Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 10 December 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 10 December 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, December 10th, 2006

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group; Sens. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; composer Marvin Hamlisch.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Baker and Hamilton.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Baker and Hamilton; Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Trent Lott, R-Miss.

THIS WEEK (ABC): British Prime Minister Tony Blair; Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.; actor Ed Asner.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Baker and Hamilton; Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Jane Harman, D-Calif.; Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq; Israeli Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres.

[malia]

"--Obama will be the VP."

I still think it will be Richardson.

[PerConPat]

Can't ya just smell the Hypocrisy in the air

If this story is accurate, I expect that Waxman will want to hold hearings- Not!

[Txsleuth]

I think that the Dems and MSM expect Gates to go into the Pentagon...and make NEW policy, and that Pres. Bush will do what they would do...change his policy to suit the POLLS.

IOW, the POLLS will start showing that Americans want Gates to make changes...and so Congress and the MSM will call for Pres. Bush to listen to Gates.

The media like to use one phrase a lot, "political cover".

When the ISG report came out, they said that it would give Pres. Bush political cover to start pulling troops from Iraq, but much to their surprise, the ISG report was NOT universally hailed as the be all and end all of the best way to move forward (gasp).

Now they will say that Gates will affect a strategy that will give Pres. Bush "political cover" to pull troops out because the Sec. of Defense and the Pentagon (i.e. the military) says it is the new right way to go.

Unfortunately for them...and what makes David Gregory and others so MAD is: Pres. Bush does NOT make decisions based on POLLS, or who the MSM and dems decree is THE person/people that Pres. Bush MUST listen to.

[chiller]

How's about you and me, if no one else, introduces the piece into any and all discussions about ISG, Iraq, the WOT, Islam, and politics. It's a perfect fit.

[MNJohnnie]

No, it has to do with the fact that Al Sadr and Malaki are both Shia. Malki needs to actually pull the trigger on Al Sadr but doing so will run the risk of shattering his power base. So Malaki follows a typical Arab response, sit down and talk the thing to death rather then actual deal with the problem.

Another example of whey the Conventional Military minds finds Counter Insurgency and other Asymmetrical Warfare problems so hard to cope with. SOME times in a Counter Insurgency killing people and wrecking stuff is the WRONG answer.

[Txsleuth]

I think Richardson MAY be if the powers that be see that the rock star facade that has been contructed around Obama, by the Media, starts to fade.

And, if Americans aren't suckered in by his rock star status, and realize that he has NO credentials...

Then, the will go to Richardson....but, if Obama does fool the voters...then they will give Richardson the Sec. of State job promise.

[snugs]

What you say is very true but reality is that in today's society that many casualties is unfortunately unacceptable

[MNJohnnie]

We may as well count them in the camp with the enemy because they stand with them whether they claim the territory or not

Mega dittos. I am a ground glass Conservative on this issue. Hagel, McCain, Newt and Brownback are DOA for 2008 as far as I am concerned. There is no middle ground on this issue.

[Txsleuth]

What the media and the Dems want to forget, and have all of us forget is that

3000 people being killed in 2 hours on 9/11 is NOT ACCEPTABLE....going after terrorists planning another 9/11 is necessary.

[snugs]

Correct I was not clear how I answered the post - sorry

[snugs]

Great sum up Sleuth they do not understand a President who does not operate on what the latest Poll says

[Alas Babylon!]

How do you solve problems with people unless you talk to them, asks Hamilton.

I dunno. Let's ask these chaps....

Oh gee, Mr. Hamilton, that didn't work out to well, then, did it?

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana

[MNJohnnie]

Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian President Bush and Clinton as U.S. ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic

So basically as the British use to say, he went native.

[Phsstpok]

The Russians had no ROE in Afghanistan, how did it work out for them?

From what I recall of the Russian's misadventure in Afghanistan was that they had success in the cities and played things very much  the way we do in Baghdad, with the exception of their willingness to be totally brutal in reprisals for attacks in the urban setting.  Where they were torn up was in the countryside where they also tried a "hearts and minds" campaign, which failed miserably.  In Chechnya, on the other hand, they've simply bombed the Chechen's out of existence, to all intents and purposes.  You still hear of the occasional random act of Chechen insanity, such as the Moscow theater or the school invasion a year or so ago, but you don't hear about anything major happening in Chechnya.  That's because they've basically killed anyone who even thought about opposing them.  Not a real productive outcome, even if temporarily effective.  But that's what Army's are for and what they can do, as you correctly point out.

This is why you need to get the Iraqis up and running and get the US Conventional forces out of the way. The mindset for successful Counter Insurgency and the mindset of Conventional Military thinkers is at odds. There seems to be a fundamental mental block in Americans thinking. They simply cannot seem to grasp unrestricted use of firepower creates, it does NOT solve, the problem in this type of mission.

Agreed, 100%, which is why our military isn't the right instrument to do this job.  Unfortunately it's the only instrument we have at the moment.  Rumsfeld's attempts to transform the military were intended to have two effects, first to sharpen the blunt instrument of the traditional military with a technological quantum leap in effectiveness, hyperwar if you will.  The take down of the Baath regime in Iraq was the perfect example of the doctrine, even with the weapons of the 70s, 80s and 90s, let alone the weapons that are coming on line now.  The second part of the transformation was to create a force trained and equipped, as well as large enough, to tackle this new battlefield.  As we talked last week, the A Team component who are perfect for this role, but lots and lots of them, certainly more than we have now.  The old canon cocker's and straight leg folks of Clinton's army, particularly the REMFs of Crystal City, weren't interested in that, as it threatened their little empires.  That's where most of the enmity to Rumsfeld came from.

Conventional Warfare you can use a shotgun approach. When you cannot tell the difference between the sheep and the wolves you need to use a sniper rife.

But when all you have is a shotgun and you're getting shot at right the hell now, you can't wait for delivery of a sniper rifle that isn't even on the drawing board.  So you have to load up with double ought buck, slugs and bird-shot and take the consequences, or get out of the line of fire.  I prefer the solution you suggest, but we don't have that as an option right now, particularly not with the media and Dhimmicrats kicking our soldiers in the back of the heads as they try to get done what is possible.

[maica]

(I heard this on audio only)

####

I like to listen to interviews and speeches, because I hear revealing 'stuff' in voices that is lost when I am looking at the speaker.

[Barset]

Thanks, MN. I thrive on pity, at this stage. b.

[ilovew]

**"President specially asked Rumsfeld to preside over this meeting." Thanks for calling it to our attention. That one simple sentence gives the total lie to all those who have claimed that Don Rumsfeld was fired.**

I don't really see how it shows that.

[Irish Eyes]

....Well seems it got the attention of a couple of congresscritters, Congressman Poe, Dana Rohrbacher and along with 48 other co-signees they are now trying their best to get GW to do what should be done and give a Presidential pardon to these brave border Patrol agents.

I am anxiously waiting the outcome of this request. In my opinion Pres. Bush needs to do this and as soon as possible.

[snugs]

Absolutely and I also think that some of what we are seeing is a psychological reaction when the casualties in Iraq reached similar number as to those killed on 9/11.

[MNJohnnie]

Jane wants us to start moving out RIGHT NOW. She wants to focus on other parts of the world that are more dangerous, like Lebanon.

Jane Harmon, you ignorant slut. Who did you sleep with this get this job? Ms Harmon shut up and look at a map of the Middle East. The vital US Economic and National Security issue in that region is OIL. Where is the oil Jane Harmon you stupid, silly bitch? That RIGHT where we are, NOT in Lebanon.

As stupid as the Democrat they chose to head the Intelligence committee is, I think we really dodged a bullet that you were passed by Jane