Posted on 06/25/2006 4:45:02 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, June 25th, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John Warner, R-Va.; Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.; Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; outgoing Harvard President Lawrence Summers (TW may be preempted in some locations due to coverage of the World Cup.).
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai; Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani; former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger.
I know, I kept looking at Wolfie to see if he was going to cry....LOL
BTW...that putz Chris Wallace just HAD to distance himself from Brit's comment about Ed Markey, didn't he? sheesh
You know Peach, as a retired military person, I'd actually agree to give the insurgents amnesty if they'd lay down their arms and surrender.
#####
Don't you find it "interesting" that the Dems are coming out so strongly against Maliki's suggestion. They do everything they can to tie the hands of anyone trying to help Iraq, and when a suggestion that may really be of serious benefit to the country is offered, these dems feign "support" for the troops by throwing mud in the eye of al-Maliki.
It seems to me that a whole lot of Confederate soldiers were given amnesty after April 9, 1865.
Damn them to hell.
Thousands of years in caves is not going to be undone in our lifetime.
For sure, Wallace needs an identity bad.
Lieberman is suffering from whiplash from all the votes and positions he has taken.
####
I remember that he simultaneously ran on two different platforms in 2000. In Connecticutt he was running as a moderate Dem for Senate, and with Gore he was running as a lib. I lost all respect for anything he says because of that.
There is hope for you! Every August on Big Pine Key we literally have an orchestra that plays underwater,(on one of the stations I am on believe it or not) maybe I can get you a spot, so you can finally sing.
Just posted to say Hello, and say I am lurking on this great thread, but not posting because of too much pain.swelling and stiffness in fingers and hands. It has been a great thread as usual and I see new Posters with really great posts,plus the veterans with their excellents posts. Let the Talkshow people plagiarize, we can collect later. If anyone can find anything about the John Howard quotes from Weds about Australia and the Muslims please post here. I cannot find anything at all, and they are fabulous quotes. A friend e-mailed me with no link or anything to trace.
The Democrats are totally invested in: President Bush failures, the military failures; economic failure and failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.
IF the USA were to win any aspect of these responsibilities that government is responsible for, they lose. So, in order for them to be elected to run the country they must have failure to justify the public voting for them.
I've said it before. If you were a country in trouble, who would you call? The UN? NATO? France? China? Russia? Or, the USA?
If you are serious about winning militarily or economically, the USA is the only option that guarantees your winning. Only the USA, both economically and militarily, is proven to be capable and trustworthy enough to save you.
That being said, I would include the UK and Australia to a large degree. Neither is interested in imperalism. Either would work unless the threat was larger than what they could handle. With the USA, I cannot imagine that limit.
Occasionally when I really love a book I will do the same thing. I have a historical novel that is a favorite of mine that begs for Christopher Plummer as the leading man...a cynical, older man who is redeemed by the love of a good woman. Alas, I think it will never be. No one makes movies of old historical novels any more; their time was the 30's and 40's.
ONLY IF you sing with me, and ONLY IF you wear one of those grass skirts on stage......
I think the President knows this, too. I think this is why he doesn't get distracted by all of the petty complaints. His eye is on the goal, and he is determined to get there.
I firmly believe he will be remembered as the man who saved western civilization.
I agree with your argument, but in this case it is moot. The publication has happened and we are no longer looking at a question of prior restraint. All of the relevant court rullings are 100% clear, including New York Times Co. v. United States. Regardless of any first amendment issues about prior restraint, there is absolutely no established Constitutional restriction on prosecution of a news organization after the fact. Justices Stewart and White made that explicit in there concurring opinion in that case and there is abundant case law supporting that position and zero case law contradicting it. Pinch Sulzberger and his editorial staff need to be frog marched to jail, at the very least.
These?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pms-muslim-comments-offensive/2006/02/20/1140283978611.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060516-1.html
http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2006/02/john-howard-on-islamic-fundamentalism.html
Yes. Shame! Gerson and the President believe in shame. This is a GOOD thing, after the shameless years of the Clinton administration.
Gerson is oe of the many quality people that President Bush has had working with him. This is the sign of a great president...the quality of people he surrounds himself with.
Whoever follows President Bush will have some very large boots to fill, and I daresay Gerson is probably one of the greatest speechwriters of all time.
Karzai is a pretty savvy guy...
and has a wonderful speaking voice. I hope the Afghanis are getting some accessibility to TV, radio, etc. He was able to enumerate fact after fact in such a positive way. I know he could inspire confidence and cooperation from his people if he can reach them.
-------------------------
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
George W. Bush -- grand strategist
By Tony Blankley
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 11, 2004
The Boston Globe -- the respected, liberal newspaper owned by the New York Times -- ran an article last week that Bush critics may wish to read carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues that President Bush has developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in our history.
The author of this book, "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience" (Harvard Press) to be released in March, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University. The Boston Globe describes Mr. Gaddis as "the dean of Cold War studies and one of the nation's most eminent diplomatic historians." In other words, this is not some put-up job by an obscure right-wing author. This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment.
If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story because it makes a strong case that Mr. Bush stands in a select category with presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history.
As the Globe article describes in an interview with Mr. Gaddis: "Grand strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a country's mission, defines its interests, and sets its priorities. Part of grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape decades, even centuries of policy."
According to this analysis, the first grand strategy by Monroe/Adams followed the British invasion of Washington and the burning of the White House in 1814. They responded to that threat by developing a policy of gaining future security through territorial expansion -- filling power vacuums with American pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and accounts for our continental size and historic security.
FDR's plans for the post-World War II period were the second grand strategy and gained American security by establishing free markets and self-determination in Europe as a safeguard against future European wars, while creating the United Nations and related agencies to help us manage the rest of the world and contain the Soviets. The end of the Cold War changed that and led, according to Mr. Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and democratization were inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Mr. Gaddis observed.
That brings the professor to George W.Bush, who he describes as undergoing "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V." Clearly, Mr. Gaddis has not been a long-time admirer of Mr. Bush. But he is now.
He observes that Mr. Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more that a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945."
It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central criticism of Mr. Bush -- the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without U.N. approval -- is rejected by Mr. Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system."
In assessing Mr. Bush's progress to date, the Boston Globe quotes Mr. Gaddis: "So far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."
In another recent article, written before the Iraqi war, Mr. Gaddis wrote: "[Bush's] grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle East. And this long-term dimension of it, it seems to me, goes beyond what we've seen in the thinking of more recent administrations. It is more characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the Truman administration was doing at the beginning of the Cold War."
Is Mr. Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as FDR, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as the eminent Democratic Party Chairman and Clinton fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe argues? I suspect that as this election year progresses, that may end up being the decisive debate. You can put me on the side of the professor.
Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.