Video update below- 11:52 EST:
“Entertainment Weekly's” online site, EW.com, is usually politics-free, but not this week. Who would have thought that EW's “Lost” blogger could inject a little Bush Derangement Syndrome into a review of the show's May 23 season finale? Somehow, writer Jeff Jensen managed to find a way (spoilers ahead).
In case you aren’t a “Lost” viewer, here’s what you need to know to help explain this article about the show's season closer entitled “Through The Looking Glass.” Ben, the leader of the Others, intercepted the retreating Losties to negotiate with their leader Jack. Three Losties stayed behind to attack the Others’ but were taken hostage in the process. Ben threatened to have them killed by their captors if Jack didn’t follow his demands. So, now that the scene is set up, here is the BDS in full glory (emphasis mine):
When Ben caught up with the castaways, he and Jack retreated to a quiet place for a superpower summit that played out like some Art of War scenario from hell. What came out of Ben's mouth was either a torrent of lies or some serious foreshadowing of next season's central conflict. He alleged that Naomi was not the woman she said she was but rather a representative of a group of people who've been trying to find the Island for a very long time, presumably for nefarious, exploitive reasons. These people, he claimed, were ''the bad guys,'' and bringing them to the Island would be very, very, very bad — for the Others, for the Castaways, and especially for the Island. Ben's deal: Naomi's satellite phone in exchange for Jin, Bernard, and Sayid, who could be heard yelling, ''Don't negotiate with terrorists!'' over the walkie-talkie as Ben laid out his proposal. Jack did the Bushy thing and refused. Ben ordered that the hostages be killed. Bang! Bang! Bang! Jack responded by beating Ben into a bloody pulp, an act of violence as terrifying as it was cathartic. Boy, did Ben deserve it. And boy, do I worry about the rage in Jack's heart, especially when he followed it up by swearing War on Terror vengeance on all the Others. His ultimate dream: humiliating Ben by making him watch as the castaways get rescued — then killing him. Heavy stuff. I wonder: Did George Bush have these kinds of daydreams about Saddam Hussein?
Actually, after seeing some of the footage used as testimony against Saddam in his trial, shouldn’t the question be, “Who didn’t have these kinds of daydreams?” Of course, that wouldn’t let the Lefties have a self-satisfied communal smirk while reading this.
In a way, Jensen made an appropriate comparison of the Others to terrorists and Saddam. All have lied on a regular basis and have played tricks to get what they want (plus Saddam and the Others have a fondness for gassing to death entire villages). Now all of the sudden, Jack/Bush is just supposed to believe them? Well, since it is TV, of course. Unfortunately, it isn’t so easy in the real world, which is a reason why Bush tends not to publically negotiate with terrorists.
It also is interesting that Jensen criticized Jack (and Bush) for not negotiating, but it turned out that the terrorists were lying about their threat (surprise!) and just faked killing the hostages this time. If only the real terrorists were liars as well, but the dead soldiers and contractors who are tortured and then dumped like old tires indicate otherwise.
Entertainment websites are often a refuge from politics, but annoying and pointless politicizations on those like EW.com just make me wonder if they understand that their audience includes more than Blue Staters and Ron Paul.
*If you want to read a current article on EW.com concerning someone who doesn’t trivialize the War on Terror, read this Q&A with “Batman: The Dark Knight,” “Sin City” and “300” writer Frank Miller, whose opinion about the “spoiled brats” in America who refuse to acknowledge the threat from Islamists was featured here at LGF in January 2007. Listen to it all.
Update: YouTube video of the awesome Jack/ Ben smackdown. It explains a little more.
(hat tip to the very funny Jim Treacher at The Daily Gut)
To submit tips or just complain, contact Lynn at: tvisgoodforyou2 AT yahoo DOT com
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's a huge stretch for the
May 25, 2007 - 12:03 ET by balboaIt's a huge stretch for the EW writer to incorporate Bush into his article, and not needed.
BTW, HOW AWESOME was the LOST finale?
I gave up on LOST after the s
May 25, 2007 - 12:07 ET by SouthJersey1953I gave up on LOST after the second episode.....Good grief, a plane crashes on an island but new characters show up every week. Give me a break!
No RINOs in '08 - Vote for a true conservative!
So did I
May 25, 2007 - 12:10 ET by RJSo did I. It was pretty obvious that we were looking at a soap opera format, with characters coming in and out and strained plotting.
Wow you guys are missing so
May 25, 2007 - 12:30 ET by balboaWow you guys are missing some great TV. Can't you suspend your sense of disbelief a little?
Right on! That was excelle
May 25, 2007 - 12:42 ET by The Wicked ConservativeRight on! That was excellent. This season started slow but after coming back from the break it was excellent. Good wrap up and what a twist with the whole future action instead of the flashbacks.
As far as politics go fo crying out loud could we let it go for one good hour a week? Who knew every week Balboa and I were sharing that same hour of tv excellence. Maybe we're not so different after all. </wipes away a gentle tear>
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
A weird cliff-hanger every week
May 25, 2007 - 12:51 ET by RJWell, I looked in a few months later and got the same impression I had at the beginning. A weird cliff-hanger most every week.
Sorry. The series sports too much deus ex machina for me ("any inexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event suddenly introduced to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.")
And that pretty much sums up "Lost." ;^>
RJ - I'm sure it did seem l
May 25, 2007 - 13:16 ET by Dee BunkRJ - I'm sure it did seem like that because they had no idea how long the show would run and it's hard to deal with that. Now that there is an official end (three more seasons) the writers know what they have to work with.
I still think they did a great job with it. You are not really supposed to be able to figure it out. If you could it wouldn't be so fun. It's meant to have more than one way it could go and it makes for a lot of good discussion. I think season 3 is going to be phenomenal.
"not supposed to be able to figure it out"
May 25, 2007 - 13:30 ET by RJ"not supposed to be able to figure it out"
Well, Dee, you may have put your finger on my problem with the show. I like mystery, and even good plot twists, but I'm too logically oriented. I need my stories to hang together as they go along. I can understand how some people see all the unlikely machinations as "fun", but it just doesn't work for me. ;^>
So you probably didn't like
May 25, 2007 - 13:37 ET by balboaSo you probably didn't like the X-Files, either, a show I actually didn't watch until I think the last season.
What are your favs?
X Files hung together better than Lost
May 25, 2007 - 13:51 ET by RJI did like X Files, which I think hung together better than Lost. It also took itself less seriously. You could have fun with it, but that's not something Lost offers.
The acting in Lost does seem pretty decent, I just don't care for the constant cliff hangers and out of the blue machinations that have no logical lead-in. Expaining it afterward is weak.
The Shield has been pretty good, but I haven't seen it this season.
X-Files did have fun with t
May 25, 2007 - 15:06 ET by balboaX-Files did have fun with themselves, like in the Hollywood movie episode, or the vampire one told through first Scully then Mulder's eyes. LOST can't do that, because of the tone. They've had fun episodes, though, with Hurley specifically, or when Sawyer said to the two new characters this year, "Who the hell are you guys?"
The X-Files? Surely, you me
May 25, 2007 - 15:52 ET by UnsaneThe X-Files? Surely, you mean the C-Files or the S-Files?
That show SUCKED.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
The "X-Files" was v
May 25, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Hero SquadThe "X-Files" was very good. However, it always felt like the mythology was created and progressed without a clear conclusion in mind. It ended without the satisfaction I expected after investing several years into following the show.
"Lost," on the other hand... well, of course it still has two more years to prove itself out... but the way it answers many questions before posing new ones makes it feels like there will be clear explanations forthcoming in the coming two seasons.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
The "X-Files"
May 25, 2007 - 16:02 ET by Lynn DavidsonThe "X-Files" was
very good. However, it always felt like the mythology was created and
progressed without a clear conclusion in mind. It ended without the
satisfaction I expected after investing several years into following
the show.
ITA
X-Files
May 25, 2007 - 16:11 ET by RJWaiting for the "satisfacton" of a "conclusion" a couple of years down the road? No thanks. I'm there to be entertained, not enlightened. "Not that there's anything wrong with YOUR choices...." ;^>
BattleStar Galactica. Rent
May 25, 2007 - 17:10 ET by The PresbyterBattleStar Galactica. Rent it people! It's the best show on TV. It's such a shame that no one gives it a chance cuz of its name.
I'm gonna have to rent Battle
May 25, 2007 - 19:18 ET by balboaI'm gonna have to rent Battlestar because lots of people have said it's outstanding.
I have a friend that isn't
May 26, 2007 - 13:30 ET by The PresbyterI have a friend that isn't into Sci-fi at all, save Lost, and I kept badgering him to watch Battlestar. Turns out he watched every episode made over Spring Break (illegal downloads) up untilt he most recent ones and became absolutley obsessed with the show.
I too was a little put off by
May 25, 2007 - 23:05 ET by Lynn DavidsonI too was a little put off by the "Battlestar" name, but the quality of the show more than makes up for the association with '70s cheese. More people do need to give it a chance.
I was overjoyed when I hear
May 26, 2007 - 13:32 ET by The PresbyterI was overjoyed when I heard it was getting re-newed for a 4th and final season. The last season will be insane!
wicked--Holy Toledo--next
May 25, 2007 - 12:56 ET by misterbillwicked--Holy Toledo--next you'll be endorsing a tax rate increase. Watch out, that's how they get you..LOL!!!
The part I liked best is where they took away all the fruit the one guy picked and gave it to the two guys who never do anything but lie around. Then when the 6 samoans snuck on to the island, they raised hell when they were told they would have to pick their own fruit--had a meeting--and most voted they could stay and share the fruit. But they would have to leave and then come back to maintain their status. On the next episode, there were 18 samoans, but that was OK because they were all hard workers and they were out picking fruit but they insisted that they got some of the sleeping quarters currently occupied by the original crew. They also demanded half of the first-aid kits.
Oh, yes, if you wanted them to pick a specific fruit, you should ask in Samoan .
They installed some kind of option where if you pushed on coconut #1 they would speak to you in English.
Sound familiar?? LOL
PS never watched the show , just having some fun!
Balboa - I'm with you. Los
May 25, 2007 - 12:48 ET by Dee BunkBalboa - I'm with you. Lost is the best! The finale was the best in television history I think. It makes me want to watch both seasons again. I was thinking Jack's flashbacks in this episode were forward flashes, but I think it's more complicated then that. I think they are kind of like a new past.
The show does appear to be like a soap opera format at first, but it's so much different. Soap opera's are all about back stabbing and this is the opposite. It's about community, spirituality and healing. It's got a great sci-fi element and it's pretty family friendly yet still very smart.
Here's my theory: the flash
May 25, 2007 - 13:08 ET by balboaHere's my theory: the flash-forward isn't that far into the future. Kate and Jack and couple others will be taken off the island, leaving the rest behind. Jack feels guilty, which is why he's all drugged up and why he says they have to go back to the island. End of next season will be Jack finally making it back to the island after joining forces with Penny.
Ta-da!
Balboa - that is kind of wh
May 25, 2007 - 13:24 ET by Dee BunkBalboa - that is kind of what I think - except I decided that it couldn't be the future, or if it is it's a future with an altered past, because Jack's dad is alive.
Dee, I caught that too, could
May 25, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Conservative VoiceDee, I caught that too, could it be that the Dad isn't alive, maybe the drugs talking? Who was in that casket anyway?
CV - it's hard to say for sur
May 25, 2007 - 14:14 ET by Dee BunkCV - it's hard to say for sure about the coffin, but I think it's Ben or Michael's father(can't think of his name). It had to be someone that people wouldn't like. The only reason I would think of Michael's father is because it was in an African American neighborhood and they were mad at him for turning them over to the others. Ben seems too obvious, but I still think it could be him.
Does anyone remember Michael's father's name?
Do you mean Walt's father?
May 25, 2007 - 15:04 ET by balboaDo you mean Walt's father? Which is Michael?
Obviously whoever it was, the death meant a lot to Jack, because it's after reading it that he gets out of the car to go jump off the bridge. Could be Ben. Perhaps Ben was Jack's last chance of finding the island again, or so he thinks. But Jack is surprised that no one showed up at the funeral. So, could be Michael, who was successful (as far as we know) in getting off the island. Kate never cared for Michael. Could be Locke, as Locke was the guy most in touch with the island, and Kate doesn't like him.
Thanks balboa - I got them
May 25, 2007 - 15:33 ET by Dee BunkThanks balboa - I got them mixed up. Now that you say about meaning a lot to Jack - it could be Juliet because Kate might not have gone to hers. But I doubt anyone other than Ben would have an empty house. Michael maybe because I don't think he had any other family and Walt was back on the Island. I think Jack was just upset because it reminded him of the Island. He was probably hoping that suicide would bring him back.
I think it's Locke. Kate a
May 25, 2007 - 18:36 ET by Challenger GrimI think it's Locke. Kate apparently knew who was in the coffin and was somewhat sad about it.
Since it's already been established that time might be fluid around the island (see: Desmond), the maybe Jack will get a chance to alter history somehow and keep them stuck on the island (and maybe with that Charlie will live).
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
You just blew my mind!*****&q
May 25, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Hero SquadYou just blew my mind!
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
Lost is easily the best show
May 25, 2007 - 13:34 ET by Hero SquadLost is easily the best show on TV right now (ever since Arrested Development was cancelled, and especially with The Sopranos in swan song mode.) These episodes the past few weeks have been nothing short of phenominal. It's got just the right touch of "Twilight Zone," and it eventually explains everything that's happening, such as the emergence of new characters, rather well.
Gilligan's Island had a guest star just about every week, yet no one called them to the carpet for it.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
Of course "Lost" so
May 25, 2007 - 13:20 ET by RackieOf course "Lost" so silly - why didn't they just make a radio out of coconuts like the Professor did on Gilligan's Island and call for help? jeesh!
Balboa,I'm with you. The s
May 25, 2007 - 12:31 ET by SeanStBalboa,
I'm with you. The season finale was some amazing TV. My mind was officially blown.
Yes, Jensen injected Bush int
May 25, 2007 - 12:35 ET by Lynn Davidson@ Balboa -- You're right; Jensen injected Bush into an article that had nothing to do with the president. It was totally gratuitous. That was what was so striking about it. What was the point to it?
That was an incredible ep! It made up for the lame portions of the season--not that I think there was much lameness ths season. I know that other viewers disagree. I loved the part where a bound and gagged Sayid snapped the Other's neck...with just his lower legs. Perfect.
I have a quibble with the scene where Charlie was typing in the password, and he immediately got the theme to that Beach Boys song without having to punch any numbers to test the tones. That was a little unrealistic, but then again, I don't want to see him waste time trying to realistically figure it out.
Also, if Charlie had to die, at least they sent him out a hero. I like that none of the characters (except Jack, Kate and Sawyer--for now) are safe. According to the EW.com article, the voice announcing the turbulance on Jack's plane was producer Damon Lindelof and another producer, Carlton Cuse I think, also had a voice appearance.
I am so psyched for next season...which begins next February.
Lynn - I so agree - One of
May 25, 2007 - 13:41 ET by Dee BunkLynn - I so agree - One of the reasons I love lost is that it isn't some left wing soap box poorly disguised as entertainment like so many other shows. I think even Jensen is so used to that and feels a void so he's trying to make a political thing out of it. It's pathetic.
I was also getting a little irritated with the first half of the season, but the second half was so good. Sayid is awsome! He's such a bad ass good guy. I think all of the acting is really good. I'm hoping Charlie (and all the others) come back by the end.
I'm a regular reader of Doc J
May 25, 2007 - 13:45 ET by Hero SquadI'm a regular reader of Doc Jensen's blog, and find them to be quite articulate and entertaining synopses of a sometimes complex, fascinating show.
The Bush comments struck me as odd and somewhat gratuitous, but here's what's interesting...
Turns out that Ben was bluffing and that the three hostages weren't actually executed, as he had threatened. (ahem, sorry if that was a spoiler.) Jack held his ground, and his decision, though painful, was the correct one. So if Jack did "the Bushy thing," that spins "the Bushy thing" in a very positive light... the difficult choice, and absolutely the right thing to do.
So if that's the case, if Jack would've instead succumbed to Ben's bluff and handed over the immensely valuable phone, would that be called doing "the Kerrey thing"?
Also, make sure not to confuse this blog with the actual show. Thus far, "Lost" has shown very little in the way of any political leaning, other than the politics that are confined to the island and would emerge in any society.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said '4, 8, 15, 16, 23, & 42?'" - Elvis Costello
Ben wasn't bluffing; He wan
May 25, 2007 - 13:48 ET by balboaBen wasn't bluffing; He wanted them dead. It was Pryce who went against what Ben said to do.
Funny thing about Sayid yelling that is he's a former Iraqi interrogator who's done horrible things to people.
OK. When the other guy at cam
May 25, 2007 - 14:08 ET by Hero SquadOK. When the other guy at camp said "We should've killed them," I thought that was a reference to going against Ben order to shoot away from them. But your way probably makes more sense, now that I think about it, since Ben was shocked to hear that the three were rescued.
So... do you think Ben is simply evil, insane, or a misunderstood hero who must do terrible things to preserve the greater good?
And... poor Charlie.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
Ben's losing it, and I thin
May 25, 2007 - 14:19 ET by balboaBen's losing it, and I think when they show Richard, you can tell that Ben's losing his mantle of leadership with the Others. Locke is the greatest threat to that leadership, which is why Ben tried to kill him.
Poor Charlie. He could have escaped, yes, but that might have risked nullifying Desmond's vision (which I'm still not sure he actually had the way he says he did).
Hurley rocks. I almost jumped up and cheered when he drove up in the VW van. He and Desmond are my favs.
Hurley with the Van was aweso
May 25, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Dee BunkI missed that. Are you sure B
May 25, 2007 - 14:14 ET by Lynn DavidsonI missed that. Are you sure Ben intended them to die? Did a character say something, or is this a theory?
I also found Sayid's comment somewhat amusing. When a former Repulican Guard "interrogator" says not to listen to hostage takers with a history of killing and torture, it might be a good idea to listen. If any castaway on that island understands the protocol of coerced confessions and extortion, it is Sayid. I really did love that neck-snapping move with his legs that Sayid did when he was tied up.
Lynn, balboa & Hero - Ben
May 25, 2007 - 14:23 ET by Dee BunkLynn, balboa & Hero - Ben had it planned before hand . Remember the heavy guy said he thought Ben was going crazy and that they really should kill them not just put bullets in the sand? Ben had talked to them about the plan before he met with Jack. Ben was only shocked because he didn't know that they could pull off a rescue unarmed.
I went back and watched tha
May 25, 2007 - 15:01 ET by balboaI went back and watched that section of the show. Ben was bluffing. So Jack standing his ground was the right thing to do...until he's booted off the island and hooked on painkillers, which is the Rushie thing to do. :-)
SORRY! Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Oh balboa! Just like a libe
May 25, 2007 - 15:22 ET by Dee BunkOh balboa! Just like a liberal to condemn a poor tortured soul who is just trying to do good in the world. ; )
It was the right thing to do even if he had killed them, because if he would kill them for no reason then he would kill all of them and couldn't be trusted with the phone.
You know... it is possible
May 25, 2007 - 18:42 ET by Challenger GrimYou know... it is possible to OVER think something like this. It's especially a common technique for writers to get you soooo tied up in one little detail that you miss the answer which is right in front of your face.
Ben wanted them to die. There's no way (that I could see) for him to prearrange for the hostages to be "faked" killed. He commanded their death and the Others disobeyed him. That's clearly their argument. One thinks they should have followed Ben's orders and another thinks maybe they should be rethinking the situation... possibly even align with the survivors?
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Except that the guy says "I d
May 25, 2007 - 19:15 ET by balboaExcept that the guy says "I don't care what Ben says, we should have killed them" or words to that effect.
Hmmm.... watching the Lost ep
May 25, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Challenger GrimHmmm.... watching the Lost episode again on ABC.com...
I couldn't heard the "don't negotiate" but I don't hear anything sounding like "terrorists".
Following is a rough transcript.
"He gave us an order Tom, we had to follow it.
The man doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He's lost it. I mean look at what they did to us. Instead of putting 3 bullets in the sand, we should have killed them for real."
Well, i guess I stand corrected. Though it was cool watching Saiyd killing that guy with his feet.
Plus my favorite quote of the evening: "Dude he surrendered. -I didn't believe him."
Think about how THAT applies to the War on Terror lol.
Be
sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
That's what I remembered, b
May 25, 2007 - 15:38 ET by Lynn DavidsonThat's what I remembered, but I thought I had somehow missed something.
Hero Squad wrote: Turns out t
May 25, 2007 - 14:08 ET by Lynn DavidsonHero Squad wrote: Turns out that Ben was bluffing and that the three hostages weren't actually executed, as he had threatened. (ahem, sorry if that was a spoiler.) Jack held his ground, and his decision, though painful, was the correct one. So if Jack did "the Bushy thing," that spins "the Bushy thing" in a very positive light... the difficult choice, and absolutely the right thing to do.
So if that's the case, if Jack would've instead succumbed to Ben's bluff and handed over the immensely valuable phone, would that be called doing "the Kerrey thing"?
Excellent point! Of course, if these DO turn out to be the bad guys, then that analogy takes on a very different meaning.
I've also enjoyed reading Jensen's "Lost" blog, although some of his hypotheses of what's happening on the show are a little outlandish. Believe it or not, I can tell the difference between an EW blog and the official info from the show. :) The politics are more philosophical, rather than directly applicable to the current world. Although, there was that ep where the Losties had a gun control debate, but other than that, it is pretty bias free, which makes it quite refreshing. Too bad more aren't like that.
Lost Political Leanings
May 25, 2007 - 19:50 ET by FaulknerFanI agree that Lost has been good since it returned after the Christmas break. What I don't like about is that Jack and Kate are a little too soap opera for me. Most of the others are ok. Jack is the most overly emotional physician I have ever seen. If he operated on me I would be afraid he would break up during the procedure, start screaming and cut my throat. As far as politics on Lost, do any of you remember the Sayid flashback when he learned to torture people? He was a nice, clean cut Iraq sholder until the Americans came and forced him to torture an old friend, I think, to get information. An American Army Col was the instigator. After that he went into it full blast, totally contaminated by the Americans. I almost stopped watching it right there, but so far, there doesn't seem to be any more of that stuff.
As far as politics on Lost, d
May 25, 2007 - 23:17 ET by Lynn DavidsonAs far as politics on Lost, do any of you remember the Sayid flashback when he learned to torture people? He was a nice, clean cut Iraq sholder until the Americans came and forced him to torture an old friend, I think, to get information. An Americand Army Col was the instigator. After that he went into it full blast, totally contaminated by the Americans. I almost stopped watching it right there, but so far, there doesn't seem to be any more of that stuff.
Hmmm, I had apparently blocked that scene from my mind. I remember it now, and I think you have a great point. That was a little bias slipping in. So was the scene where the cast debated gun control and the effectiveness and efficacy of "torture." That's off the top of my head, but I'm sure that if we really look, we will find examples of bias.
I'm sure if you wanted to, yo
May 26, 2007 - 00:29 ET by balboaI'm sure if you wanted to, you could ruin just about anything for yourself.
Lost
May 26, 2007 - 09:56 ET by Dee BunkI don't remember it that way. I remember him learning it from the Iraqi's and what made him go crazy was when they (Iraqi's) wanted him to torture a girl he knew. I only vaguely remember the American thing and it couldn't have been that bad if I can't remember and need someone to point out the bias to me. I definitely want to watch both seasons again. I have never felt like the show was a liberal soap box by any means.
There is no show that has left me with the overall impression that Republicans or America is bad. In fact the people with the most brutal crimes are all from different countries (Iraq, Africa and China?) I think if anything the show has a conservative slant because there is a lot about redemption and spirituality and being responsible for your self and your own destiny.
Lost Bias
May 26, 2007 - 10:58 ET by FaulknerFanI'm remembering this off the top of my head also but I'm sure I'm right about the American Col forcing him to do the torture on an old friend. The Col was the one who gave him the torture kit that he then used to work on his friend. It was later, after we Americans forced and taught him how to do it, that he was forced by the Iraqi's to work on the girl. It was implied that Sayid was a nice, innocent boy until we got hold of him. It seemed to me to be a message that everything in Iraq was just fine until we went over there and messed things up. To their credit I don't remember anything else like that, but I haven't watched all of the shows so don't know for sure.
Was that an EW cover I just s
May 26, 2007 - 17:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberWas that an EW cover I just saw, or Hot Stud Action?
Was that an EW cover I just s
May 27, 2007 - 08:39 ET by Lynn DavidsonWas that an EW cover I just saw, or Hot Stud Action?
It can't be both?