Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 24 September 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 24 September 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[snugs]

I will be eating it for dessert or as some of us Brits say afters.

[Morgan in Denver]

Comment on this issue.  Thanks to a post by tcrlaf. on the Clinton FNS thread. I would also point out, this was a result of the Democrats in congress and their efforts to take power away from the president after Richard Nixon.

Interview Quote"I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/

CNN-Novenber 4,2002...
In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

[jubail]

Who cares how fast she talks. She is great with the sound off.

[Seattle Conservative]

a fellow FReeper has a thread w a link to this article (Bill Clinton Agrily Defends Bin Laden Handling) and poll
currently:
Do you believe President Clinton did enough to try to kill or capture bin Laden?
No 52%
Yes 48%
Total Votes: 6,684

Link here:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/bill-clinton-angrily-defends-bin-laden/20060923131109990001

FReeper thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707424/posts

[Alas Babylon!]

Wow! Karen has some man hands.

I don't know, Snugs, if you can get the Jerry Seinfeld show in the UK, but in one episode Jerry had a date with a very attractive model who had huge hands that could crack apart a lobster like it was cotton candy. George hooked her up with Jerry based on a head-shot photo. Jerry blames George for the whole thing. Eventually, he dumps her because he can't get passed her large, man-like hands.

It was pretty funny at the time.

[BlessedByLiberty]

Well said!

[Phsstpok]

When I turned to CNN it was over.

They just announced today that they have started a video podcast download of the show.  It should be linked off of their home page soon, if not already.

here's the one from last week, 9/17/06

and here's the show home page

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/late.edition/index.html
 

[johnny7]

So in summing up... Clinton lied as usual in the Wallace interview.

[AZConser]

You're right, it's a toss up. There are a lot of dumb people in the US. I look for the Dems to lose again this year though, and the moonbats concentrate their fury on "moderates" like Hitlery and Biden. If so, we might have Howard Dean for the nominee in '08. Republicans could run Howdy Doody and beat Dean like a drum.

I wish I could share your optimism - reason I don't = There are a lot of dumb people in the US. and there just might be more of them than there are us. Plus they get to also count the conspiracy nuts in with the stupids, which might be enough for them to regain control both in '06 and '08. BUT I hope I am wrong.

[Phsstpok]

The first 20 minutes of the interview downloadable ... on a lib site:

Except for ads the interview lasts 22 minutes.  I think that's the whole thing. 

[Phsstpok]

McCain on with his moral highground on Hate the Nation.

That was a defeated and demoralized man being interviewed by Bob Shieffer.  Schieffer also seemed to know that his show was totally irrelevant this week (as if it's ever relevant). 

[AZConser]

He specifically said he "had a finding," which is executive order speak for a Presidential decree that what they were doing is legal under the existing executive order. The thing is, the White House is required by law to report such findings to the respective Intelligence committees and that's something we can get checked. If he didn't inform the committees he either broke the law or he's lying now. That's why I've sent emails to my congress lady and my two senators asking them to check this specific issue.

This sounds every bit as serious as the GWB Admin conducting their "DOMESTIC Spying" on innocent citizens in order to get political dirt on its opponents!! /sarc

[BamaDi]

I used to watch Gretchen on CBS Weekend (hey, that's the only station my manicure place could pick up with rabbit ears). I always liked her because you don't know her political leanings. That's as it should be but isn't. I'm not a big ED fan so I'm ok with Gretchen replacing her! I got sick of the me me me me and Mr Hill BS coming from her....

[Morgan in Denver]

Clinton either lied over this or it's unknown from all the reporting where the congress would have approved it or been informed. If congress was not informed, he is guilty of breaking the law.

In truth, I don't think Clinton thought of any of that when he made the comments. He lied, which is usual, but he did it to protect himself and give himself cover for his failures with this issue.

I swear, any Freeper could lay out a plausible explanation that Clinton could have used that would have sounded better and made more sense. But, typically for Clinton, he just lied about it and presumed everyone would simply believe him.

[kabar]

Maybe Hume and Wallace have some compassion for the man. He was a President of the U.S.

He deserves contempt, not compassion. His lack of decisiveness and focus on satisfying his nether parts took predence over the defense of this country.

In relation to the Clinton interview, it spoke for itself. Why pile on.

It had nothing to do with piling on. Rather, someone needs to counter the lies he is spewing. Many of us don't need this information, but most of the American public does. This guy left office with 60% approval ratings. His wife is the odds on favorite to be the Dem nominee in 2008. We don't need Clinton's revisionist history.

[Morgan in Denver]

Well said.

[AZConser]

The economy that was built on overpriced tech stocks and corperate fraud?

Isn't that the truth - I have maintained his economic boom was factious ever since the late 1990's - wish it would have collapsed when he was still in office. Companies that have no profits and no hope of profits anytime in the future were the darlings of Wall Street - they all said the "old fashioned" PE ratios were meaningless in the new Toon economy. Motorola's Iridium SatCom is a great business case for all to study and is endemic of the Clintoon BOOM TIME. The real result of the Iridium project was to loose $5Billion for its investors and allow the Chinese the ability to gain MIRV technology for their ICBMs pointed at Los Angeles TODAY. That is the legacy of Toon that I remember and it is too damn bad the MSM/DBM cannot understand it!

[johnny7]

Rather, someone needs to counter the lies he is spewing.

Correct... it's by not speaking out/not having a FOXNews that's put us in this position in the first place. Clinton's rewriting of history must be challenged wherever/whomever... period.

[Morgan in Denver]

Agreed. Numerous stock savy friends were telling me that for a year or more leading up to 2000.

[fox0566]

So, do you think that E.D.'s strong opinions finally got her bumped from F&F? I think that it is very important to have impartiality when it comes to the hard journalism type shows, but on a show like F&F, it is a little unrealistic to not expect some personal political comments by the hosts now and then. I love Brian Kilmeade, and he certainly doesn't hide his feelings. I just think that making the show too sanitized will hurt it. If they were to replace all of the hosts with folks who never give a personal opinion about anything, then that will make for a very boring show. Now, I had my problems with E.D. as well, but my issues with her had more to do with the way that she would "take over" and talk over the guests and co-hosts. I didn't agree with some of her opinions, but many of them I did. Don't get me wrong, Gretchen is very smart, polished and I think quite cultured, but I'm not sure that the Fox & Friends audience will warm up to her on a full-time basis. I'm certainly willing to give her a chance. Fox could have gone lib with Kiran, but at least with Gretchen they have a more neutral voice. It could be worse.