Take a moment and Thank a Service Man or Woman.
Just Click on the graphic to SEND an e-mail.
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.
deffie...just saw that NSA cartoon you posted..
ROFLMAO...that is the funniest thing I have seen in a while...THANK YOU...I needed that.
Pirro is an accomplished woman in her own right.
Her husband is a disgusting role model for her children. Son and daughter.
Pirro is a simpleton for sticking with that bum. He's been convicted of tax evasion, fathered a child out of wedlock and continues to whore around town.
Ugh.
He was being sarcastic. He talked not only about Clinton fighting back but described Wallace's interview as a "right wing hit job."
The problem with Kristol is that he's all too likely to slip one in like that and mean it, so when he tries sarcasm it just falls flat.
Now, if Brit had said that.... LOL
IMHO Card wanted to go he had given his all and needed time to regroup he closeness to the President since he has gone does not seem to be someone who is miffed.
Bush can't win. He tells his staff to tell the truth to reporters and not lie. The Democrats and media claim the Bush White House is secretive and then we complain people from our side are saying too much.
That their terror videos are unimportant.
That the terror threats are all orchestrated by the administration.
Anyone who is not afraid is in a state of denial or they are outright lying. Either one is a significant danger to our national security.
I used to think Harmon was somewhat *fair* for a lib, re the WOT, intelligence, etc. However, I recall reading that she was in a huge battle to win the Dim primary in her district and had to lean more leftward. Now she, like the other Dims, can only think of taking back the congress and grabbing more POWER. She could potentially be the head of the House Intelligence Committee (and, I believe Leaky Rockefeller would hold that position in the Senate).
President Bush mentioned Janie (said her logic was false) and Rocky in his speech in Ala this week (he also made some great statements and arguments against the Dims' talking points):
President Bush:
>snip
As you know, parts of that classified document were recently leaked to the press, a sure sign that elections are right around the corner. Some in the other party have been quoting selectively from the document for partisan political gain, and so I felt that it was important for people to actually see what was in the document, and so I declassified it.
And I'd like to share some thoughts about what was in the NIE with you today. It offers a frank assessment of where we are in the war on terror. It confirms that we face a determined and capable enemy. It lists four underlying factors that are fueling the extremist movement: longstanding grievances such as corruption and injustice, or fear of Western domination; the second such factor was the "jihad" in the Iraq; the third was the slow pace of reform in Muslim nations; and the fourth factor that the leaders of this extremist movement were using to recruit was anti-Americanism.
It concludes that the terrorists are exploiting all these factors to enhance their movement. The debate over this document raises really an important question about the war on terror: should we be on the offense or not? Some in Washington -- some decent people, patriotic people, feel like we should not be on the offensive in this war on terror. Here's what a senior Democrat in Congress put it when she was discussing Iraq. She said, "The President says that fighting them there makes it less likely we'll have to fight them here. The opposite is true," she went on to say. "Because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we'll have to fight them here."
History tells us that logic is false. We didn't create terrorism by fighting terrorism. Iraq is not the reason why the terrorists are at war against us. Our troops were not in Iraq when the terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center. They were not in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They were not in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole. And we were not in Iraq when the extremists killed nearly 3,000 of our people on September the 11th, 2001. (Applause.)
Five years after the 9/11 attacks, some in Washington, D.C. still don't understand the nature of the enemy. The only way to protect our citizens at home is to keep the pressure on the enemy across the world. When terrorists spend their days working to avoid capture, they are less able to plot and plan and execute new attacks. We will stay on the offense. We will fight them across the world. And we will stay in this fight until the fight is won. (Applause.)
In order to win this war, we need to understand that the terrorists and extremists are opportunists. They will grab onto any cause to incite hatred and to justify the killing of innocent men, women and children. If we weren't in Iraq, they would be using our relationship and friendship with Israel as a reason to recruit, or the Crusades, or cartoons as a reason to commit murder. They recruit based upon lies and excuses. And they murder because of their raw desire for power. They hope to impose their dominion over the broader Middle East and establish a radical Islamic empire where millions are ruled according to their hateful ideology. We know this because al Qaeda has told us.
The terrorist Zawahiri, number two man in the al Qaeda team -- al Qaeda network, he said, we'll proceed with several incremental goals. The first stage is to expel the Americans from Iraq; the second stage is to establish an Islamic authority, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of caliphate; the third stage, extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq; and the fourth stage, the clash with Israel.
This is the words of the enemy. The President of the United States and the Congress must listen carefully to what the enemy says in order to be able to protect you. It makes sense for us to take their words seriously if our most important job is the security of the United States. Mr. Zawahiri has laid out their plan. That's why they attacked us on September the 11th. That's why they fight us in Iraq today. And that is why they must be defeated. (Applause.)
Some Democrats in Congress say that we should not be fighting the terrorists in Iraq; it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. I believe these Democrats need to answer a simple question: Do they really believe that we would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power? In a recent interview, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee was asked this very question. And his answer was, yes, yes, and, yes.
If this is what the Democrats think, they need to make this case to the American people: They need to make the case that the world would be better off it Saddam Hussein were still in power. If Saddam Hussein were still in power, he would still be sponsoring terror and paying families of suicide bombers. If he were still in power, he would still be pursuing weapons of mass destruction. He would still be killing his own people. He would still be firing at our pilots. He would still be defying the United Nations. He would still be bilking the oil for food program and using one of the largest oil reserves in the world to threaten Western economies and to fuel his ambitions.
After the attacks of September the 11th, it became clear that the United States of America must confront threats before they come and hurt us. Saddam Hussein's regime was a serious threat, a risk the world could not afford to take. America, Iraqis, and the world are safer because Saddam Hussein is not in power. (Applause.)
>snip
I strongly believe that Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. The Democrats may not think so, but Osama bin Laden does. Here are the words of bin Laden, "I now address... the whole... Islamic nation: Listen and understand... The most... serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War... [that] is raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He says, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America, it is a central battlefield where there's -- outcome of the struggle will be decided.
The NIE I quoted earlier says this about Iraq. It said, "Perceived jihadist success there," in Iraq, "would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. It also says that "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
Democrats in Washington have been quoting the NIE a lot in recent days, but you don't hear them quoting that part of the document. The Democrats can't have it both ways. Either they believe that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror or they agree with the intelligence community and the terrorists themselves that the outcome of Iraq is important in the war on terror. Truth is, the Democrats are using the NIE to mislead the American people and justify their policy of withdrawal from Iraq.
The American people need to know what withdrawal from Iraq would mean. By withdrawing from Iraq before the job is done, we would be doing exactly what the extremists and terrorists want.
The terrorists' entire strategy is based on the belief that America is weak and does not have the stomach for the long fight. Bin Laden has called American withdrawals from places like Beirut and Somalia as proof that if the terrorists are patient America will lose her nerve and withdraw in disgrace.
The greatest danger is not that America's presence in Iraq is drawing new recruits to the terrorist cause. The greatest danger is that an American withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists and help them find new recruits to carry out even more destructive attacks on the American homeland. And that is why the United States of America will stand with the brave Iraqis and defeat the terrorists in Iraq. (Applause.)
The stakes are high in this war. It's really important that the United States of America understands the nature of this enemy and understands what it would mean to leave Iraq before the job is done. If we were to abandon this young democracy to the extremists, imagine what other reformers and people of moderation would think about the United States of America. If we were to abandon our mission in Iraq where many have sacrificed, imagine what the enemy would think about the United States of America and our will.
If we were to abandon Iraq and create a vacuum in that country, and that country were then taken over by the extremists, make no mistake about it, they would have mighty assets to use in order to inflict economic pain on the United States of America. We're not going to let this happen. America is a nation that keeps its commitments to those who long for liberty and want to live in peace. America is a nation that will keep its commitment to make sure that you're secure. America is a nation that does not retreat in the face of thugs and assassins. (Applause.)
>snip
The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut-and-run. (Applause.)
Our party's record is clear. We see the stakes. We understand the nature of the enemy. We know that the enemy wants to attack us again. We will not wait to respond to the enemy. We're not going to wait for them to attack us in order to respond. We will fight them wherever they make a stand. We will settle for nothing less than victory.
Thanks for coming. God bless. (Applause.)
END 2:15 P.M. CDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060928-8.html
Card's job was to watch out for the President's interests. He couldn't help but notice that they were using Rummy to beat up on the Prez and I'm sure that troubled him. He may well have counseled a change for reasons other than the way he was fighting the war. I don't see anything wrong with that.
It's a wonder she hasn't been struck by lightning for that lie. LOL As for Harmon,either she has a raging case of menopause or she has some heck of an FBI file.
I agree with you. There is something refreshing about hearing from someone who concentrates on facts instead of trying to "spin."
Thanks again for the thread AB! I certainly enjoyed it today.
Yes he does and why he is one of two potential candidates I plan to look the hardest at when I go to the primary for 2008.
Gingrich is the one who's been pushing that Clinton planned it, but even Newt has backed off a little and agreed that Clinton lost it.
Clinton planned the attack carefully, but when push came to shove, his ego lost the battle with his id.
Not watching. Relying on mystery-ak description of what Card said on the program. I would be happy to have that impression corrected. Can you fill me in?
That is probably precisely the way it came down.
Obama is too typical of the left. From an earlier thread, there's this article.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15648243.htm
It's really good for us to keep in mind as we consider what's going on with Islam. Either we realize what's at stake or we are in for even more problems in the future. The Democrats reactions are not helpful.
You'll get no argument from me about that and that's what Card kept saying which would have been fine if he'd not gone behind the President's back and blabbed to a reporter, whose book is getting treated like Guidion's Bible just weeks before a very tight election.
As one of the President's inner circle advisors, Card of all people, should have known better than to breech those private conversations/recommendations to a damn reporter. The GOP and this administration is trying to get through an avalanche of bad news while fighting terrorists abroad, political and media enemies at home with a HUGE election just weeks away.
People in the President's inner circle damn sure don't need to give our enemies ammunition that will help destroy us and frankly I don't see how you or anyone else could think it's not a problem.
We may never know for certain, but I've always felt Burglar replaced original documents with forgeries trying to make Clinton look better in the eyes of the 9/11 committee. Wonder what Clinton held over his head to get him to commit a crime that "could" (should) have sent him to prision for a long time?
That has finally caught on. The Dhimmicrats are trying to make the entire question of their approach to fighting terrorism vs. our approach off limits. IOW they want to handle it in the courts while we want to fight them on the battlefield, but they want to make any attempt to say that there way has already failed out of bounds.
We have to call them on it. The Bush administration tried to eliminate this question early by admitting, first thing out of the box, that they hadn't done enough in their first 8 months, not bothering to counter the other sides lies. That way the break between their way and our way was pre-9/11 vs post 9/11. They want to go back to a 9/10 worldview. We have to shove that phrase down their throats. Both sides were wrong on 9/10, regardless of relative guilt. On 9/11 we changed, but they haven't.
On 9/12 George W. Bush declared war on the people and ideology that attacked us.
On 9/13 the Dhimmicrats declared war on George W. Bush because they decided that was the only way to regain power, regardless of the cost
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.