Did you watch any of the love fest between levin and Warner. It was truly stomach turning.
The senators seem to forget they are there to represent their state and not pander to their colleagues.
Sorry to say, I missed Carl "Marx" Levin this morning.
FNS was its usual well done program this morning. Every guest and panelist performed as expected, with the exception of Warner who seemed worse than usual.
Levin, wants it both ways. Cut & Run along with We Told You So. Tommy Frank said we would actively be in Iraq approximately 5 years, followed by a presence there of probably around ten more years. President Bush alluded to a similar timeline as the Iraqi government was established and the Iraqi police and military taking over duties the US military was doing. All of this is progressing along the lines set forth by President Bush, General Franks and statements by both the US military in Iraq and the new Iraqi government. (The only thing new is Democrats think they can take credit for something that was going to happen anyway.)
Warner, poor representative even if he is the committee head. (The Peter Principle is alive and well.)
Specter, said the Senate would not hold hearings based on one newspaper account. Sorry NY Times, you’re not important enough to cause hearings. Also, Specter said there is no privacy expectation on bank records so they are not the same as the NSA warrantless wiretap. Immigration? Typically, he wants to find good illegal immigrants and separate them from bad illegal immigrants. (He must not understand the word “illegal.” I presume Specter does not think illegal is illegal. Reminds me of Bill Clinton definition of the word “is.”)
King: He wants to prosecute the NY Times. Sounds like bluster more than a serious, well thought out accusation. Immigration? Falls into line as opposed to amnesty and wants to protect borders. Wants hearings. Insists on secure borders first (YEA!) and crack down on employers (YEA!). King also admits he is poll driven. Not the preferred response from a responsible GOP representative.
Brit Hume: Prosecuting the NY Times can’t be prosecuted saying it’s “just not possible.” We have to keep in mind, the “news” story the NY Times reported was initially disclosed in 2002, IIRC! President Bush specifically said we would be going after possible terrorist finances. We did. So what! The only real security problem today is it reminded our enemies of what our policy has been. Rather than the NY Times, I want the leaker prosecuted.
Me: The only new item I have heard was naming the SWIFT program specifically. For what it’s worth, I don’t have a problem drying this up as a means for transferring funds. If nothing else, this could help stop funding by leftist US supporters. Admittedly, I have not read the story in the NY Times since I don’t have any desire to read anything in the NY Times. As for transfer of funds, maybe Al Qaeda can get future funds from a Buddhist temple or two. I’m sure Al Gore or Hillary Clinton could advise them.
YEA! Brit: The future drawdown is exactly what has been said over and over, expected and anticipated. This in NOT news! Even Mara admitted the Democrats are only looking of political points. Of course, Juan Williams equates any movement to political timing; but Juan’s opinion is just Democrat talking points cover for what’s going to happen anyway.
I haven't seen Fox News Sunday yet...were Levin and Warner holding hands under the table?? LOL