Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The West Wing, Season 3, Episode 22 (Patreon)

Published:
2023-12-25 14:00:06
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

We Killed Yamamoto

Files

Previews only

The West Wing, Season 3, Episode 22

We Killed Yamamoto

Comments

Mithroch

"NO KIDS! GO BACK TO BED!!! I'm not opening presents until I'm done watching Joe and Kevin!"... would be what I'd be saying if I had kids...

Balazs Foldes

Uff, Christmas really throw my biorhythm off! Totally forgot you guys. :) But, luckily, in this part of Europe, we've already done celebrations on Christmas Eve, so I'm pretty leasurely and free to watch today.

Weird Magic

Merry Christmas! Nailed it again guys! As someone who lives approximately 3.2 miles from "North" Dakota, I remember this issue when it was actually discussed, yes, this was a real thing. I also remember it being one of the dumbest ideas of all time so glad you read thru the ideocracy as well. Can't wait for the New Year's Season Finale next week! Originally airing on May 15, 2002, 'We Killed Yamamoto' is Episode 21 of Season 3 of The West Wing. It is the 65th episode overall and has an IMDB rating of 8.3, placing it as the #5 ranked episode of this season and #31 out of all the episodes shown so far. P.S. John Amos stole this episode IMO

Balazs Foldes

Love the serious conversations in this show. The sheer voltage in the air, you can just feel it. And it also cascades down, which is something happening in real life: the President is furious because of not being able to put Shareef in court, so he jumps up and down on Josh. And Josh is the guy with the obsessive solve-it nature, who wants to take care of things - maybe because he lost his little sister in fire, and doesn't want to disappoint and fail anybody (remember his guilt about the NSA in-case-of-nuclear-attack card and the vaccine issue in the first Big Block of Cheese epsiode). So, Josh is stressed because he feels he failed the President. So, he goes tougher on Amy. And this also outlines brilliantly the big contrast between Amy and Josh. Amy is a Democrat, for sure, but she is a person of ideology, an idealist first and foremost. She believes in things, and is not willing to compromise principles. Josh, on the other hand, is a team player first, way less absolute about principles. He wants to win, he wants to please his boss and his friends, and he wants to win. To him, winning at any costs, at all costs, is the first choice. (Remember his little chat with Mandy about the banking lobby and the Big Sky strip-mine rider - he can be competitive, and want to win, and fight the wrong fights). So, the two can clash head to head: Amy not wanting to accept a murky compromise and marrigage incentives. Josh want a win for the White House, no matter what. Tough situation, these two are not always compatible.

Arek Schneyer

Well, I can’t watch this one yet… but I’ll certainly end up watching it some time in the next few days. Which, to be fair, tends to be how I watch them normally- it takes me a while to remember that there’s a new video. And I’m never certain when I should be looking for said video. Brain not always work.

Pam Nail

There's so much I love about this episode (Fitz complimenting Leo's hair LMAO) and then Amy throws Josh's phone in the stew and I have to leave the room before something gets broken. I do think it's a good portrayal of two people who are so similar in so many ways but are at odds professionally. Josh obviously should have anticipated Amy's response (not the phone thing, but messing with the vote), but I have a hard time holding it against him when he said it in a "honey, how was your day" context and not a work context. And Amy's entire crusade here ticks me off. She's too seasoned to not know you can only get things you want in a two-party system by accepting some things you don't want. And marriage incentives of all things as a hill to die on -- does she think poor women are stupid?! This was definitely before Weeds. Mary Louise Parker was doing Angels in America around this time. Funny story -- when she won the Golden Globe for Angels in America, she had just had a son and had recently split with the baby's father. She went to the award show in an amazing dress that showed off her ... maternal assets, shall we say. And when she won, she said "Janel Moloney said she'd pay me $1000 if I thanked my son for how great my boobs look in this dress. GET OUT YOUR CHECKBOOK!"

Martin Nicholls

The most "agent" thing I can think of Sorkin has tackled is Charlie Wilson's War, which has CIA agents in it, based on a true story of who knows how much accuracy. Dunno if you've seen it, but it's a disgustingly underrated movie starring Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman - it's actually my favourite PSH role, he's so good in that, great character for him. Man gives zero F's. I totally get what you're saying though, funny thing is I think TV networks would hate it unless it was packed with action - it's almost like he needs a writing partner, somebody to do the action bits, and he does the dialogue, that would be a thing to see. This plot I can't help but feel like is a slight reference to when the CIA had Bin Laden, and they turned to Clinton to get authorization to take him out, and he baulked - next thing 9/11 happens and the rest is history: whilst you can't directly lay that at the feet of Clinton, if they'd have taken him out the world would be a very very different place. Oh, also that was al-Zawahiri (talking about full circle of al-Queda, the CIA assassinating their leaders and whatnot), and the missile was the R9X.

Aude M
>>125351655

RIP ?? No no ! Last time I checked, John Amos was alive !

Sardonica61

This was a lovely extra Christmas present! Thanks for everything guys! So many good scenes, this almost seems like a double episode. Josh and Amy are great; she terrifies me in this episode. Leo and Fitz are goofing around but turn to the very critical issue of "can you tell when we're at war now?" Broasting is a real thing. It differs from roasting, frying, and rotisserie, although all produce delicious chicken. A broaster is a special kind of pressure-fryer that is quicker than deep frying and uses less oil. (I looked this up.) Yamamoto was a leader of Japan's military involved with the Pearl Harbor attack. The US got intel about his plane and we shot it down. About Mark Harmon being a "man of few words," on NCIS they edited dialogue to REDUCE the number of words he said, sometimes down to just a grunt or glance. You guys are going to enjoy Ritchie and the new secretary.

Yannick, from Montréal

First comment for this episode here, writing it after your intro, not even with the episode played yet... Your idea about Kevin Costner is quite interesting, now knowing that Aaron Sorkin managed to work with him in Molly's Game!

JVTrickypants

Them talking about moral absolutes reminderd me of Chdi on The Good Place, which I know you just stsrted so not a spoiler. He's a moral philosophies professor and they talk a lot about this as the season(s) goes on.

JVTrickypants

Also, as has been mentioned in other posts, if you don't want to have spoiler alerts try to block the intro credits for the finale.

Youtalkingtome
>>125354496

Each character's baggage is what makes this show so compelling. Things that you completely forget about until you really think the scene over. It's why we like doing one a week so we can really process each episode and appreciate the brilliant story behind it.

Youtalkingtome
>>125366321

I had no idea he did that movie, I haven't seen that in, idk 10 years? I need to watch that again. Yes PSH is a genius.

Max F.

As hard as you imagine trying to replace Mrs. Landingam would be (both for Charlie and the casting director), the end result is nothing less than fantastic and while no one can replace Mrs. Landingam, she'll come close. As for Ritchie, his introduction is memorable, though I've seen opinions differ as to why. I have very fond memories of the coming finale, and cannot wait to see your reactions!

D Gyre
>>125459980

Agreed, it's going to be a treat. Not replacement, just someone new who is great and enjoyable all on their own.

D Gyre

A great penultimate episode for the season, and these arcs are great heading into the end. I love Fitzwallace whenever he's on screen, and I love the scene with him and Leo. But I also want to mention Fitzwallace's speech about Agincourt or that period of warfare isn't accurate. It's a great speech, and it doesn't need to be accurate for a TV show, there's nothing wrong with that. But sometimes we, as the audience, make the bad choice to treat scenes like that as having accurate history.

Michelle Taylor

I know everyone, including me, says this about each episode but the next episode is incredible.

Sarah P

I have a love/hate relationship with the Amy vs. Josh plot line here. TL;DR I love the chemistry, but it’s so sad. I respect the intensity with which Amy approaches this bill. She’s someone in the front row of women’s/gender/sexual exploitation issues in Washington. Her career is basically trying to get people to spend money in ways that fight those disparities. She is aware that these agendas will always need lobbying and campaigning, because politics sucks and misogynists exist. I completely agree with her stance on fighting for the removal of the marriage incentives. I think speaking up in situations like that is important. If it messes up your campaign, then maybe you need to make talking about this issue more of a priority. All this to say — I don’t fault her for phone destruction, and I also don’t fault Josh for raising the stakes/tension after getting his ass handed to him in the Oval Office. Especially, heartbreakingly, because he didn’t even deserve that.

JVTrickypants

I Googled (okay might have been Yahoo or Ask Jeeves at the time) broasted and it was actually a special cooking process you had to buy equipment to do to use the word. It was like a patent kind of thing.

Roland

So a couple of things that Fitzwallace say don't add up for me. 1. Yamamoto was a military target during a declared state of war. Why would that be relevant to Shareef's status? 2. Henry V famously executed several thousand French POWs _during_ the Battle of Agincourt (concern that they would be forcibly freed). So much for wartime etiquette. No way Fitzwallace wouldn't be aware of that.

MrRuss50
>>125534880

good points. i'll take your word on #2 . As for #1, its pretty unusual for the US to assassinate a member of a friendly foreign govt. I think. CIA did try to kill Castro and Saddam was targeted in Gulf War but they certainly weren't friendly. So maybe just the principle of targeting a country's leadership was the point.

Youtalkingtome
>>125466756

I take any historical speech or moment in a tv show or movie with a grain of salt. Fitzwallace is one of my favorite characters. He brings a massive presence.

Youtalkingtome
>>125508108

He didn't deserve it. High pressure stakes. Someone is bound to be snapped at. It happened to be him. I love Amy and I know why the show is doing this. It's good dramatic tension and it's an interesting way to inform the audience about certain issues.

Paul T Hewes

The President "jumping up and down" on Josh in the Oval Office was a big deal. He did it in front of several other staffers. But it was very little to do with the vote and more to do with the terrorist. The President was pissed that he had to let a terrorist mastermind get away.

Riesling

I totally disagree with you for once. In my opininon Bartlet should under no circumstances order the assassination of Shareef. To kill someone without any kind of trial just because you decide he did something evil, no matter how bad, is a line that shouldn´t be crossed by a democratic leadership. I know in the past there have been a lot of assassinations ordered by US Presidents and maybe I`m to naive, but once it is ok to kill someone by drone or equivalent in peace circumstances noone is safe anymore. The US has the power to kill nearly anyone in the world whereever they are, but the US President is not god!

Youtalkingtome
>>126241038

I agree he is not god. They way I took it is, do we just sit by and do nothing when we had the chance? What of the innocent lives that will be lost if no action is taken. It is clearly weighing on him, especially in the next episode. We are not pro murder, in the fictitious world of the show we can form our opinions around it. This is a person who won't receive trial either, that's part of the dramatic dilemma. It's not black and white. It's very grey and it isn't a decision that was made lightly.

Dr Ozzy

Just a heads up - this one isn’t tagged as West Wing so it doesn’t show up in the list of episodes! I am working my way up to your current watch haha