Posted on 06/04/2006 5:26:04 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, June 4th, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.; former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Vice President Al Gore; author John Updike.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Rice; Blix; Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.
John McCain will oblige her.
The PTB's know that what has worked before will usually work again. There have been two successful derailments and hijackings of the electoral will of the people via thrid parties previously: 1. Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party (funded and supported by the same financial and media interests which supported Wilson) gave us Woodrow Wilson, and of course 2. Ross Perot.
I fully believe McCain is demented enough and stupid enough to play their willing dupe for a third round of divide and conquer.
Also, Iran wants nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against Western military intervention into their domestic affairs and to intimidate their neighbors. A nuclear Iran would be an intimidating factor in a region that has the vast majority of the world's exportable oil supplies, most of which are shipped through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has dreams of regional hegemony. A democratic Iraq allied with the US poses a challenge to that dream.
Bush has said categorically that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The question is what are we prepared to do to stop them.
Well fed??
Chubby?
Have you ever heard a large woman referred to as "Rubenesque?" It refers to women of the type that Peter Paul Rubens was fond of using as models. He lived from 1577 to 1640, a period that included many plagues and wars, including the devestating 30 years war in Central Europe between "Protestants" led by the Swedish King Gustavus Aldofus and the "Catholics" of the Holy Roman Empire (I put the religions in quotes as the actual combatants and victims on both sides were as likely to be of the "wrong" faith in any given engagement). At the time a full figure was an indication of both health (you can't be plump if you have plague) and wealth (ditto being poor and plump).
Now, however, for the drive by media this thinking has to have a political dimension. Al Gore is "prosperous." Rush Limbaugh is, and always will be, "fat" (even after losing so much weight).
Will McCain take more votes from Hillary or the GOP nominee?
But a third party movement has failed with John Anderson and some others.
McCain would probably draw disgruntled Democrats as much as Republicans. Plus, most Republicans I know are very sensitive to any third party effort and would reject falling into that trap so soon after Perot gave us Clinton.
Really, Morgan, it may have seemed that way but this is not at all true.
Most promotions, even to Admiral/General, at least at the 1-3 star level, are made by the military Admiral/Generals already there. 4 stars, since they are normally major command commanders, have political sponsors, but mostly the president doesn't say much one way or the other. I retired in 1998, and most of the Generals I knew who were promoted to general in the 90s where on track to be generals long before Clinton got the presidency (late 70s early 80s).
Throughout the 90s there was a very strongly held dislike of the Clintons by most I knew. Subordination and disrespect was absolutely forbidden, but you must understand a certain mindset that goes through the ranks. This mindset says wait. In a few years these knuckleheads will be gone. An example of this is high ranking commanders rarely stay on one job for more than 2, 3 years top. So when we got a bad commander, it was always with the understanding that they'd be gone by and by. I witnessed this attitude a lot during the Clinton admin.
As an example, Clinton came to Europe during the early days of the Bosnian crisis, when we first sent troops there. I was stationed at Ramstein AB, Germany. Clinton was going to speak in one of the big hangers at the flight line to all the base personnel who wanted to attend. Well, they didn't want anyone parking down at the flight line so they said folks could park at our Northside post office (big parking lot here) and they would have big blue school buses (ubiquitous in the USAF--Blue Goose) to take us down to the hangers. Clinton was supposed to speak around 2:00 pm or so. I sure didn't want to attend! I went to check my mail around 3:15 and 8 of the 10 blue goose's (geese?) where still there, so I asked one of the drivers who where standing around outside smoking if Clinton had postponed or opted out of his speech. "Nope,", they said, "All who wanted to go had gone, but they were only able to get a bus and a half who wanted too!" Ha! Little things like that show what the military thought of him.
Thinking he was able to handpick all the flag officers because they were craven or dastardly like him assumes that the rest of the military would work with these "leaders". It just didn't happen. A lot of factors lead to the making of a general officer. One of these is having a similar mindset to all the rest. Billy Mitchell is an Air Force version of what happens to a maverick (in a negative way). Wesly Clark is an example of what happens to a pro-Clintonoid pos in a positive way. The system won in each case.
Oh BTW, I talked to one of my troops who stayed at Ramstein until a few years ago. Dubya came there and made a speech in the same hanger. Standing room only! A lot of folks had to wait outside as there was not enough room for them. And they wildly cheered and showed honest enthusiasm. It's still proud talk of them to have got in to see President Bush. Speaks volumes to how they saw his predecessor, no?
the dems see this a winning strategory for both 06 and 08 divide the Republican Party so they feel that they can only vote for a "true conservative"
Some so-called Conservatives see the same strategory.
They will deliver the Dim victory.
But only if they continue to thumb their collective noses at every Repub that disagrees with them on even one subject.
"They may be citizens, but if they are convicted felons, I believe their debt to society includes forfeiting their right to vote forever."
I second that....
Yes, this is the question but it remains to be seen when it has to be answered, or the steps being put in place to make the answer acceptable and logical to allies and even foes in the UN.
Even though there seems to be the pressure to make it quickly, it may take longer than Americans are used to. Dr. Rice today seemed to be laying groundwork in her answers to Wallace on FNS this morning. Or, call it posturing/positioning the us versus them future confrontation.
It's a shame we can't use Dan Ackroyd's timeless preamble from the original Saturday Night Live's "Week-End Update".
I would pay good money to see Britt Hume or Tony Snow respond "Juan (or Helen, Nina, CiCi, etc.), you ignorant slut" prior to making his rebuttals. /grin
That story absolutely made my day.
No I didn't, but Allen tends to ramble a bit in the transcript. Levin's words hang together better.
Even my dentist has stopped getting Time and Newsweek for the office waiting room.
####
And they are sent it for free!
Russia and China will never support military action against Iran and it will be well-neigh impossible to even get economic sanctions out of the Security Council. Taking the matter to the UN is just a PR gesture.
Even though there seems to be the pressure to make it quickly, it may take longer than Americans are used to. Dr. Rice today seemed to be laying groundwork in her answers to Wallace on FNS this morning. Or, call it posturing/positioning the us versus them future confrontation.
It will be difficult to get the American public and Congress to support military intervention. My personal opinion is that we are going to see some sort of deal emerging from the multilateral talks with Iran that will save face for all sides, but will really not stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Hell, the Iranians have enough money to buy them from NK or Pakistan.
Late again....sigh
I am going to start at the first of the thread..just scanning a few posts...sounds like a real barn burner of a talk show day!
Rush has said this is why he doesn't do interviews on the show or hang out too much as the token conservative at "elite" parties--- he doesn't want to get too friendly with people he's going to have to come down hard on. I consider myself a fan of Hannity and I uderstand good manners, but I wish he would stop with the "I had a private conservation with Meredith Viera or Katie Couric in the green room and she actually has some very fascinating non-liberal views I can't talk about but you would be surprised at!"
We are not in a position to manage Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran all on our own. We need allies. The things the "Real Conservatives" are screaming are proof of a "Weakening of Bush's will" are the normal give and take any President trying to get things done HAS to do.
We need allies here. That is just the Military reality. We cannot do this alone. These sorts of "talks" and "softening of the rhetoric" are the price we have to pay to drag the Nervous Nellies in the Congresses and the EU along with us.
The President is NOT a god. He cannot simply issue orders and make the world 100% satisfactory as the "True Conservatives". When it boils right down to it, the ONLY think the President got is persuasion. He has to convince people to follow his lead.
That is why the Junk Media has done such a demolishing job on his "poll ratings". They have hyped and exaggerated and out right lied about them because it is the best way to have Congress act like a bunch of panic stricken chickens running in every direction. Since "polls are reality" for the inside the beltway crowd, the best way to undercut Bush's ability to get things done is to paint him as political poison. That any politician who follows Bush is going to die a horrible political death.
That what makes this continually ranting and raving at Bush by supposedly "Conservative" pundits is so utterly stupid. If people like Noonan, the NRO crowd, Savage et al were REALLY interested in getting things done they would spend 90% of their time attacking the Libs. They DON"T. Because of a childish sense of entitlement, they spend 90% of their time SHOOTING AT THEIR own side out pure petulance. "You aren't doing what I want, I hate you, Whaa".
In the 1990s, we had "the Politics of Personal Destruction" as the Clintons set out to personally destroy anyone opposed to them, now we have "The Political of the Temper Tantrums" where supposedly "Conservatives" rant and rave and bitch and whine nonstop because 40% of their political glass is empty!
Frankly there is a huge temptation among the Adults to let them have their way. Let them throw their childish fit. Then when reality smashes them in the face with a Democrat controlled Congress, remind them "We told you people this was the price you would pay".
Unfortunately the ability to appoint Judges for the next generation and the continuing war on terror are far too vital to our future as a free nation to let this battle go without a fight.
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.