Posted on 06/02/2006 7:15:19 PM PDT by Phsstpok
The Beltway Boys (Mort Kondrake, Fred Barnes)
CNBC's Tim Russert Show (Tim Russert)
Fox News Watch (Eric Burns)
Journal Editorial Report (Paul Gigot) - FNC show page
The Pentagon has confirmed today that Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and al Zawahri have been captured and are being held at an undisclosed location.
NOAA scientist have issued a press release today claiming they have found a simple low cost solution to global warming (rumored to have been assisted by algore).
Greek officials report that Natalie Holloway has been found living on a local oil magnate’s yacht.
A UFO has crashed near Ft Wayne Utah, the alien occupants are alive and being cared for by Air Force personnel.
We’ll have these and other stories, but first, out top story; New evidence has come to light that strongly suggests that Bush did in fact lie about WMD’s!
I’m Chris Matthews, let’s play Hardball.
The Weekend Preview Thread is up
If you would like on or off my ping list please Freepmail me
The most interesting guest to me will be Condi Rice. She is doing a blitz of multiple shows and it is clear she has a message to push. I am very interested in what it is and how hard the drive by media will try to ignore it. Hans Blix is doing a mini-counter blitz (a Blix blitz?) and I'll be interested to learn his (the UN/PLO/Al Qaeda's) talking points as well as the hagiography of Al Gore on ABC. Is he really the great white hope of the moonbats?
The dominant meme appears to be that Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is the only sane way to look at the world, oh, and appeasement is the most successful diplomatic tactic known to mankind (never mind the 100% failure rate)
Thanks for the ping!! Wow is it the weekend already? ;)
Good job!
I am most interested in seeing Allen's appearance on CNN. So far, he has not been very impressive in any of the appearances I have seen (although to be fair, I haven't seen all of them). He will have hard questions, and I will be paying attention to how he answers. It will give me a clue into his character, his intelligence, and how well his staff has prepped him, all three important aspects of a presidential candidate.
LOL...and I love your tagline, it is SO true.
I do know that Sen. Allen has been in Iraq this week...I don't know if he is back or not.
NOT that that answers your questions...just FYI.
I saw a segment on Fox News tonight that I thought was quite interesting...
Anita Vogel was in San Francisco area, I think, and she was saying that a lot of the people there are NOT happy with Rep. Jane Harman, Minority leader of the House Intelligence Committee...because she is "too conservative"..and "too pro-war"...or, maybe "not anti-war enough"...
Also, they said that Nancy Pelosi is planning on getting someone else to head the committee, especially if the win back the Majority..
Nancy says she knows that the Dems would NOT like someone so "moderate" in such a high position on such an important committee.
According to some people Vogel interviewed...they say Harman may have a hard time winning this year..however, they seemed glad about that...has California not had their primaries yet??
Because if they have...why would the people that thing Harman is too conservative HOPE she will be replaced???
I am in my usual state of confusion. LOL
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/053106.html
This isn't about the Jane Harman thing...but, it kind of plays into the scenario I posted before.
California primaries aren't until June, and so they are hoping that Harman's challenger wins. I heard that segment, too. Harman's challenger wants the defense industries in the district to convert to producing eco-friendly technology. Moonbat alert!
Thanks for the Ping and all the hard work.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/31/haditha/index.html
Video on lower right hand side of the screen. Called "Haditha Uncovered. Go watch it.
Perhaps someone can explain to me the logical and factual flaws in the "Iraqi Civilian Right Groups" "story. How can these facts be logically reconciled with what the Iraqis, and some supposed Freepers, are accusing the Marines of doing?
To Quote Time:
"According to published reports, a number of Marines from the storied 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, 1st Marine Division are accused killing more than 20 Iraqi civilians in retaliation for the death of one of their comrades by a roadside bomb in November, 2005."
Okie, 20 Dead Civilians. Which we are told were all shot thus supposedly proving "the Marines falsified the original report". So what could just be an honest mistake between a Marine's assumption on the spot of cause of death in his After Action Report (We didn't fire up the building, they were dead, must of been the bomb shrapnel) with a medical examiners report filed after a autopsies is NOW claimed by the accusers as"proof" that the "Marines Lied".
Ok so the accusation is they were all shot to death at short range in a building that had not been penetrated by any rounds from outside. No bullet holes in the building, must mean it was not Collateral Damage but a deliberate act is the accusers claims. In other words the accusers claim the Marines shot to death the Iraqis inside the building as a deliberate act not an accident of war. In fact, Some are running around claiming a shrapnel wound is so obviously different that a Combat Infantry Marine would know the difference between the two. Leave aside the obviously question why would Infantry Marine would be examining the wounds of dead Civilians, lets assume, that is correct.
Ok, then how come the "survivors" as interviewed for CNN by the "Iraqi Civil Rights group" are making such obviously absurd claims on the video?
"They burned the room with my father in it then threw a bomb"? Neat trick that. How they "Burn the room"? We don't use flame throwers. "Threw a bomb" but the accusers are telling us it all gun shot wounds. "a Bomb" inflict shrapnel wounds.
Notice also the mannerism of the "children survivors". Having come thru what would of been the most terrifying event of their lives and being forced to talk about it again, yet the kids show no hesitation or emotion. Just a dull recital of supposed "Facts" as if they were reciting a story as an memorization assignment in School. Very strange that. Absolutely no real emotion, just a breathless recital of "Facts" Then when done speaking look over to the person standing to the right of the camera (You can see his shadow behind the kids). Sure looks like kids looking at a teacher to see how they did in reciting their "lesson"
Then there is the part where the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" filming the kids told the Iraqi boy to "show his wounds". It must not of occurred to the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" making the video to consider the Iraqi boy's supposed "wound". Apparently no one bothered to think about where he was "shot". The supposed "wound" supposedly inflicted by US Marines at point blank range, (as claimed by the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group)" is directly over his spine. Yet when told he got up and turned around for the camera to "Show his wounds"?
If he HAD been shot there, he would be crippled for life, his spine severed just below the neck. So all this is being based on the claims of an "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" which are demonstrated to be lying. Since they lied about this, what ELSE might they have lied about? So maybe some one can explain these inconsistencies in the "witnesses" testimony? Some "Americans", especially in the Junk Media, maybe want to rethink their rush to judgment on these Marines
Every time I read things like this I remember it being said most of the reporters in Iraq were using stringers, who would bring them news and interviews so the reporters would not have to be out exposed in areas where they could be kidnapped or hurt. Also said was these stringers all knew the reporters would pay more for bad news, anti-military or anti-US stories than good news. If true, it may explain at least a portion of the inconsistencies and inaccurate reporting.
I guess, for that reason and others, I have not been interested in reports from Time or Newsweek or the other rags I know are supporting the anti-war crowd.
Okay..that makes more sense then.
Those people really are looney tunes out there, aren't they.
Personally, I am not a fan of Harman...and would love to see her go.
I wonder if there is a Republican running that would then, have a chance against a non-incumbent candidate? I doubt it, California just doesn't seem to have any CONSERVATIVES, now that Pres. Reagan is gone.
YIKES...Fox has changed their schedule...
I sat down, ready to enjoy the Journal show, with Paul Gigot..but NOPE...more Fox News of the same stories they have had all day.
I checked the guide on DirecTV...and I guess it will only be on once, tonight at 11:00 EDT.
the FNC JER web page now says "Saturday's at 11 PM ET." Looks like they've dropped not only the "early" 4 PM ET showing but the Sunday early morning replay.
It's interesting to me that the Opinion Journal JER web page still shows all of the airings.
methinks the rumors of bad ratings and a shaky hold on a spot in the FNC lineup may (unfortunately) be true. Otherwise something has happened (technical snafu?) during this weeks taping.
Drat, I like the show.
That makes at least two of us. :(
What is worse, when I was checking the guide, it still shows John Kasich's show on...blech.
I would LOVE for them to replace Kasich's hour show with Gigot's show.
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.