Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 17 December 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 17 December 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, December 17th, 2006

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.; FedEx Corp. CEO Frederick Smith; retired Marine Corps Commandant Gen. P.X. Kelley, co-chairmen of the Energy Security Leadership Council; Morrill Worcester, president of Worcester Wreath.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; retired Army Gen. Jack Keane; Rep.-elect Joe Sestak, D-Pa.; actor and activist Isaiah Washington.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi; Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Shibley Telhami, Brookings Institution; retired Army Gen. Daniel Christman; Vali Nasr, Council on Foreign Relations; John Podesta, Center for American Progress; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute.

[Phsstpok]

Rodguy911: If you get a chance to see Casino Royale, don't pass it up it's awesome, especially the first five minutes. Incredible!! This guy is the best Bond ever.

Miss Marple: Wasn't that opening chase scene in "Casino Royale" amazing? Worth the price of admission just for that part!

I've seen every one of the Bond movies in the theaters their opening week, starting with Dr. No (my older brother took me along).  I had to digest this one for a while before I made up my mind.  Though there are flaws, I'm very impressed with this movie and Daniel Craig's Bond, though Goldfinger and Connery's Bond in that one still stands as my favorite movie and Bond version.  Craig is infinitely better than Lazenby and Moore and may be better than Brosnan, but I think I'll have to see a second outing to decide that.

The biggest issue I have with the new film is that it could stand a good editor to tighten up several scenes and maybe two or three more minutes of explanation of what Bond is about in this film.  Hitchcock used to talk about "the McGuffin," the object that you are chasing after which is the reason for the characters in the film to be doing what they're doing.  It didn't have to be anything intrinsically important to the viewer except that everyone is after it, say the vague reference to "the microfilm of the important secret," but you have to know why these people are doing what they're doing.  It's the hook that holds the rest of the story together.  That got lost for me in this film.

As to the spectacular opening sequence, the following is from Harry Knowles review on his Aint-it-cool-news web site:

Take for example – the wonderful chase sequence with Sebastien Foucan in Madagascar. In terms of athleticism, Bond is no match for Mollaka as Sebastien plays him. He’s one of the world’s great free running performers and Bond doesn’t have that in him. Instead, the advantage Bond’s character has is this. While Mollaka can navigate his surroundings phenomenally well… James sees the shortcuts, the angles that Mollaka skips past out of a desire to simply move forward. Bond doesn’t have to do the astonishing leaps or climbs, because he sees how to do it easier than his prey. It’s Bond’s keen powers of observation – what his eyes see that others do not, be it a butane tank or a twitch of an eye, he’s soaking it in, looking for his advantage.

I did a web search on  Sebastien Foucan because I was so impressed with that bit.  I've seen "free runners" in film, particularly a couple of music videos and some ads, but this guy is considered the "father" of the sport.  On one of the links they say he spent a month in Madagascar filming that chase.  Pretty amazing.

In an interview Daniel Craig says that he felt strongly about the straight up and realistic direction they wanted to take the character.  Someone described this as a relaunch of the series, as they've now done with Batman Begins.  That sounds about right.  I wonder if they will redo some of the films already done?  With almost everything from You Only Live Twice going forward they used little more than the title.  If they wanted to they could take Craig's Bond, as is, and redo the stories in the books, as they were originally written, just with new titles.  The Spy Who Loved Me is a perfect example.  The original story involved a college age girl acting as care taker in a small New England motel during the off season being molested by some mobsters who are laying low for awhile.  As they're starting to really give her grief and you know it's going to turn ugly Bond, who is on vacation after a particularly nasty mission, turns up.  No big plot or uber bad guy, just Bond, with no gadgets (and probably no gun, it's been 40 years since I read it) saving a young woman against a group of thugs.  Brosnan talked about doing it and having Martin Scorsese direct.  Now that's an idea!

One last item from the Craig interview.  He said that when they filmed the torture scene, while he was tied naked to a chair, the producer, Barbara Broccoli, was on set all day.  She'd never been on set for more than a few minutes before.  He kept asking her "don't you have somewhere you need to be?" and she'd say "no, I'm fine, thank you."  Now you know why she cast him for the role.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Wasen't a Bush drunk at one time?

[PerConPat]

I agree, Chuck. I fear it will take another major event here at home.

Many people are cursed with an ability to see the flaws inherent in a plan plus an inability to recognize that perfection is usually impossible and that its pursuit is usually harmful. These individuals constitute the extreme left and right. Only when there is no escape from the fact that destruction is at hand can they be shaken from their defective belief. I also expect to see future "major events" within our borders before terrorism is confronted in a realistic manner.

[mountainfolk]

I truly did try to watch Fox this AM. I listened all the way thru Kennedy's repeated assertions that we had to 'protect' our troops, keep them out of harms way, and on to the hungry children theme. It was one long RAT commercial. An hour long phone call saved me from his windup segment. I might catch the show again this pm because I want to hear Brit but my phone won't be off the hook to make it happen!! Kennedy just won't accept that 'hungry' children in America have access to food cards, school lunches and breakfast, wick programs etc. Those who are underfed are victims of their parents who do not feed them the food that our government provides. The troops would not have joined our voluntary military if they wanted to be protected from the enemy they fight. The mind boggles----

[txradioguy]

Thank you. I'm glad to be able to do it.

[Txsleuth]

The Dems, now that they have Congress are not even trying to hide their "shadow government"...

Bob Beckel said the other day that it is okay for the dems to go negotiate with Syria and Iran...because "we have 2 different governments"

[Phsstpok]

The word "discriminating" used to be a good thing, meaning you could tell the difference between two things, usually meaning you could pick out "the good ones" from a bunch.  Now it's an accusation of racism and evil.

And don't get me started on the word "gay."  We lost one of my favorite Christmas Carols thanks to that one!

[EDINVA]

if Obama's elected, do we become an ObamaNation?

[Txsleuth]

LOL....may have made it home with his "mic holding" arm broken!!

[Phsstpok]

"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion."

or Churchill's variation on a similar metaphor

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last”

[rodguy911]

No, two trout!

[rodguy911]

OOOOHHHH!!!so good!

[samantha]

#212, really good analysis. I think you are absolutely right about her "Thighness". She does not play well to the average person by herself because she comes on like a shrewish control freakazoid. She also is thought to have no accomplishments on her own. She will use Osama Obama, no doubt about it. If she could arrange for his adoption by her and the slickmeister, I would bet she would try it.

[MNJohnnie]

GWB has a Masters Degree in Business from Yale. Did you even finish High School?

Wander back to your trailer park now child, the people on this thread actually bother to KNOW thing rather then just scream what ever stupid nonsense the pseudo Conservative radio con men tell them to scream.

Cannot decide which is funnier. Your complete ignorance on display in every post or your hysteric arrogance in coming to THIS thread to lecture people who know 100% MORE on the topics then YOU will EVER know.

Go away child, the adults have no time to listen to your juvenile angst these days. Tell you what. When you can do something other then regurgitate the hysteric and ignorance screamed at you by Democrat Campaign Contributor Mike Savage come back, until such time do not waste our time posting such rabid ignorance.

[johnny7]

Sea Trout?

[samantha]

#220, I think that would have been the further anointing of Obama.

[samantha]

It is really worse than that. If I were Tim Johnson and my Son was in Iraq, and I know the Rats inside and out, and they took over Power and the Purse strings for the Military and their ability to fight, I would be freaking out, and very worried for my Son. That is a lot of stress on someone that has a major Problem with the Blood vessels in his brain.

[rodguy911]

Really good stuff, there Phsstpok,one of the really cool things about the open scene was that Bond needed to catch the bad guy and keep him alive until he got what he needed. Once he got what he needed he got the drop on the bad guy and in front of a bunch of other bad guys,showing no fear at all, just blew him away,sort of Jack Bauer style!!

I agree Pierce Brosnan was terrific as well but when you consider this is Craig's first outing and he will probably get even better...He may be the best.

[MNJohnnie]

Tell you what. Instead of screaming your emotion based hysteric as fact, actually sit down, shut up and LEARN some things about Iraq.

Clinging desperately to your emotion based feelings on Iraq because you would rather do ANYTHING but learn the facts since they prove you rabid Bush haters utter idiots on Iraq, is childish.

This is NOT some sort of sporting event. This is real life, instead of being a mindless fan of one particular segment of political radio talkers and mindlessly repeating everything they scream at you, actually bother to LEARN the facts on Iraq. Quit simply straining out any facts on Iraq that do not validate your emotion based hate for GW Bush.

Sit down, shut up and LEARN something before posting on this thread ever again. The ignorance you are displaying on this topic is inexcusable and appalling.

Grow up. What you feel is not fact. Learn the difference.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Force Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it

[Txsleuth]

I don't think so...and many have blamed Pres. Bush for NOT making the American citizens "suffer"...

They point to gas rationing in WW11, the draft in Vietnam, etc...thinking if Americans "sacrificed" more, they would UNDERSTAND...

Well...first of all, the MSM and the dems, almost from 9/12/01 on, have denigrated Pres. Bush so much, why do they then think that Americans WOULD follow his suggestions of sacrifice??

One thing that REALLY chaps them and they use as a punchline against Pres. Bush is the "keep spending money" advice that he used soon after 9/11...

They laugh and say.."whoa what a sacrifice.!"...but, what they WON'T admit is...that by telling America and Americans to keep spending money...he probably kept this country from going under financially...which was ONE OF OSAMA BIN LADIN'S GOALS!!!

NOW...what can he do?? He is just ridiculed every time he gives a speech...the schools are teaching a radically different message of sacrifice (have your money go to the poor and AIDS)....

Short of another attack...which IMHO..would NOT rally the nation behind Pres. Bush...it would just bring about his impeachment hearings sooner...

I don't know HOW the country will be shaken from their self-absorption and demands of perfection....

I see it on this website...anytime a potential GOP candidate for POTUS is mentioned as favorable by a few...there are 10 more that point out any and all faults.

I am not saying we "settle" for a less than what is necessary to keep the conservative agenda..but, NO ONE is gonna be perfect except Hillary Clinton...per the MSM.

WE have a fight of our own on this continent...just as the troops have a mighty fight on their hands on another continent.