Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 6 August 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 6 August 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, August 6th, 2006

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): National security adviser Stephen Hadley; Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon; Mohamad Chatah, adviser to Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Saniora; Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Lanny Davis, adviser to Lieberman, and Lamont supporter Jim Dean, chairman of the Democracy for America political action committee.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Rice; Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Ned Lamont, Connecticut Democratic primary challenger; screenwriter and director Nora Ephron.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : National security adviser Stephen Hadley; Lebanese Economy and Trade Minister Sami Haddad and Lebanese political analyst Roula Talj; Shlomo and Karnit Goldwasser, parents of kidnapped Israeli soldier.

[rodguy911]

Newt's got that wild hair that crops up every now and then and you never know when, he can say or do ridiculous things almost in a heartbeat and you turn your head and say now why the ....did he do that.

[MNJohnnie]

Check my new tagline

[johnny7]

I'm afraid that(shame) won't make a difference.

I know... but I was trying to offer something other than my standard 'kill'm'all' fare. ;)

[kabar]

Check out the condition of Germany prior to the Nazis rise to power and review your comment in that light. They were much more backward than Iran is today, and much less of a threat to their neighbors. It took only a few years to become the world girdling threat they did and that was without seemingly limitless oil wealth to draw on. Iran today isn't Germany in the 1930s. They're more advanced and more threatening by a long shot.

Backward? Are we discussing two different Germanys? The one I am referring to was among the world's richest and most industrially advanced countries on the face of the earth. Germany was among the leaders in science, technology, engineering, physics, architecture, social sciences, philosophy, literature, the arts, military strategy, etc. Did you ever hear of Einstein, Diesel, Gropius, Alzheimer, Benz, Damlier, Von Braun, Fahrenheit, Marx, Hertz, Humboldt, Kant, Kepler, Leibniz, Lilienthal, Mach, Mann, Nietzsche, Ohm, Röntgen, Schiller, Steinmetz, van der Rohe, Wagner, Wasserman, Zeiss, Clausewitz, Bismark, Rommel, and Zeppelin?

Even after WWI Germany was one of the most advanced countries on the planet. You don't build up the most powerful military force in the world in a decade without having the industrial base, educated populace, national infrastructure, organization, and resources to make it happen.

Iran is a third world country with an 85% literacy rate. It couldn't defeat Iraq in an 8 year war, the same Iraq that we defeated in a few weeks. Iran has no ability to project its power beyond its borders. Its military equipment is outdated. Comparing Iraq's relative capabilities today to the Nazis capabilities relative to the rest of the world at the time is nonsense.

Having said that I recognize that they don't have the industrial base that Germany had in the 30s. But then, today they don't need it. They can "subcontract" it out to fellow travelers like Korea, which has a burgeoning missile and nuclear weapons capability. They can simply buy it on the open market from countries like Germany, Russia or even US firms, as was proved in the oil for food scandal. We can't apply the same conventional calculus to this question that has been applied before. We can't afford a "failure of imagination."

Buy it do what? Are you suggesting that we are going to see Iranian aircraft carriers, a huge land army capable of surging across Europe, fleets of stealth bombers and aircraft? Let's get real. Iran has the 34th largest economy in the world with Thailand 34, Argentia 36, and Israel 37. The US economy is almost 100 times larger than Iran's. You just can't buy advanced weapons and think that you can then be a powerful miliary force. You need the organization, discipline, command and control, etc. to be able to project power and be effective.

[Phsstpok]

Two words.

Weimar Republic. And examine the effects of the Depression on Germany.

Iran has no ability to project its power beyond its borders.

Tell that to Israel.

As to Iran's literacy rate and the list of German scientific and industrial geniuses, what was the work of genius the first time is the work of a skilled technician thereafter.  Iran has a well trained techincal work force to draw on.

And Iran doesn't need aircraft carriers to put a cobalt bomb in NY, San Diego, LA or Boston harbor.  Or how about just sinking 30 nukes in a string of concrete blocks across the Straights of Hormuz?  Don't think so conventionally.  They're not.  Neither are the Chinese, who wrote the book on assymetric warfare.

The US economy is almost 100 times larger than Iran's.

And they can bring that economy to a screeching halt, or at least they think they can.  All it takes is a willingness to die in the process.  You and MNJ are counting on them not being that crazy.  I'm not willing to put my faith in their good intentions or basic rationality. 

You just can't buy advanced weapons and think that you can then be a powerful miliary force. You need the organization, discipline, command and control, etc. to be able to project power and be effective.

Again, tell it to the Israelis.  They'll laugh in your face.

[PerConPat]

Defeat in detail is required. They must be left with nowhere to go except to contemplate why their god abandoned them... That is not a final or definitive conclusion.

I certainly respect your position. Mine is one of "the sooner the better" with respect to Iran. It started there and that's where, not ironically , it will end. I do not fault US administration after administration in their attempts to isolate Iran and play for time until the possibility of regime change from within displaced the Mullahs. But that time may have passed.

Russia and China have nothing to gain from a WMD wielding Islamicist state in their backyards. They are merely fishing in troubled waters at present. Assurances can be made to both that the removal of the Islamic [i]Republic[/i] of Iran's present leaders will benefit all concerned. The world's appetite for oil will insure that Russia's reserves will continue to be valuable, and China can only benefit from the stabilization of petroleum supplies that will result from the defanging of the Khomeinis etc..

Threat assessment was simplified previously by Iran's limited military capability. Now the clock is ticking, and WMD in Iran's hands is steadily approaching. Some have argued that there is still time to prevent that nightmare, but I will quote the character, Remo Gaggi, from [i]Casino[/i]: "Why take the chance?" I recognize that the US is very likely moving in this direction, very deliberately, now. And I, too, do not necessarily think Iran's use of WMD to be the primary danger. It is, IMHO, their willing failure to control terrorists that provides the impetus.

[kabar]

Iran and Iraq were both very modern and progressive countries (by the standards of the time) prior to the rise of their fundamentalist Islamic or tyrannical despot regimes. Both Baghdad and Tehran had some excellent universities and industrial infrastructure in the 70s and 80s comparable to many European countries.

I lived in Iran (1977-79). To suggest that Iran was comprable to many European countries is simply laughable. Tehran was somewhat modern, but it was downhill from there in the rest of the country. I visited Shiraz, Tabriz, and Isfahan. Big difference from Tehran. But certainly Tehran could not be compared to most European countries and cities. I don't see how Iraq could have been that modern given the fact that many parts of the country didn't even have electricity.

I am not saying it will happen. I'm saying it can happen. If you deny that then we're done. There's no more point in discussing this. If it can happen then we have to think about it and prepare. If I'm wrong we'll have worried over nothing. If you're wrong millions could die. That's not a tough call for me.

Anything can happen, but an Iran as a major world power capable of rivaling the US militarily and economically is remote and that is being charitable.

[Barset]

I hadn't thought of that. But wouldn't the loyalists interested in the other races be more likely to come out than those just interested in doing Kos's/Soros's bidding?

[Barset]

victor David Hanson's latest essay "On the Brink of Insanity"
reflects on the world's reactions to Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini and Japan in the East during the thirties, and how it is the same as ours today--disbelief, indifference, appeasement.

[kabar]

Weimar Republic. And examine the effects of the Depression on Germany.

The entire world suffered a depression, including the US. That did not change the basic capabilities and resources of the country. The fall of the Weimar republic was far more damaging politically than anything else. Germany remained one of the world's most powerful countries and its educated, highly skilled population would help it recover from the Weimar Republic and post WWII.

Tell that to Israel.

If that is the extent of Iranian power, then Israel has nothing to worry about. A few rockets from some guerilla force is not the Wehrmact. Hurling a few rockets is not projecting power. If Iran tried to send a few of those rockets from its own country, Israel would send the entire country back to the Stone Age.

And Iran doesn't need aircraft carriers to put a cobalt bomb in NY, San Diego, LA or Boston harbor. Or how about just sinking 30 nukes in a string of concrete blocks across the Straights of Hormuz? Don't think so conventionally. They're not. Neither are the Chinese, who wrote the book on assymetric warfare.

LOL. If Iran did it overtly and they would if they tried that trick with the Straits of Hormuz, then Iran would no longer exist as a viable nation. Do you honestly believe we would permit that to happen. As I have stated previously, Iran's greatest threat [nuclear] is using surrogates and hope that they cannot be traced back to them.

And they can bring that economy to a screeching halt, or at least they think they can. All it takes is a willingness to die in the process. You and MNJ are counting on them not being that crazy. I'm not willing to put my faith in their good intentions or basic rationality.

Sorry, but I don't think they will commit national suicide. The mullahs who run the country are not the ones strapping bombs on to their backs. They use kids and women to do that.

Again, tell it to the Israelis. They'll laugh in your face.

If you think that hurling some inaccurate Katyusha rockets transforms Hezbollah into a powerful military force, you are mistaken. You need to put some of this into context. Israel has lost 44 civilians due to the rocket attacks. Not exactly the London Blitz. Hezbullah has lost nearly 400 people and the Israelis 46 military personnel. Israel is under no threat of Hezbollah invading and taking over the country.

[kabar]

I would think that the loyalists would support Lieberman as they have in the past. The new or energized voters would support Lamont.

[Boston Tea Party]

Laverne, I have only one quarrel with your post. His full name is Fat STUPID Tim. :-)

[The Electrician]

Pretty sad when you hear both senators : Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn. sound alike when it comes to the war in Iraq.

That's simply what you get when a neutral concept such as "balance" metastasizes within the fevered bowels of CBS News - in their view, it's proper to balance an anti-war Democrat with an anti-war Republican - from their perspective there are no legitimate counter-aguments in support of the war effort, so they schedule two guests from opposing parties who favor the same anti-war policy changes...

[rodguy911]

Yeah, it's good!

[Phsstpok]

I think he did a very good job summarizing this argument. I included a link to his "Brink of Madness" column in a a post where I copied the entry, I think from Powerline, but it's been a couple of days.

I know that Hugh Hewitt and several others have been pursuing this theme in recent weeks. Lets see if they (we?) have more success than Winston Churchill did in the 30s...

[altura]

Actually Jeff Arch wrote Sleepless in Seattle and Nora tweaked it and called it her own.

I don't even believe he got screenwriting credits for it.

But she does have a way with the romantic comedy.

[CedarDave]

###### Capitalizing on THE Tragedy - Katie Couric will make her prime-time CBS News debut on September with 9/11 Special anchoring the "CBS Evening News" on Sept. 11 from ground zero.

Remember during the 2004 election, when any hint of 9/11 was taboo in a Bush re-election commercial. Guess its o.k. though to use it to boost TV ratings by a news reader disguised as a journalist or news anchor.

[CedarDave]

Here's what the Republican candidate for governor in NM (running against Richardson) had to say about teachers yesterday:

Republican governor candidate John Dendahl isn't exactly courting the teacher vote.
In reacting to test results announced this week, Dendahl said public school teachers skimp on basics because they are too busy teaching the "three S's— sexuality, self-esteem and socialism."
"Instead of teaching the three R's— Reading, Writing and 'rithmetic, schools are too busy trying to teach the three S's," Dendahl said in a statement this week in which he criticized Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson for academic problems in New Mexico public schools.

Obviously it sent the Democrats into reaction mode (adding a fourth "S" -Silly), but it made the front page of the ABQ paper yesterday and no doubt more than a few heads nodded in agreement while drinking their morning coffee.

Dendahl: Teachers Skimp on Basics (NM)

[NYpeanut]

I wonder what shoe size Mel Gibson wears.

[CedarDave]

Speaking of Katrina. I saw a brief article yesterday about the President wanting the right to control the National Guard of any state in event of an emergency such as Katrina.

Oh, the governors are not happy at all. They don't want the President to have that right.

Yet, they will be the first to blast the President in the event of another disaster.

The President may well be blamed in the event of another Katrina type disaster. But I don't want him to have that power. As I said on a thread yesterday, color me paranoid, but a Hillary-Clinton-type president (God forbid) would take the opportunity to abuse it to our regret.