Posted on 09/03/2006 5:01:28 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Washington Redskins coach Joe Gibbs.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and his Democratic challenger, state treasurer Robert Casey.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.; Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and his primary challenger, Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey; actress and animal rights activist Bo Derek.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.; Iraqi deputy prime minister Barham Salih; Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iranian representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency; Teamsters president James Hoffa and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao; former Clinton adviser Lanny Davis and former Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd.
Sorry, but in my opinion, it's stuck on anti americanism
I looked and looked -- I can't find it anywhere so I have to retract that statement. I can remember reading it but can't find the source to support it.
Sorry.
Whoever posted it needs to state which Article and Section of the Constitution that authorizes the action.
But WTH who follows the steenking Constitution anymore? Katrina is a prime example.
We had a mini drought thru most of June and July. My yard was DEAD except for the weeds. Now looking out my window I can almost watch my grass grow. It is actually noticiably higher then it was yesterday. Simply an amazing thing to see.
Peach, the entire purpose of the pflame pretend outrage was to label the President as lacking in honor and integrity. This fit in with their constant mantra of The President Lied about WMD.
Good dissection of the "debate" between Santorum and Casey..and I agree with all that you said.
However, I expected much LESS by Santorum today..and was very pleasantly surprised..
Also, I am not sure if Fat Timmah would have let Rick go on and on about Iraq, like you posted...I have a feeling he would have cut Rick off if he started making TOO many good points..
I just wish that Russert or Rick would have asked Casey a question that was not on the "script"...IOW, something that he wasn't rehearsed for with DNC talking points...because then I think he would have REALLY shown how he is not a serious candidate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694886/posts
Dishonoring the 9/11 dead
Real good thread here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630233/posts?page=88#88
You stated, "But I will add that it is a leviathan and the ability to clean house is challenging. State provides research and it's not unusual for the researcher's predilections from seeping into support documentation....What I am saying is that there is a contingent in State that works to undermine this administration's approach."
The implication is that the career employees are the problem and make up the "contingent" that undermines the administration. You want them cleared out.
Maybe if we try this a different way, we might not be that far apart. In your first post, you'd indicated that the feeling at State was being treated as Lilliputians. Was that because staffers were treated badly by political appointees, or maybe not badly, but their advice was being ignored?
My point was that the State Department's influence in Washington is not that great when it comes to controversial foreign policy issues. The bureaucracies are constantly vying with one another to have issues decided by the WH in their favor, i.e., agreeing with their recommendations.
The State Department and DOD often clash over issues and more often not, DOD wins. The clash has more to do with institutional perspectives and missions than any intent to undermine administration policies. The losers fight back by leaking information or pointing out flaws in the decision they don't agree with. It is the way Washington works inside the Beltway.
Powell and Armitage were constantly doing battle with Rumsfeld. All of them are experienced bureaucrats who know how to operate successfully in this millieu. Powell and Armitage were reflecting the State Deparetment's perspective and frustrations and probably thier own. Rumsfeld was their equal when it comes to the bureaucratic turf wars. I can recall the battle of who was going to control the CPA and who Bremer reported to. A lot has to do with egos and who has the ear of the President.
Constitution doesn't authorize action. It provides the frame work under which our political/legal structure operates. Congress authorizes action by legislation or the President executes it via the inherent powers invested in his office. The Judiciary watch dogs the actions of Congress and the Executive and deals with legal disagreements.
Without a Judicial order finding the action was Unconstitutional, the opinion of a private person about the Constitutionality of any action is irrelevant. I personally feel the CFR laws are clear breech of the Constitution. Unfortunately the Court did not agree.
What are the manifestations of the undermining you refer to?
&&&&
It is well understood that many career folks at State identify with the countries or organizations where they serve rather than with the mission of America's interests.
One example: people resigned when Yugoslavia broke up because they had loyalties to the Croatian 'desk' or the 'Serbian' desk rather than to American policy vis a vis Yugoslavia.
Of course that is why I stated IMO, There are many opinions.
I'm not a WW II historian so I'm in no position to disagree with this scenerio, obviously the Allied Armies various fronts had a huge impact on the defeat of Germany.
I made my post simply to point out that the amount of time required to defeat Germany was made substantialy shorter because they were fighting a losing battle in Russia before the Normandy invasion.
Perhaps the German Armies could have stopped the Soviet Armies it would clearly have been possible, I don't really believe that but it was possible.
There were several mentions over the weekend about what a bad idea using "Defeatocrats" is, as well. Can't imagine what the response would be to "Islamocrats."
Thank you for enduring CNN! I think we like her husband too, "most of the time." :)
Great talk. Oh that it were that simple.
Unless we are ready to start driving those little electric fart cars or go back to bicycles we are hopelessly stuck with our Saudi "partners".
Of course their excuse for supporting terrorists is that they are being blackmailed by the terror types in their own kingdom. (one even threatened to key a Rolls) When you have the kind of money they have, a billion here or there is really chump change. And if they have to buy off some radical terror type or war lord it really machts nicht to them.
Meanwhile every school child in Pakistan, iran and half the mid east is learning to hate us and kill the Jew.
Most of this energy security problem can be blamed on our buddies(oh excuse me the loyal opposition) the democrats who won't allow drilling here or there or most anywhere.
Thanks demorats! Thanks pelosi, reid, chuck the schmuck and a host of others who would rather turn mooslim than drill.
He ordered them to release their sources for GJ testimony or to cooperate with the FBI/DOJ; not to release their sources to the public. Apparently Armitage did release Novak for private testimony, but not for public disclosure. At least thatis my understanding. There is still no reason however, for Armitage and Powell to stay silent at this point. They should both be publically calling for Fitzy to drop all charges against Libby and for the media/DNC (same/same) to apologize to the White House, Libby, Rove, etc., in conjunction with their public apology for allowing this travesty to go on for three years.
Hey MNJ where is EC today?
As to letting in Saudi students in and our valued strategic relationship with this 'non-state supporter of terrorism'; I know we are trying to be nuanced, but have we seen any progress?
Yes, the Saudis have been killing and rounding up AQ within the country. The Saudi regime is one of the major targets of AQ. They want to take down the Saudi government and have been trying to kill members of the Royal Family. The Saudis have also been working with our intelligence agencies and sharing informtion.
Has anybody in the State Department acknowledged the risk of allowing thousands of people from a state that, in the main, hates us and that appropriate measures have been taken?
There are risks in allowing anyone in, including from countries like the UK. We have terrorist watch lists and other checks before issuing visas. I don't buy your premise that Saudi Arabia, "in the main, hates us." We have 25,000 Americans living and working in the Kingdom. I lived there for five years and just don't share your assessment. We will agree to disagree.
The Federalist Papers clearly allude to the history that Republics fail because of foreign influence.
I think the enemy within is a far greater danger. We live in a global economy. Foreigners own over half of our national debt in the form of T-bills. We import 60% of our oil. We can't wall ourselves off from "foreign influence" whatever that really means.
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.