Rich Rounds Up Broadway and Sends It Off Against the War

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
  • Bookmark and Share


"Churchill mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." - Edward R. Murrow

Give Frank Rich credit for this: he doesn't run from his theater-critic past. Like a mirror-image Churchill, the man now paid by the New York Times to think great thoughts rather than to laugh till he cries mobilizes theater metaphors in his pay-per-view, anti-war opus of this morning, He’s in the Bunker Now.

Rich begins by informing us that President Bush has morphed from Harold Hill in "The Music Man" into Willy Loman from "Death of a Salesman." And we all know what that means.

Rich next employs his knowledge of stagecraft to criticize the set chosen for President Bush's speech this past week: "In the past, they made a fetish of situating their star in telegenic settings, from aircraft carriers to Ellis Island . . . But this time . . . Mr. Bush was banished to the White House library."

Wait a second. Isn't it guys like Rich who have been bashing Bush ever since he turned up on the deck of that ship to proclaim Mission Accomplished? But now that W has opted for more modest settings, that's bad, too? No good W deed goes unpunished -- so long as your starting point is implacable enmity for this president.

Next, Rich rips the president for taking some extra time in developing his new plan for Iraq. Rich goes so far as to count the additional military deaths since election day. Of course, this is another no-win situation. Had the president announced his plan shortly after election day, the Riches of the world would have accused the president of hastily slapping something together for political purposes. And since Rich believes that the plan will "hurl [additional troops] into the hell of Baghdad," by his own logic hasn't the delay actually saved lives?

Finally, the Times columnist lets the new Dem majority off the hook for abdicating any semblance of responsibility on Iraq. Declining to pin the tail on the Dem donkey, he observes that sticking up for their principles "would make them, rather than Mr. Bush, politically vulnerable to blame for losing Iraq."  You might read that as an indictment of Dem inaction, but Rich apparently takes it as a justification.

And so, with one final Broadway allusion, Rich claims: "I have long felt that it will be up to Mr. Bush’s own party to ring down the curtain on his failed policy." Isn't that convenient.

Mark was in Iraq in November. contact him at mark@gunhill.net

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Rich begins by informin

"Rich begins by informing us that President Bush has morphed from Harold Hill in "The Music Man" into Willy Loman from "Death of a Salesman." And we all know what that means."

It means Frank Rich is gay? Not that's there's anything wrong with that.

"In the past, they mad

"In the past, they made a fetish of situating their star in telegenic
settings, from aircraft carriers to Ellis Island . ."

And as we know, President Bush is the FIRST politician since 1776 to ever do that.

That's what makes it so newsworthy for Ritchie Rich to note.

And it's this laser like logic that makes Ritchie worth every cent the Times pays him.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

Of course there's no contra

deleted double-post

Of course there's no contra

Of course there's no contradiction in Rich's criticsm of opposite actions. His SOP is "automatic opposition to all things Bush.".

Wow, I didn't realize just ho

Wow, I didn't realize just how much I misunderstood this whole GWOT thing. Now that I've been made to see it from the perspective of Broadway.. well, shoot.. I've arrived!

Well, I've always said nobody

Well, I've always said nobody understands armed conflict like our brave men and woman of the stage...

The NYT

The NYT. It's a laughable, pseudo-intellectual rag. Perfect for the likes of this jackass, Rich.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

Bush bashing plays however

Bush bashing plays however jejeune in content are a staple of NY stage now and Rich really ought to wear a little black dress and Marlene Deitrich wig and do the theatre critic doyenne thing all the way. He looks like a sausage stuffed in that dark suit and his inner Lillian Hellman is raging to break out.

Former Theatre Critic Now NYT's Best Foreign Policy Expert

Well, it's nice to know where NYT is getting its foreign policy experts now: the theatre critics unemployment line. No, no, Frank Rich really makes a great foreign policy experty 'cause now he can use all those theatrical allusions to emphasize his criticism. My, that would get anybody else villified in the real world but in the MSM and the NYT that wouldn't be the case. Hey, Frankie Crankie, keep up the good work. You're sure to ensure the continuing, plumetting readership of the paper. We've never had a better weapon against the NYT; their own ignorance and arrogance.

The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer.  Air Force Motto

emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.

Why wasn't Rich part of the

Why wasn't Rich part of the Iraq Surrender Group? He seems more qualified to talk about ofreign policy and military than Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day O'Connor, he probably reviewed Miss Saigon so that makes him qualified.

Imagine all of the sassy banter around the table, and when Lawrence Eagleburger objected to Rich's antics he would be responded to with JAZZ HANDS!

"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby

I like your mind Mark, but you make a few errors here.

I like your mind Mark, but you make a few errors here (said with a <grin>).

First, you refer to Rich's 'logic'.  Bad.

Second, I don't know exactly what morphing into Willie Loman means, except Willie Loman was supposed to be some sort of iconic figure for the evils of capitalism and the failure of a dream.  If that is what morphing into means; I think Rich needs to see the play again.

Third, I believe that Rich is attempting to dull the knife of investment made by Democrats into losing.  They are so vested right now in the US losing this war, they will do anything to make sure we do.  And if Rich is just now figuring out the Petard by which the Democrats will be hung...

Hehehehe.

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.

Rich's goal is non-strategic

Rich's goal is non-strategic surrender.

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

Non-strategic Surrender- The

Non-strategic Surrender

- The Musical

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb