Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 13 July 2003

Various big media television networks ^ | 13 July 2003 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, July 13th, 2003

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and, Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-CA).

FACE THE NATION (CBS): National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Senator Bob Graham (D-FL).

THIS WEEK (ABC): Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and retired General Wesley Clark.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah; National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice; Sens. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Richard C. Shelby (R-AL) and Carl M. Levin (D-MI); former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger; former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski; and authors A. Jay Cristol and James Bamford.

[cksharks]

The post was to you but I guess I misunderstood your intent of the "duh". I have been here way too long to worry about these kinds of things.

[blastdad51]

Has anyonr else noticed how Sen Graham (D-Fl.)is looking more and more like the bent one? Bags under the eyes, bulby nose and fat lower lip.

[Dave S]

I agree the White House and Tenet could have handled the explanation better OR stood by their original statements. They should have explained much more clearly that British intelligence sources stand 100% behind their sources but that the CIA could not independently and personally verify the source information and thus it should not have been in a state of the union address.

Then we do agree.

[Alas Babylon!]

Tony's Weekend Live show just went to commerical (1200 CDT) but when he comes back he will read his email to us. Hopefully, yours will be read!!!!!!

[MEG33]

Now that's a heckofa post!!

[Peach]

Not to be disagreeable, but I don't think we agree on a point or two. You felt the uranium story was invalid and that the administration said the story was invalid.

I don't think the uranium story is invalid and I don't think the administration said it was invalid. What they said was that given the CIA can't independently confirm the uranium story, it should not have made it into the State of the Union address. They further explain (clumsily) that the British and others stand by their sources and the story. It's a minor difference.

I feel the administration could have done a better job explaining the situation, but given that the liberal press has misquoted them so many times, perhaps they DID DO a good job and I'm just not able to hear their explanation very well through the liberal filter!

[cyncooper]

My mistyped sentence:
(You were wrong to say they were determined in September 2002 to say that determination had been made)

Should read:

You were wrong to say that in September 2002 a determination had been made

[Eva]

Your criticism is pathetic. That is exactly what Bush said, that the British reported, not that the CIA reported and is a correct statement of fact. The British still stand by their statement.

[cyncooper]

Kerry on CNN now.

He wants to know if Americans are safer today than we were three years ago.

I take that as an outrageous implication that we were safer under clinton (why else the three years timeframe?) than President Bush.

I do think they see this story sinking and now they are desperately escalating their rhetoric.

[MEG33]

re: your last paragraph on the media..Don't miss#170!Swat team sent a great email.

[Dane]

FWIW, the ABC radio report for 1:00 PM EDT, started with a report basically stating that Iraqi's agreeded to a holiday observing saddam's downfall.

The second story was remarks from Rumsfeld handing steffie his head on a platter.

JMO, but after today this made up scandal is dead.

[Peach]

I just went to #170 and read it; so glad Freepers are responding to the obvious move left by Fox. We may as well watch CNN - it's more professional produced. (I've mentioned that in my e-mails to Fox and hope they get the hint).

[Dave S]

That is a far cry from what the media has been portraying the situation to be---which was that the president "lied", when he did not.

Then we probably agree. I dont think the President lied but the White House sure mishandled this whole episode for a week. If it was a mistake to include it, explain how it happended and move on. Dont continue to say the Brits say its true. That wasnt the point, Bush had no independent sourcing of that claim when he made it, so it shouldnt have been in the speech or it should have been even more qualified then it was (i.e. there is possibility, intel leads us to believe that they might, etc.).

On the other hand if they are convinced the underlying claim is true, then Ari Fleishcer shouldnt have made his statement and Tenent shouldnt have made his.

[Peach]

Kerry is such a lying scumbag I can barely discuss him without sounding like a shrew. He flip flops so much that when I see him on television now I can only think FISH.

[MEG33]

I think LURCH!

[Alas Babylon!]

That is an easy question. I really believe we are safer than three years ago. I would think most people (not ones running for president opposed to the sitting president) agree it is safer now.

I hope Kerry keeps this line up. It sure makes him look like a nitwit politician. Unless he can itemize how we are less safe, it won't work. Most FReepers can probably point out 20-30 separate facts as to why we ARE safer (Gitmo prison full of formerly ACTIVE enemies of the USA, Afghanistan no longer Taliban run, Saddam out of power and, IMHO, dead--same with Osama, Arafat discredited, France & Germany exposed, China actually moving against the NKors, etc, etc.).

[Peach]

A lurching fish!

[Dave S]

Now where did you hear the only source we had was the Niger forgery?

Its been all over the news all week. The only intel we had was determined to be a forgery. The brits had their own sources and they say its accurate but WE dont have any source but the brits. So if you are saying we do have this independent intel lay it out but since you are not privy to the intel and would be thrown in jail if you did lay it out Im not expecting much.

[okimhere]

Excellent points! Just as Sec. Rumsfeld pointed out the positives in Iraq that are not mentioned in the mainstream: the university is open and students are attending, Iraqi citizens are being trained and used as the police force, the dams are intact and haven't been destroyed, etc. etc. etc. And now their first holiday - the statue toppling. Woohoo!

[cwb]

"For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, congressional testimony and the Secretary of State's United Nations presentation in early 2003."

This little statement is important, too, as Democrats have been implying that Bush's so-called lie was the "only" reason they supported the war. The Congress approved the use of force resolution back in October of 2002. In none of Bush's "congressional" speeches or public statements prior to the SOTU did Bush mention this African/Uranium connection. Neither did Powell in his presentation to the UN Security Council. And yet Democrats are acting as if this speech made in January of 2003 was thier sole vindication for this war. They've gone as far as running ads saying that Bush lied to get us into war. They are pathetic liars.