Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 13 July 2003
Various big media television networks ^ | 13 July 2003 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

Posted on 07/13/2003 5:51:25 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-287 next last
To: Alas Babylon!
bttt
41 posted on 07/13/2003 7:11:32 AM PDT by tom paine 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
Alas Babylon! thank you for posting this each Sunday morning. Most helpful.

Condi is awesome!!

42 posted on 07/13/2003 7:15:43 AM PDT by upchuck (Contribute to "Republicans for Al Sharpton for President in 2004." Dial 1-800-SLAPTHADONKEY :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
That's what brilliant people that think fast do!

I've seen liberals "talk" real fast on TV, but they're not understandable. They babble on endlessly about who-knows-what until the interviewer cuts their mike.
In their case, it's emotional farting.

43 posted on 07/13/2003 7:16:49 AM PDT by concerned about politics (Anti-American liberals are inbread Notsosmartso's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Peach
A perfect example is the "erroneous intelligence information that made it into the State of the Union Address". Sheesh. I've emailed FNC so many articles that debate that statement and I know other Freepers have as well.

How do you debate that statement? Both the Whitehouse and the CIA admit that the claim was not valid.

44 posted on 07/13/2003 7:20:31 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CMClay
They need to find or plant some wmds to kill off this story.

NO! Planting them is the worse thing they could do. Do you really think anything like that could go undetected? In wAshington nothing remains a secret. The only way to avoid a conspiracy from leaking to the press is to immediately kill all the conspirators.

45 posted on 07/13/2003 7:26:03 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
No, Dave. The White House and CIA do NOT say the uranium claim was invalid. What they say is that they could not validate the claim personally, but the British and MI5 still stand by the uranium intelligence claim. There is a vast difference - as explained by Rumsfeld this morning - between having invalid intelligence and being unable to validate the intelligence personally.

I'm sure given the liberal press you will be able to find a newspaper article that does NOT accurately reflect either the president's, Rumsfeld's or Tenet's comments concerning this uranium intel. The DNC has already made a commercial inaccurately quoting the president in his state of the union speech where he said that based on British intelligence, we have been informed that Saddam seeks to buy uranium. No one said he had bought it. No one said our intelligence was convinced of it.

46 posted on 07/13/2003 7:30:10 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Not true.They said it should never have made it into the speech as there was only one source..the Brits and we couldn't corroborate it.The statement was"British intelligence says there is evidence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa"Britain won't share source but is sticking by the statement.
47 posted on 07/13/2003 7:30:13 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
I should have added to my most recent response that "erroneous intelligence" is in itself a biased statement. The press have again proven that they do not understand the very nature of intelligence. Fully 50% of it is probably "wrong" but is based on the best guess and information available at the time.
48 posted on 07/13/2003 7:31:40 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
I heard a Fox commentator last night flatly state that DNA proved conclusively that Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemmings' children. The Fox reporterette was commenting on the occasion of a current reunion of Jefferson family descendents.

The TRUTH is is that there were 25 men within 20 miles of Monticello who were all Jeffersons and had the same Y chromosome. And 23 of them were younger than Thomas who was 65 years old when the alleged coupling took place.

The Jefferson/Hemmings Scholars Commission concluded after exhaustive research that Randolph Jefferson, Thomas' brother, was more likely to have fathered the child or children.

Even some Fox commentators are now quoting the liberal line as facts, though I imagine in this case it was just ignorance with this airhead.

Leni

49 posted on 07/13/2003 7:33:10 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Thank you for helping to clarify the information about the supposed "erroneous intel". There is such mis-information about this intel, it's hard for the truth to be heard through the filter of the liberal press. Regards, Peach
50 posted on 07/13/2003 7:33:27 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WHBates
Condi's awesome and was great again today on Fox News Sunday.
51 posted on 07/13/2003 7:35:52 AM PDT by bushfamfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Peach
My pleasure!
52 posted on 07/13/2003 7:36:39 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: secret garden
Well I was surprised that Magic was behind the signing of Malone and that he even said that they could take his number our to retirement and let Malone wear it. If you recall Malone stated he would not play against Magic when Magic revealed that he had the virus that causes AIDS. Malone understandably wants a ring. Gonna be a lot of egos on the floor between Kobe, Shaq, Malone and Payton...they may have to enlarge Staples Center to accomodate them! LOL
53 posted on 07/13/2003 7:38:36 AM PDT by kellynla ("C" 1/5 1st Mar Div Viet Nam '69 & '70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
Watching Rummy on Meet the Press -- His job is too easy; Russett's understanding of anything is so elementary that Rummy has to teach Russett the facts before he can begin to answer the questions.
54 posted on 07/13/2003 7:47:00 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
As others have pointed out, the statement was 100% accurate. We had sources that have since been discredited (and were very questionable at the time the SOTU address was being written) that tended to corroborate the Niger incident. There has also been other info about other possible sources (Congo and another north African country I can't remember at the moment). The Brits might also have other (better?) information from Niger of from one of these other countries. To this day, the Brits stand by their estimate, though they don't want to reveal their sources for the intelligence.

One thing that Condi Rice could have made more clear was the fact that in the earlier Cincinatti speech incident, the information might not have been pulled because it was inaccurate. It could have been pulled because it was too specific and might have endangered the source. She hinted that it was too specific, but she didn't make it clear that information that is so specific as to potentially identify the source can be pulled to protect the source, even it the information is highly accurate.

55 posted on 07/13/2003 7:47:32 AM PDT by cc2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
How do you debate that statement? Both the Whitehouse and the CIA admit that the claim was not valid.

So talk to Britian. Bush didn't say "The U.S. intelligence has.... "
Sheesh! What has Bush got to do with all this? All he did was read what he had. Britian has even more evidence of Saddam and Africa. They were right! He was a threat. Who can argue that?
Man, the left sure is making a mountain out of a mole hill over nothing.

56 posted on 07/13/2003 7:49:18 AM PDT by concerned about politics (Anti-American liberals are inbread Notsosmartso's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Dick Van Dyke show

I LOVE that show as well... Especially the dream episodes.

57 posted on 07/13/2003 7:50:52 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Now Stephanapolos is reading a poll that shows half the American people believe the intelligence was exaggerated. Rumsfeld replied: "If the press repeats it often enough, then people will believe it".!!!!
58 posted on 07/13/2003 7:53:15 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
Those Dick Van Dyke shows were so well done - clever, fast, small little stories done in such funny skits.
59 posted on 07/13/2003 7:54:22 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: secret garden
Russert tried his attack tactics on Sec. Rumsfeld but by the time the interview was over Russert was stammering like former Governor Howard Dean did on his show.

Game, set and match to Rumsfeld.
60 posted on 07/13/2003 7:54:54 AM PDT by McGruff (Have You Forgotten?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-287 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson