Posted on 03/04/2007 5:03:17 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, March 4th, 2007
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Reps. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Trent Lott, R-Miss.; Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Sens. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
it's on Cspan 1
http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30
I am sorry....but I sit here looking at Obama...and I just can't help wondering who/what/where/why anyone let this get this far!!!
This man has no more experience to run for POTUS than most of the freepers at FR!!!
How could our country do this to itself at this time in our history???
He wants us to pull out quickly from Iraq...but, he also wants us to negotiate directly with NUTJOB from Iran...
He has no clue about how the world works...
Color me confused.
You watch..this speech will be platitude after platitude, cliche after cliche...pander after pander.
Thanks for that link, MID...I bookmarked it also.
Thanks.
I guess Obama could use them for protection instead of the Secret Service...
They don't care
He won't be needing protection here today, but maybe later when Hillary's poll numbers continue to go down, he will.
For just once, I wish that Blacks would acknowledge that it was Republicans that got that Voting Rights Act passed in 1965.
If we didn't fight the war on terrorism, Democrats would probably sit back and take cheap shots at that. Repbublicans cannot win. They are always put down and backstabbed for keeping their word and being true to their convictions.
Sorry, I did not see the program. Tancredo has a history of saying something that is quoted over and over but without the qualifying or clarifying comments he used before or after what he says. And hey, he knows this is true himself. His bombing Mecca is a good example. All he was saying is bombing Mecca had to be on the table for possible responses if something else happened here at home. But once the media got hold of the quote they ran with it and people did not realize what he was saying or why.
The likes of Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and others will never do that .. just like they will never speak out against Robert Bryd .. or Al Gore, Sr. .. or William Fulbright (Clinton's mentor)
It's the difference between running away, as the Dhimmicrats forced us to do in Southeast Asia, and maintaining a presence, but no longer being occupiers, as we did in Europe and the Pacific after WW2 and in South Korea after that battle in the "70 years war," as Jerry Pournelle calls the "Cold War." We've been in South Korea since the early 1950s, but we only have 35,000 troops stationed there. We still have bases in Europe and many places we occupied as part of the war against Japan.
One of the problems we're having right now is that we've allowed the Dhimmicrats and the media to call this "the Iraq War," and not "the battle of Iraq in the War on Terror." They use that to argue against our being in Iraq and specifically want to say that it's not part of the WOT. That noise has died down some, partly because it just wasn't resonating with most people. Of course, I also agree with those that say the label "war on terror" is awful. You can't go to war against a tactic. We are at war with militant (meaning mainstream) Islam. This is a defensive war against the Jihad.
Yeah, it is. There are times I'd love to shove that website into some liberals face as they obsess over Iraq today.
I did watch Rep. Tancredo on "Late Edition". I took his remarks to mean that the US is going to be turning over increasing control of Iraq to Iraqis and that in the not-so-distant future the number of US troops in Iraq will be reduced. I believe there is no question in Rep. Tancredo's mind that the US presence in Iraq will be steadily be reduced in the coming years.
President Bush did say the following during his State of the Union address: "They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so." I believe that Rep. Tancredo is thinking of that statement when he made some of his remarks.
I would say that he probably believes the US is leaving sooner than some believe.
I fear that that the troop surge will accomplish very little. I also fear that our enemies will to some degree disappear during the troop surge and then reappear after it concludes. I further fear that it may be impossible for there to be a good ending in Iraq. I hope I'm wrong.
what good crazy can do ... Lowery is on fire
You're more than welcome. It sure puts this whole war on terrorism into a different perspective, IMHO.
I also heard the other day...that supposedly what Obama wrote about his father is not factually correct...that he was an abuser and an alcoholic...
I don't know if that is true either...but, that was a report I heard.
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.