Skip to comments.Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 22 January 2006
Posted on 01/22/2006 5:21:05 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, January 22nd, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; University of Maryland's men's basketball coach Gary Williams.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
THIS WEEK (ABC): John Kerry, D-Mass.; Reps. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Jane Harman, D-Calif., chairman and ranking Democrat of the House Intelligence Committee; actor Gary Sinise.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz; formerUnited Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke; former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon.
Very sad and whilst awful for her it is the children I feel more for
"I'm off to watch the Broncos on TV."
Having 'grown up' in Denver, I was a HUGH Bronco fan, until after the 1st year I moved to Seattle. It would be a hoot if the old rivals - Broncos and Seahawks were in the Super Bowl (though I have a feeling most of the east coast sports channels wouldn't be too thrilled about having to cover 2 'western' teams, especially ones who have much smaller media markets.
Well I am sorry to say this year it is hard for me to get excited about a game I really have loved since I was a child and rooted for the Cleveland Browns. I don't have a dog in this hunt because the Dolphins still are puking up Pablum. I think it may be time for Seattle to finally make the "Big time", and I do not see Charlotte winning this time. I will root for seattle to go for it all. I do not see Pittsburgh winning it all even for "the Bus'" last year. I hate it when the Super Bowl teams suck and it looks like the "wild cards" are playing. I really want to see an evenly matched good Super Bowl Game.
What a nice maiden post.
She doesn't really even have an opponent in New York. I think the Republican strategy is to have her win with 60% of the vote running against someone no one ever heard of. Since the opponent can't possibly win, Democrats who would never be caught dead voting for a Republican might cast a protest vote against Hillary, say for one of the fringe candidates, that they never would if the race was close. And the vehement leftwing Bush-haters consider Hillary to be a Quisling with her support of the Iraq War. Give 5% to the Left-Wing Fringe Candidate.
New York *does* have a reliable 35% Republican vote, maybe even some democratic Hillary haters who are *not* left wing crazies might vote for the Republican candidate in this instance, knowing the candidate has no chance of winning, to "send a message."
Now, a 60/40 race might seem like a landslide if you are running against a viable opponent but if you are running against someone with no political experience and no support and no real message other than "I am not Hillary," this will be seen as a warning to Democrats that in the bluest of blue states Hillary starts out with 40% who will vote against her.
Schumer got close to 80% in his last Senatorial election and Hillary, even though she won, ran WAY BEHIND Gore in 2000. Why would Democrats want to nominate a candidate who had half the margin of victory of Gore in 2000 and close to 20% less of the vote than Schumer?
Thanks!!!! Always good to be reminded!!!!
You're welcome. Just came back into this thread (trying to get a few things done before the Seahawk game) Cripes, another leak. Have you seen this??
NBC News leaks secret 400-page Defense Department document.
NBC News ^ | Dec. 13, 2005 | Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella and the NBC Investigative Unit
Posted on 12/13/2005 5:16:49 PM PST by ADemocratNoMore
Is the Pentagon spying on Americans? Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks suspicious domestic groups.
WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a threat and one of more than 1,500 suspicious incidents across the country over a recent 10-month period.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Could it be John Kerry? Hmmmmmmmm. Veddy interesting, but not stupid.
6 . CHINA'S THEFT OF NUCLEAR SECRETS -- (Senate - March 15, 1999)
6 . THE CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY SCANDAL AND COVERUP -- (June 23, 1999)
In 1999, other Senators mention the theft of the W-88 design ...
11 . NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 -- (May 26, 1999)
11 . NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT OF 1999 -- (March 16, 1999)
21 . INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--Continued -- (July 21, 1999)
She needs to show a clear majority of eligible voters, not just win.
I believe with a little bit of media coverage Spencer can give her big trouble.
He may not win, but he can dent her image.
A real joke, not a coincidence either that he's with potatohead for a full hour.
Puhleeze... There is a whole lot more to Carolina than just Charlotte.
Do you think one out of 25 Americans ever heard of Abramoff?
I doubt it, since media commentators do not even agree on how to pronounce his name. Now, generally a name is pronounced as the owner of it says it. This lack of knowledge on the correct pronunciation tells me that hardly anyone knows the man.
Unless Denver can turn things around, it's not going to happen. LOL
This manufactured media scandal will have no effect at all on the upcoming elections.
The media drunkenly goes from one blame Bush rant to the next. After a while people just turn them off.
Then who cleans up the mess after 2012 - another Republican like President Reagan after Carter and President George W. Bush after clinton!
Yes, bill was a very wise politician, but not a leader!
Just a little reminder of his untended business- and in bill's own words --"I did it because I could"
TERRORIST ATTACKS 1993-2000
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1995 Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995
1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1996 Sudanese Missionarys Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996
1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996
1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997
1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997
1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered
And another little reminder in case you have forgotten --- words once spoken can't not be taken back.
Democrats, Circa 1998
-- President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)
-- Vice President Al Gore: "Saddam's Ability To Produce And Deliver Weapons Of Mass Destruction Poses A Grave Threat ... To The Security Of The World." GORE: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. His defiance of the will of the international community to allow UNSCOM to do its job cannot and will not be tolerated." (Al Gore, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
-- Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright: "[W]e Are Concerned, As The President Said, About [Saddam's] Ability In The Long Run To Threaten His Neighbors, And Frankly, To Threaten All Of Us With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)
Cohen, Following Clinton's Orders On ABC's This Week: "What Is On The Horizon Is Anthrax, VX, Sarin, And Other Types Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." COHEN: "All of his neighbors in the region, I think, are fearful of what Saddam Hussein has done in the past and apprehensive of what he might do in the future. We intend to intensify that apprehension on their part by showing it's not invasion of Kuwait, it's not invasion of Saudi Arabia that's on the horizon. What is on the horizon is anthrax, VX, sarin, and other types of weapons of mass destruction." (ABC's This Week, 11/16/97)
--Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser : "[Saddam] will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again."
-- U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Facts are facts. Iraq has been deceiving the international community with the weaponization of nerve gas. It's that simple." -- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "[Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.): "[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
And finally to remind you the party you connect with does not put The United States Of America first, before their power grabbing.
The following is the leaked Rockefeller memo exposing what is happening now - all for power!!!!!
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public:
1) additional views on the interim report;
2) announcement of our independent investigation; and
3) additional views on the final investigation; or
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence. In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
This said ---- I do welcome you to FreeRepublic and I hope you stick around awhile!!
Who cares about the super bow I just want to watch 24 all the time.
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.