Posted on 10/01/2006 4:26:20 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, October 1st, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf; Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and his Democratic opponent, Rep. Sherrod Brown.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett; Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Bartlett; Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.; poet laureate Donald Hall.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Bartlett; U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
Better equipment, body armor, and tactics.
"It was a very effective ad until the end. IMO it is a very carefully camoflaged Dem campaign ad, and needs to be called out as such."
EXACTLY.....that was my impression as well.....I was actually shocked at the end.
I will in no way, shape or form defend him. But Hastert, Boehner and DeLay did not apparently know about the IM's. Also if the parents of the boy did not want the issue pushed the right thing to do, for the CHILD (dumb ass Democrats) was to respect the wishes of the parents.
They were upset, because after Rudy stuck up somewhat for BJ... then the Pirro thing, it was too much.
Since Pataki stepped up, it cooled off some.
We have the feminists asking the eternal "Why is she still with him?", as well as others. Some on the left are bringing up her denial in the DNA case of the alleged rapist that stayed in jail for years and was recently released when DNA revealed he wasn't the perp. But that's all they have.
So the focus is off Rudy. They'll be holding this investigation close in case Rudy changes his mind about running though... you know that.
Democrat Illinois Sen. Barack Obama says "We can't afford to be bullied because there's too much at stake," Obama said. "The only strategy the other side has is fear. That's what you're seeing and you're going to see more of it."
Obama isn’t the only one making this claim. California Democrat Nancy Pelosi and New York Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton are saying the same thing.
Is this hype or true? It is true if voters wants to keep their taxes low, or wants us to win in Iraq and then get our troops home as soon as possible. It is true if voters want our country to be proactive in combating terrorism around the world before it comes to our shores. It is true if voters are concerned about the economy or if they are concerned about retirement and social security. It is also true if voters are concerned about our porous borders, illegal aliens voting in our elections or abusing our social services safety-net designed for citizens. Republicans are addressing all these issues from our conservative point of view. Democrats are not offering a solution, only fear mongering these issues for political purposes.
The party of fear has traditionally been Democrats. At every phase after 9-11, Democrats made claims based on fear. Going into Afghanistan? Democrats said we would have thousands of body bags and could not win there, just as the Russians could not win. Democrats said the UN or NATO should be in Afghanistan, not us. What happened turned out different although we did turn the occupation over to NATO. Iraq was supposed to be another disaster. Democrats said there would be thousands of refugees, massive body bags waiting for our military, we could never conquer Baghdad. What happened is it turned out differently. At every phase of every conflict since 9-11 Democrats have predicted doom and gloom, and were wrong.
Republicans have a plan, and we’re following it. We will help defeat the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will have a presence there for a number of years to support Afghanistan and Iraq but the majority of our military will return home.
Today Democrats are wringing their hands over Iran, but like Iraq they have no concept for how to address this problem. The sad truth is Democrats have no plan for dealing with nuclear proliferation or terrorism other than appeasement and treating them as law enforcement matters. This head in the sand approach in reacting to terrorism is exactly what America did throughout the 1980’s, with a Democrat congress controlling funding, and through the 1990’s, with a Democrat President who was incapable of true leadership. The results were not good, nor did they work.
Clearly a new approach was needed. President Bush changed our foreign and military policies from being reactive to being proactive. To the distain of a number of retired, old-school military leaders, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have made our military more effective using a smaller and faster fighting force. This has worked in Afghanistan and Iraq, and throughout the Mideast. The American military has created a new standard for being the worlds finest. Terrorists are getting killed in Iraq, not here. Other countries, such as Libya, have already changed their behavior towards nuclear weapons. Countries such as Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are actively working to defeat terrorism there. Current USA policies and actions are having a historic and profound impact on the entire Middle East.
The unspoken fact is the War in Iraq has been won. According to historian Larry Schweikart, who happens to be a Freeper, the war was won in 2004 after the battle in Fallujah and the Iraqi voting for a new constitution. What we are doing now is helping the Iraqis rebuild their country without losing it to the radical elements that have exercised so much power in the past. In this effort, the Iraqi and USA forces are combating radical Islamists and terrorists who are resisting Iraq being a democracy with individual freedoms.
The problem in the United States today is that Democrats cannot accept victory in Iraq nor the USA winning the world war over radical Islamic terrorists. The Democrat party is moving further left with their more radical elements as they continue supporting bad policy and bad politics to the detriment of our country.. The War On Terror, and all the issues they thought they had to regain political power, keep backfiring on them and they are on the brink of being irrelevant. If they do not win either the US House or Senate next month, their hopes for a more socialistic America will be delayed for years. This is their worst fear, not terrorism.
BUMP. He is flat out awesome.
Sweet, it's growing. Little by little.
okay
Why does FOX's Chris Wallace have Newt Gingrich on to balance out Nancy Harman? She's a powerful current congress member, Newt does not have the latest information, no matter how hard he spins. But mostly, he can't get a word in edgewise. I don't even know who Nancy Harman's
Republican opposite in the House is, but that's who should have been there. Elected republicans in both Huses are invisible,....nothing new, but more maddening than ever.
It's a "Smoking gun", Harman says, to find out 'Condi Rice did nothing'. about Tenet's July warning before 9-11. she also says she didn't know about the Tenet hair on fire warning to Bush about Al Queda. Funny thing is, Wallace didn't mention Tenets' Hair on Fire" warning. Harman was lying to say she didn't know that finally, in July and August the CIA was picking up info about a possible attack.
I can't believe "the Wall" is mentioned, but Jamie Gorlick is not.
(I should give kudos to Wallace for having on Michael Schuer. (sp) I've only seen him once before Early Morning CBS with Harry Smith. The MSM has largely ignored him..ain't it great to find out why? )
That's correct and when dealing with "suspected, but not self-outed" homosexuals, caution has to be a primary concern...
"So why aren't the Repubs bringing up Barney Frank?"
Because Frank has nothing to do with this situation at al. Are you trying to justify this illegal act with a 10-20 year old totally different one? Wake UP! We Republicans are much bigger than that.
The question is whether these are IM's via phone or IM's via computer
Either way BOTH are outside the email system.
Democrats are the party of the homosexual, democrats knew of his lifestyle long before this.
The MSM knew of foleys lifestyle choice LONG before 2005 yet they intentionally kept quiet. (they publicly pushed him to come out of the closet every time he considered running for the sentat, during the homosexual ban on adopting court cases, and during the marriage debate.)
The MSM DID know long ago.
How long was ABC sitting on this?
CREW (center for responsible ethics or whatever), had the info the whole time and held it... didn't put it out until the day after Brian Ross put it on his blog.
Will dig up the link.
I'm attempting to finish the videos on the Muslim Brotherhood history (must watch); They're hosing up my Dell though.
History of the Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
Why is the Coalition calling upon President Bush to help make sure UN peacekeepers are sent immediately to Darfur? Shouldn’t that be the UN’s responsibility?
The recent television ads sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition asking President Bush to take the lead in pushing for the deployment of a UN force in Darfur are not meant in any way to “bash” the President, but rather to urge him to follow through on the good work he and his Administration have already begun. We are both cognizant and appreciative of the fact that the President has done more for the people of Darfur than any other world leader.
I would have never known that from your commercial, asswipes.
In fact, it is because of his leadership thus far that we direct our pleas to President Bush now. The hard truth is that the United Nations does not have a standing army it can choose to deploy, it must instead rely on its member states to do the hard work necessary to actually deploy a peacekeeping force once that force has been authorized.
Maybe you should have stated that hard truth in your commercial - oops, that would undermine the mythology of the UN as a solver of world problems. Can't have that.
As the strongest of member states, we believe that the United States, under the President’s leadership, must lead the international effort to raise and deploy that UN peacekeeping force. While we are not calling for U.S. troops in Darfur, we are calling for the strong U.S. leadership necessary to ensure that a capable UN force is raised and sent to Darfur as soon as possible.
Dang, they want it both ways. We are the strongest country in the world, but you don't want the US having troops there? Talk about a conundrum.
OK, SaveDarfur, what else can Bush do here, other than threaten unilateral military strikes against Sudan if they do not allow deployment of the peacekeeping force? I could only imagine the squawks from your liberal executive committee if Bush were to propose that - but that is the ONLY approach I see to effectively halting the genocide.
Period. Dot. Bingo.
No matter what Mirra Liasson says, she's shaking her head "no" at the same time. Could that be a clue she doesn't believe a word she says?
Deface the Nation is apparently taking Woodward's book as gospel, and Schieffer and Biden are in a hate GWB/Rummy meltdown.
Agreed!
Please find out who's running this Bush/Darfur crap... obviously it's someone without a brain. Let me know.
And therein lies the key.
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.