she doesn't understand right and wrong, or love of one's country.
I love the part where she says Bhutto could be living peacefully in London...she's already been Prime Minister...why did she have to come back.
So now it's her fault that people have died.
Curry is visibly angry, even though she tries to modulate her voice. In her view, Bhutto should have just stayed in London and shut up.
}}---> Curry's foolishness
October 22, 2007 - 09:27 ET by Cool ArrowCurry evidently doesn't understand the concept of loving one's country. Hard to restrain myself from all the blessings I wish for her.
Of course you do, it's a
October 22, 2007 - 09:41 ET by motherbeltOf course you do, it's a painful question!! (I intended it to be!)
I think at that point, Curry realized she was screwing up, so she tried to change her tack, and act like Bhutto had already given so much, (Husband, father, brothers,solitary confinement) why would she subject herself to this?? "People don't understand why," you would give up the good life to go back to Pakistan. Bhutto had already answered the question before it was asked "Because then the terrorists set the agenda." But Curry wasn't having any of that.
No, Ann, what people don't understand is how you can look yourself in the mirror after that travest of an "interview."
Nah, Ann couldn't figure
October 22, 2007 - 12:14 ET by dscottNah, Ann couldn't figure out whom the victim was: Bhutto, the people who died or the terrorists doing the bombing. You see all of them are victims of one sort or another. Bhutto was a "victim" of the coup (who ended up to be a US ally) and her family's deaths; the supporters were obious victims, they died; and the terrorists are victims since they claim they are fighting against oppression of the US (the government of Pakistan being the ally of the US).
Liberalism is about victimhood, and liberals have to appear to be the good guys. Any way you slice it Ann in her mind is the good guy, her trouble was indentifying the so called responsible party. Ann you should have checked with the DU or DailyKos for guidance in these matters.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
mb -
October 22, 2007 - 10:00 ET by drillanwrGood a.m.!
I love the part where she says Bhutto could be living peacefully in London...she's already been Prime Minister...why did she have to come back.
Um, Annie, couldn't the same pretty much be said for former co-prez Hillary Clinton?
ROFLMAO!!
October 22, 2007 - 11:28 ET by motherbeltROFLMAO!!
Moral Equivocators
October 22, 2007 - 12:05 ET by allanfDon't you guys get it.
Moral equivocators don't understand the difference between right a wrong. All sides are right. All sides are wrong. So there is nothing worth fighting for.
Why? Because...
October 22, 2007 - 12:18 ET by BritcomWhy? Because Ms. Curry is apparently of the opinion that retreat is always the best option, of course, she has not thought that one through far enough to understand that there is a limited amount of real estate on the Earth and that if you let the enemy take Poland and Czechoslovakia, he will soon want England, France and Russia, and after that it's too late to stop him from taking everything that's left.
Nut job
October 22, 2007 - 22:35 ET by celatorCurry's basically a nut job. Dumb as a stick.
Idiot
October 22, 2007 - 09:03 ET by derbalWho does Ann think she is? She's just digging and getting angry. If I were Bhutto, I would have slapped that sassy mouth of hers.
What a pompous jerk!
October 22, 2007 - 09:18 ET by BourbeauIf I were the head of NBC News, her ass would be on a plane back to the US for two months in media rehab to get her emotions under control.
I would freeze her accounts
October 22, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Clear thinkerI would freeze her accounts and cancel her plane ticket so she could not get back to the USA and let her live in Pakistan for awhile. I'm sure they would love to have her..... at the end of a pike!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
off the scale stupidity
October 22, 2007 - 09:17 ET by jondelwicheYes, don't live one's life because of how the evil people might react?
Is not that what the bad guys, throughout history, have wanted?
Here, I thought the bombers were too blame......
Silly me
Typical NBC Reporting
October 22, 2007 - 09:22 ET by tbbaxterLeave it to Ann Curry to blame former Prime Minister Bhutto for the attacks and resulting carnage in Pakistan and not the terrorists who carried out the senseless acts. Her accusatory and disrespectful tone toward Ms.Bhutto glaringly shows why NBC's ratings, as well as their ethics, are in the cellar. As for Ms. Curry, she couldn't dig far enough down to find remnants of her false humanity and journalistic credibility.
Turkey and Bhutto
October 22, 2007 - 09:43 ET by Intellectual HonestyWhile I will admit I do not know much about possible fraud during her term as prime minister I can't help but notice that Ann is quite comfortable of essentially pinning the blame for the 140+ deaths on Bhutto and her choice of return but when it comes to the Armenian-Turkey Resolution that is clearly timed by the Democrats to attempt to turn a key ally (imperfect as they are) against us and disrupt the shipping routes of a vast majority of supplies to reach our soldiers, she and her ilk are silent.
Democrat's Support Of The Military: "Invincible In Peace-Invisible In War"
Smack the Turks
October 22, 2007 - 11:52 ET by BritcomApparrently what the Dems lack in their legislative ability to stop the war can be made up for by using old fashioned treason.
Who the hell does Ann think
October 22, 2007 - 09:46 ET by well99Who the hell does Ann think she is.She isnt a journalist that for sure.
I Can't Decide
October 22, 2007 - 09:56 ET by DunqueIf this is offensively laughable or laughably offensive. First off, there is no doubt Ms. Curry and her ilk have been highly critical and skeptical regarding the Musharaaf presidency. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too.
But let's think about Ann Curry through history;
"Mrs. Lincoln, wasn't it irresponsible of you to secure a box at Ford's Theater into which anyone could walk?"
"Mrs. Kennedy, why didn't you tell the motorcade to travel faster through the streets of Dallas?"
The outright stupidity of her remarks is, well, remarkable. I am just about at a loss for words in thinking this woman and her ilk have access to the national airwaves with this type of "journalism." Absolutely amazing.
Curry
October 22, 2007 - 10:59 ET by iveseenitallCurry---just another "liberal" who can't condemn evil. "Pacify the bully, cower in front of him," that's the "liberal's" stand. Coming back when she could have remained safe in England was a courageous act on the woman's part. Curry doesn't understand that either. She also doesn't understand history. Check out what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence who gave up their comfortable lives for the greater good or the hundreds of thousands who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Would this ignorant woman, Curry, "blame " them too? What a pack of nasty, ignorant a-holes "liberals" are.
P.S. Aren't these "journaists" the same ignoramuses who claim America is so "disliked" around the world? They need a good,long look in the mirror. Scheeze.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The Price
October 22, 2007 - 11:28 ET by BritcomFYI Ms. Curry, Freedom is never "Free", it's price is paid with the blood of patriots. If you don't like that bargan, then you are a woman without a country and you best be on your way.
Remember that nut case on
October 22, 2007 - 10:10 ET by misterbee241Remember that nut case on youtube a couple of weeks ago, going into full meltdown over Britany Spears? That's how I see that airhead Ann Curry.
I really don't know what
October 22, 2007 - 10:55 ET by drillanwrI really don't know what Ann is auditioning for ... Obviously NBC didn't think highly enough of her to nudge her over to Couric's seat when Katie left.
In addition, this is one of the more blatant exhibitions of unprofessional journalism/reporting. Credibility is completely absent.
Secondly, just because Ann Curry thinks she should just let rabid dogs lie in a huge part of the world crucial to the worldwide WOT, doesn't mean people who actually are committed to that war are going to do what poor Annie wants, just so Annie doesn't have to feel uncomfortable at terrorist attacks against this woman's return.
Curry, YOU are NOT, nor will you ever be, educated near enough to understand the complexities of that part of the world. Exactly where do YOU get off cross-examining this woman who might very well be a force in calming that region?
And for the record, Annie, the TERRORISTS killed those poor people ... Not this woman.
Ann Curry, your selective smug indignation smells of so much swill spewed from the bowels of a dead and decaying shark ...
Get the drive bys too far
October 22, 2007 - 10:12 ET by jdhawkGet the drive bys too far from the script or the teleprompter and it becomes clear that they are incontinent - to themselves!
What the MSM/Left doesn't get
October 22, 2007 - 10:38 ET by mattm"It means that terrorists can dictate the agenda"
This is what the Left doesn't get. They go out of their way to blame true liberals (in the sense of Liberty/Democracy) like Bhutto for the crimes of others.
They fail to realize that, other than the actual perpetrators of the crimes, those who enable and allow the terrorists to dictate the agenda, are equally guilty...yet they point the finger at those who stand against the terrorists.
There are only two conclusions you can draw from this: Libs are ignorant fools, or they are complicit with the terrorists...in either case, they need to be defeated as much as the terrorists do.
Exactly mattm
October 22, 2007 - 10:53 ET by Cool ArrowShe could make her same hate argument against the ATF for daring to put their offices in the same Oklahoma City building as a Day Care center.
Her logic is pathetic.
Opposing Evil
October 22, 2007 - 11:04 ET by BritcomBecause liberals don't accept the existance of evil, they find it impossible to comprehend why anyone would want to "upset" those poor misunderstood and obviously already emotionaly distraught "militants" by opposing and hopefully killing them.
Bhutto's answers
October 22, 2007 - 10:46 ET by BritcomAnn Curry's attempt to blame Bhutto for the deaths of the terror victims shows clearly that Curry has great difficulty in forming a rational thought on the subject of terrorism.
Unlike Curry's breathless questions, Bhutto's answers are frank and inteligent.
This was hard to find, but the entire video can be seen here >>
I just watched the video.
October 22, 2007 - 15:52 ET by motherbeltI just watched the video. Part of it that we didn't see here was when Curry ask her was it worth that risk, seeing what has happened? And Bhutto answers that the people who came to see her took that risk. They knew there was a risk and they took it.
And later she says she had the option of staying silent, or of coming back and saying "this is wrong." She chose the latter. She wanted to try to save her country.
It's plain to see, Curry would have chosen the former.
Moral relativism
October 22, 2007 - 10:51 ET by KC MulvilleYour inability to prevent violence does not make you an accessory to the violence, especially when the terrorist strategically limits your ability to respond. When the kidnapper points the gun at the innocent and says, “the blood is on your hands” ... he’s wrong. The blood is on his own hands. It perverts morality, and subverts reason, to accept the terms of the terrorist.
The underlying perversion here is moral relativism. It shows up in two ways:
Well said
October 22, 2007 - 11:09 ET by Britcom-
KCM -
October 22, 2007 - 11:13 ET by drillanwrYour inability to prevent violence does not make you an accessory to the violence, especially when the terrorist strategically limits your ability to respond.
Gee, that kinda makes the whole 9-11 Commission, shall we say, null and void?
One could almost replace violence with death/destruction, and terrorist with in the bull's eye of a Cat 3-5 Hurricane of the century.
Understood
October 22, 2007 - 11:31 ET by KC MulvilleIt's all in the attitude. Terrorism is a game where there is no second place. It's essentially a chicken game, which means you have to beat them to the punch. Obviously, you avoid situations that the terrorists can exploit, and that means playing offense, not defense. Remember the famous quote of the Civil War general, asked about his strategy: "get there the firstest, with the mostest."
And, in my opinion, that's why you can't treat terrorism as a crime to be investigated. You can't wait for it to happen first. Once the terrorist puts the gun to the head of the hostage, you can't expect anything but bad things to happen. The trick is to prevent the terrorist from capturing the hostage in the first place. The war on terrorism has to be fought aggressively.
And frankly, it makes me laugh when liberals howl that we can't risk any form of surveillance because it might expose their library choices. Jeez. "Do I want investigators to know what books I check out at the library?!?" Well, I don't really care ... after all, if the book is embarrassing, what's it doing in the public library in the first place? But I quibble ...
KCM -
October 22, 2007 - 11:35 ET by drillanwrNot to be misunderstood (or misunderestimated ... heh-heh), I completely agree with both your above posts. Could not help but make the sarc-ick connection, though ... ;^ ))
No worries ...
October 22, 2007 - 12:03 ET by KC MulvilleYeah I caught you. But I think when you mentioned the 9-11 Commission, it fired a synapse somewhere.
We can't have that happening too often, right?
Negotiation
October 22, 2007 - 11:40 ET by BritcomDid we need a Pearl Harbor Commission? I don't guess we did.
On the other hand, we could have let the Japanese over run Hawaii, and then California, Oregon, and Washington State. I am sure we would have been able to negotiate a cease fire line at the Mississippi river. Well, I am pretty sure.
Though he’s immoral
October 22, 2007 - 11:42 ET by motherbeltThough he’s immoral himself, a terrorist can’t succeed unless his
opponents remain moral. His method is to exploit your morality and use
it against you. Ironically, he needs you to remain moral to enable his
own violence.
Well said, KC.
I had a similar discussion with my daughter a while ago regarding Mahatma Ghandi's "non-violent resistance". I told her that type of resisitance only works against a government that has morals. That an immoral government, rather than giving in to their demands. would have had no problem continuing to kill all the protestors until there were none left.
Gandhi agreed with you
October 22, 2007 - 12:11 ET by KC MulvilleI have read some of Gandhi's writing, and while I'm no expert, I seem to recall Gandhi saying that himself. Non-violence as a strategy also depends on the conscience of the opponent. It is an act of respect for your adversary, in that you're appealing to his own moral character. Had he no character, non-violence wouldn't work as a strategy. (Of course, you may want to pursue non-violence for other reasons, whether it succeeds strategically or not. Gandhi believed that violence itself corrupted the person, never mind whether it could be used to advantage. Strategy was just a bonus.)
}}---> Gandhi
October 22, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Cool ArrowThe Dalai Lama would agree too.
He better stay in exile, or Ann Curry will curse him for his convictions
Curse YOU for your
October 22, 2007 - 12:19 ET by Jack BauerFear the Curry
October 22, 2007 - 12:25 ET by KC MulvilleYeah, come to think of it ... it must have really scared Ann Curry when the Dalai Lama showed up in Washington and actually agreed to be in the same room with George Bush. I forgot about that! I can see her sitting across from the Dalai Lama, with that pained expression on her face ... "How could you?!"
Curry
October 22, 2007 - 11:00 ET by Fred GregoryWhat a jerk. Really. Bhutto should have taken off her head scarf and stuffed it in Ann's vile mouth and then walked out of the interview
And on to the bonus Mika coverage...
October 22, 2007 - 11:45 ET by motherbeltMika's a ditz. Tell me she didn't get this gig because of her name, and the fact that they had to have a woman across from Joe...yeah, right.
This was a perfect example of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...it was like a little kid saying "I watched football TOO, this weekend. So there!"
I'll bet she has no idea where Temple is, either.
Pathetic.
"I'll bet she has no idea
October 22, 2007 - 12:10 ET by Chris Norman"I'll bet she has no idea where Temple is, either."
And Mika probably thinks it's a Jewish college... :)
And Mika probably thinks
October 22, 2007 - 15:34 ET by motherbeltAnd Mika probably thinks it's a Jewish college... :)
I thought of that too...I almost said she probably thinks Temple U. is in Jerusalem.
Boy, it's been a while since
October 22, 2007 - 12:14 ET by BritcomBoy, it's been a while since anyone got the full shredding here.
"Some say....."
October 22, 2007 - 12:25 ET by imau2fanOnce, just once, I'd like to see someone call an agenda-driven "journalist" to task when they use the "some say" smoke screen to slide in their own personal views. For example.......
HELEN THOMAS: "Some say the surge isn't working......"
BUSH: "'Some say', or do you say, Helen?"
Tony Snow: Now you are
October 22, 2007 - 12:31 ET by dscottTony Snow: Now you are just Hectoring
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
ANOTHER ONE
October 22, 2007 - 14:23 ET by drillanwrI hear this waaay over-used by the best of the lib-media-felines (Couric, Curry, Sawyer, Oprah ...):
"And so, ..."
egads!
October 22, 2007 - 12:42 ET by ammo johnCan you imagine having Curry as a neighbor? She'd have your kids crying everyday!
Bhutto should have socked Curry.
October 22, 2007 - 13:21 ET by Six String SpiffThe way Ann Curry acted was
BEYOND reprehensible. Imagine, screaming at someone for ‘daring’ to return to
THEIR COUNTRY. The terrorists would have killed all of those innocent people
regardless. That's what they DO. You submit or die. Hmmm that sounds
very familiar. Oh that’s right. That’s what ISLAM means. It is people like Ann
Curry and the rest of her MSM ilk that need a HUGE wake up call. These people
should never be allowed to hold positions that influence public thought and
opinion. I have held this sentiment for a while. I was following the story
about Bhutto and asked myself when the terrorists would show up. I got my
answer and made me sick to my stomach to be able anticipate the actions of such
sub human debris murderers. Ann Curry, you should be fired. Hell, you should be
brought to Packistan and see just why these people are trying to fight and make
a stand. Or would that interrupt you Starbucks break? Shame on you.
Something wrong with preview versus posting.... doesn't look the same. oh well. Looks stupid
SSS, Tell us how you really
October 22, 2007 - 15:08 ET by dscottSSS, Tell us how you really feel...
Only the public can exercise the ultimate control on Ann Curry, the network producers and executives that allowed the piece to aire much less the style of reporting. The market place will judge accordingly as the ratings continue to fall. Sooner or later the advertisers will pull the plug on shows like this when it doesn't reach core market demographics they trying to reach. However, in this day of niche marketing demographics, there are some products that appeal to the group of people who actually watch this tripe. Possibly the pinot noir crowd, they've got money which makes up for numbers. In some circles tripe is a delicacy.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
The way Ann Curry acted
October 22, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Six String SpiffSpeaking of the "Ugly American" [Ann Curry]
October 22, 2007 - 18:24 ET by Gary HallSpeaking of the "Ugly American" [Ann Curry].
Two thoughts;
1. No wonder they hate us.
2. Imagine the power of the press, if Ann Curry and all of her clones out there, would put such emotion into the interviews they conduct with the foreign tyrants and leaders and supporters of terror groups:
"Mr. ________. How can you do this; teach these children to call other people names like pigs and infadels. How can you call on children and young people to strap explosives on and send them to kill and injure and disfigure innocent civilians (men, women and children). Your Excellency (Insert your favorite Iranian, Syrian, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Latin American leader's name here etc.). We know that you provide the moral support and the financial support for these terror groups. You are responsible for the horrific deaths of hundreds, thousands of innocent people. You spread hate and distrust and poverty around the world. If you would stop this insanity, these women would have their husbands, they would have their children. These 140 people [Curry's voice breaking] would be alive, these 500 people would not have been wounded. Do you regret sending them out to do this carnage? You knew it was going to happen. How can you live with youself?
I'm going to be sick.
Ann Curry...
October 22, 2007 - 19:19 ET by m4ster chiefYou wrote:
[voice near-cracking again]...
I don't, uh...hmmm...suppose, uh, Bill Clinton is in Pakistan right now, is he?
Just wondering...
If I was consulting any
October 23, 2007 - 00:06 ET by FairlightIf I was consulting any non-liberal I would recommend to decline any and all dialogue with ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, AP, REUTERS, PBS, NPR and BBC.
It is truly an enter at your own risk situation.
Corrupt or not, Benazir
October 23, 2007 - 00:13 ET by maggieqpublicCorrupt or not, Benazir Bhutto is a scholar and a former/current head-of-state. Is this really the best NBC can do for an interview? Embarrassing....
She is also one gutsy lady
October 23, 2007 - 05:32 ET by Jack BauerShe is also one gutsy lady who has put her own personal safety in the hands of the very people who are quite likely plotting to kill her.
I doubt that she can survive the next few months if she remains in that insane country.
Woe to you, scribes...,
October 23, 2007 - 04:57 ET by BritcomWoe to you, scribes..., hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead mens bones and every impurity. In the same way, on the outside you seem righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
- Matthew 23:27-28 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Liberal Journalism 101
October 23, 2007 - 12:03 ET by Bighead227Ann Curry you are such a coward. What a great comment by Mrs. Bhutto who asks of Curry if she thought the "terrorists could dictate the agenda." "WHY?! People don't understand why?" translates "Why? I don't understand why??!!??? I thought you were fine where you were, I didn't think you should have returned and now all these people are dead.
Ann, is your solution to the possibility of a future 9/11 that we all just stop using airplanes?