Posted on 07/17/2005 5:41:23 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, July 17th, 2005
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Mary Landrieu, D-La.; Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper; Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman; Center for American Progress president John Podesta; Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): > Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson; Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Pre-empted for coverage of the British Open golf tournament.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq; Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Joseph Biden, D-Del.; Mehlman; Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe; former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.
Amen.
Now you know it is a media requirement that every time there is the slightest scandal, Woodward and Bernstein MUST be trotted out to pronounce, "No, this is NOT as big as (our scandal) Watergate."
As I understand it, there might be a technicality involved. Plame was withdrawn from overseas covert work when her cover (and she was never more than "light cover" as opposed to "deep cover") was blown or was suspected to be blown back in the 90s (I've seen a couple of different years named).
However, I have the impression from things I've read that the CIA never changed her listed agency status (NOC, but I forget what it stands for) -- sloppy record-keeping at best. If anyone can confirm or deny or expand, I would appreciate it.
Russert was on vacation for a reason...he's in this too.
I was laughing out loud at Laura's take on the BBC broadcasters...
BTW, I didn't watch Fox Sunday, because I always watch the rerun, so I concentrated on MTP and (yuck)Face the Nation...
I only saw one mention of what Jane Harman said---and the poster mentioned just that she is NOT in favor of immigration reform.
I DO NOT want this to turn into a "border control" thread, but I am really curious about why she is against it...and any other freepers thoughts on that..
And Cavuto
Admitting to eating french food LOL
Exactly. At a law firm where I worked as a paralegal, the montly staff meetings were generally devoted to some kind of "lesson." At one, a litigation advised attorneys with no experience in criminal law how to proceed if they had to "hold the fort" (e.g., midnight call from a client whose teen-age was picked up for drunk driving) until a criminal attorney could be retained. Never ask: "What happened? What did you do?" Always ask: "What do the police say happened? What do the police think you did?"
In my observation, though, lying to or even misleading a judge you're appearing before is pretty risky, even when not under oath. (Not to say it isn't done; it can be a fine line.)
IMHO, once a covert or not so covert, i.e., Valerie Plame, marries an overt agent, i.e., senior diplomat Joseph Wilson, her usefulness as an agent is blown. Any intelligence agency worth its salt would immediately do a background on her. I bet the Mossad has a file on her, given her involvement in WMD and Iraq. I assume they also have one on Mr. Wilson and his business dealings with African leaders and Turkey.
I am waiting for the SP. Without more facts all we are doing is speculating.
The far left niche media. (beyond CNN, BBC, and the foreign press) is already there with a vengence.
They are pushing their goebles guru Mr. Lakoff to regurgitate these points exactly.
These talking points are already part of leftist talk radio and leftist local access TV.
It is similar here in Britain if a client admits to an offence to his lawyer then he cannot defend him
The false meme that the media's role is to objectively report was planted by the media. It puts the institution in a superior postion (i.e., "elite" as are government officials, as opposed to "the ignorant masses") that would not exist but for their creation of it.
But there never was such a thing as an objective media. The media has always manufactured news to suit its objectives. We'd be better off with openly partisan media, where the public has to make up its mind based on widely diverging presentations.
DING-DING-DING!! We have a winner!
Hooray, someone finally hits the mark. This "meme" started just before "Camelot", when the beginnings of the MSM began feeling their oats. (I suspect that having Harry and Dwight in the WH delayed the start, but I could be wrong)
Someone recently mentioned the Pentagon Papers, and noted that JFKennedy used assassination of foreign leaders as U.S. Policy, and nobody to this day has called anyone on it. If they'd done it to Truman or Eisenhower, someone would still be breaking rocks in Leavenworth.
(Oh, god, I got a thrill at the thought of fat Timmy or Steffie swingin' a 20-lb sledge in the Kansas sun ... )
Actually, I agree with what you posted...
I think the reason this has been brought up is because the economy is doing a lot better than expected, the London bombings have steered people back to Pres. Bush re: secuity, and since Pres. Bush hasn't named a nominee for SCOTUS, yet...
they had to find something to distract people from good news...I also feel that one reason the Schumer and Wilson had the press conference, and have been on these talk shows is...
IF some indictments are handed down, and two of them end up in the Wilsons hands....they can scream that his is pay-back for Wilson and Schumer going on TV, etc.,...
Thanks
I understand this as well. I've commented for years that if the bar does not clean up its act, voters will do it for them. Which is why there's more of a desire by the public to institute loser-pays and tort reform.
I still believe the US justice system is the best in the world, but that does not mean we don't have problems that need addressing to make it better. Rules of Evidence for another.
The biggest improvement for justice will be continued appointments of conservatives to the bench, and Bush getting a conservative/originalist/constitutionalist to the Supreme Court. (I fell out of my chair listening to Mary Landau saying Democrats didn't want judges who make laws sitting on the bench, but that she wanted a justice who would interpret the law instead.)
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.