Posted on 02/18/2007 5:12:27 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, February 17th, 2007
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): White House press secretary Tony Snow.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann Romney; actor Michael Douglas.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : White House press secretary Tony Snow; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; magician Penn Jillette; former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele; and Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League.
Well you make me sick too, Miss M. Do NOT address me ever again.
I never attack anyone like you just did me. NEVER.
Because I want a solution to your problem.
you folks ought to see my Freepmail. There's plenty out there that agree with me.
And goodness Miss Marple, I never knew you were so disliked! I can see why!
Why do we not recognize that the President is BUSY?
Where are the President's defenders? Well, lets see?
Last time I checked, those who might be defending the President, were busy trying to stomp on the First Amendment, or sucking up for TV airtime.
One thing we have to own up to, is that we have a very weak bench, and a weak stomach to go with it.
We listen to the MSM when they attack those who would play the role of a Lanny Davis or Panetta, (Coulter, Malkin, et all) because the truth hurts the Dems to the point of vitriol.
Why is it that all of our best defenders are women in the first place? Is it because our men in politics are too busy trying to be liked, trying to gain more power, or hiding their own weak morality?
See, its EASY to be a liberal, because anything goes.
A Conservative man has to be burdened by things like loyalty to ONE spouse, a record of REAL accomplishment, being WHITE for the most part, and having never EVER said anything negative about a minority.
A liberal can attack the Catholic church, and have millions of minions rushing to their defense.
Our side? Oh, we just call our President a wimp and go have another cup of coffee.
We deserve exactly what we are getting.
It probably shouldn't be so widely reported, but I like the fact most of the nukes are in a town named Bangor. Very appropriate. I'm guessing the person who suggested this also prompted homosexuals of Baltimore to settle in the neighborhood of Mount Vernon.
Technically being employed at CIA is classified and employees have some form of "cover" job at some other federal agency or a cooperative business.
My wife's late uncle was a senior cryptography tech for CIA, often being the cryppie at our embassies, including a stint working out of the Beirut embassy. He got outed by Philip Agee in his 1975 book and could no longer work overseas, but he still kept his cover job.
What was that cover job? Instead of being listed as a cryppie for the CIA his "official" job was as a cryppie in the Pentagon. Brilliant. Of course no foreign spies would be interested in compromising a DOD cryppie, only CIA ones. He actually had an "office" at the Pentagon, which he visited once. It was a broom closet.
I'll bet the cleaning crew at CIA has similar cover jobs, probably as a White House cleaning crew.
Your tax dollars at work.
Thank you!
Well I just don't know.
And you think this "defeat", defined by me as the acceptance that Iraq had no WMD's and by inference that Saddam was no danger..."defeat" that we will never be able to fight another war on this planet as America's reputation will be forever sullied..."defeat" that now IRAN is getting nukes and already the congress is ready to pass resolutions that we can't fight IRAN and because our fight in Iraq was so marginalized we'll never get the congress or the American people to support a fight in Iran although they are KILLING OUR SOLDIERS....it's a DEFEAT.
We're gonna lose it. Go on, kill me, I'm the messenger. That'll solve the problem.
But please stop the ad hominym hateful attacks. It solves nothing. Damn if someone didn't just write me a lecture about reducing ourselves to "their" level yet look at the hateful posts directed at ME.
And just like the cowardly pubs won't defend Bush, I am sure no one here will defend me. Takes courage to take a stand.
I'm outta here.
Sorry your feelings were hurt. Apparently you don't have as thick a skin as President Bush. HA!
Aren't you making my point?
It is UP TO US! You cannot expect those in government to be burdened with the task of CHEERLEADER-IN-CHIEF!
Where is OUR Moveon.org? Where is OUR nonstop MSM? This site attacks Limbaugh and others on a daily basis, primarily on whether or not they are flaunting their success! Limbaugh cant even talk about golfing without some FReepers going nuts, yet he is just about our ONLY media stalwart against the Liberals. We don't take care of our own, and its because we have our own welfare mentality.
We want to feel like its 'Morning in America' again, but we don't want to do the work it would take to get it back. We think it was all Reagan, and none of us, and that is BS.
Sure, we would love a stronger leader, but just where the hell is he supposed to get his strength from if not us?!?!?
Like Florida 2000, we showed that WE can get it done. Somewhere along the way, we decided to sit back and let Bush do it alone.
Hold your breath for me to forward those Freepmails to you.
That will eliminate your brand of nastiness, at least for the day.
It was wrong what you wrote. Period. I didn't deserve it.
Oh....this is how a person DEFENDS themself. Someone tell Bush.
Because you have a pretty good grasp of reality, and are not trapped in the fog of your own wishes and desires...
Maybe so, but he kept the UK involved in Iraq despite plenty of opposition at home, particularly among his own party. His eloquence was also essential in convincing the American public to support the President.
Good. I've read a lot about connections to Saudi Arabian-funded think tanks, grants from oil sheiks, investments in companies (like the French company TOTAL) that have billion-dollar contracts in Iran, etc.
Which part? The section where you actuall respond, or like post 626 where you say I'm outta here......?
Stick around.....it was just getting interesting.
actuall=actually
Q: Mr. President, it seems pretty clear where this Iraq vote in the House is headed.
BUSH: Yes.
Q: Your press secretary has said repeatedly that members of Congress ought to watch what they say and be concerned about the message that they're sending to our enemy.
I'm wondering: Do you believe that a vote of disapproval of your policy emboldens the enemy?
Does it undermine your ability to carry out your policies there?
And, also, what are you doing to persuade the Democratic leadership in Congress not to restrict your ability to spend money in Iraq?
>BUSH: Yes, thanks.
A couple of points _ one, that I understand the Congress is going to express their opinion, and it's very clear where the Democrats are, and some Republicans. I know that. They didn't like the decision I made.
By the way, that doesn't mean that I think that they're, you know, not good, honorable citizens of the country. They just have a different opinion.
I considered some of their opinions and felt like it would not lead to a country that could govern itself and sustain itself and be an ally in the war on terror, one.
Secondly, my hope, however, is that this nonbinding resolution doesn't try to turn into a binding policy that prevents our troops from doing that which I have asked them to do.
That's why I keep reminding people _ on the one hand, you vote for David Petraeus in a unanimous way; and on the other hand, you say that you're not going to fund the strategy that he thought was necessary to do his job, a strategy he testified to in front of the Senate.
I am going to make it very clear to the members of Congress starting now that, you know, and they need to fund our troops and they need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done.
Secondly, I find it interesting that there is a declaration about a plan that they have not given a chance to work. Again, I understand. I understand.
Q: Do you have to support the war to support the warrior? I mean, if you're one of those Americans that thinks you've made a terrible mistake that's destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they, by definition, undermining the troops?
BUSH: No, she actually asked the enemy, not the troops.
But I'll be glad to answer your question. No, I don't think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.
And I said early in my comment _ my answer to her was that _ somebody who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am.
And, you know, your question is, you know, valid. I mean, can somebody say, We disagree with your tactics or strategy, but we support the military ? Absolutely. Sure.
Stick around, make reasoned arguments and defend yourself like the grownup you are.
The only thing that keeps this place alive, is that we can fight amongst ourselves, but NEVER forget who the real enemy is.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
I think the viewer's objective was to tag Feith with the word "operational", much as President Bush was branded with the "sixteen words" in the SOTU.
I just didn't catch whether Wallace was endorsing the viewer's challenge . . .or not . . . with the article.
Me:Your point-of-view deserves no respect.
The above is the worst goddamn thing anyone's ever said to me on FreeRepublic....EVER! Go straight to hell. I'd NEVER say that to another Freeper. NEVER. You, whoever the hell you are, will never have my respect again. NEVER. And I'll bad-mouth you all the hell over this forum. This is not how most civilized Freepers conduct debates.
Let the record show your hypocracy. You say you have no respect for the President. I respond that I have no respect for that point of view. The response was apporpriate.
I will point that hypocracy out every time I see it.
Simply if you want to be treated with respected, you ought to show it.
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.