Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 22 January 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 22 January 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Solamente]

"How dare you make fun of my husband, you %*#@!&!"

[TomGuy]

MTP

Russert reads an article from the mid 1990's wherein Obama critized other for raising/trying to raise large sums of money.

After reading the article, Russert's question is: Isn't it necessary for you to raise allot of money?

[Perky Katie couldn't have spoon-fed a guest a better cover-your-rear question.]

[Fudd Fan]

Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner!!

[fedupjohn]

Or how about, "Tell the Freepin' truth!"

Tell the Freepin' Truth _©

There I fixed it. It's great.

[samtheman]

THIS WEEK (ABC): John Kerry, D-Mass.; Reps. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Jane Harman, D-Calif., chairman and ranking Democrat of the House Intelligence Committee; actor Gary Sinise.

What are they doing, allowing a Republican to join that august group? I hope they don't let him speak. I hope they interrupt him if he even tries to open his mouth.

In the interests of fairness, this show should really be all Democrats and Bush-bashers all the time.

[avital2]

did he ask Obama about inking that million dollar book contract days before he was sworn in in the Senate, avoiding its rules on same just like Hillary did?

[tiredoflaundry]

Senator Kerry, why have you not introduced legislation to correct this problem then?

He plans to! ;-)

[snugs]

Sounds as usual Kerry wants it both ways.

I loved the way the Dick Cheney used to point this out during the election campaign.

Here is an extract from a speech on at Sioux City Convention Center in Sioux City, Iowa on October 28, 2004

---

Now, I look at John Kerry and I see a man who is trying very hard to convey the impression during the course of this campaign that he would be as tough and aggressive as the President has been at pursuing the war on terror. And then I looked to see well, what does the evidence show? Is there any reason to believe that, in fact, he would be that aggressive? What's the track record of this man who wants to be the Commander-in-Chief?

And the answer is, I don't think he could cut it. I think bottom line that he's got a record of weakness and a strategy of retreat in mind here. That means that we would not see the kind of aggressive pursuit of terrorists and those who support terror that I believe is absolutely essential to keep us safe and secure here at home in the United States. (Applause.)

Now, why do I say that? Well, you can go back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time on a platform that we should never commit U.S. forces without U.N. authorization. The United Nations would have to approve any deployment of the U.S. forces.

1984, when he first ran for the Senate, and he ran on the platform of cutting out or eliminating most of the major weapons programs that President Reagan put in place in the 1980s that were a key to keeping the peace and winning the Cold War, and that we're using today in our efforts around the globe. That was 1984.

1991, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf. John Kerry likes to talk about some kind of global test. He did this the other night in a debate, have to meet some global test before you can use U.S. military force. Well, in that case, we had 34 nations committed forces alongside. We had the U.N. Security Council specifically authorized to use the force the kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And John Kerry voted "no." There isn't another conceivable condition you'd want to impose, or that anybody has ever suggested. And that still wasn't good enough for John Kerry. He still voted against Operation Desert Storm.

1993, he was on the Senate intelligence committee, the World Trade Center is bombed for the first time, he didn't attend a meeting of the intelligence committee for the full year after the attack on the World Trade Center. And then what he did was offer up an amendment to cut billions of dollars out of our intelligence budget. It was so radical even Ted Kennedy wouldn't support it. (Laughter.)

So there's a long record here of his activities in the United States Senate and before of coming down consistently on the wrong side of these national security issues. And I guess, the one that capped it for me the other day was when he was asked about what his long-term objectives would be in the war on terror -- this is an interview that ran in The New York Times a couple of weeks ago. And he said, well, he'd like to get terror back to where it used to be where it was just a nuisance. (Laughter.) That's word he used, and he compared to illegal gambling, for example, as something that you could manage to an acceptable level.

But then I asked myself when I heard that, well, when was terrorism ever just a nuisance? When ever was there a time in our history when we could look at a terrorist act and consider it as just a nuisance? And clearly, that didn't apply in my mind to the attack on the USS Cole four years ago, or the first World Trade Center in '93 or when they took Pan Am Flight 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, or that attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut where we lost 241 men on a Sunday in October 21 years ago. Terrorism has never been something you can think of as just a nuisance. And if that's your mind set, if that's the way you think about it, if you say, as John Kerry has, well, I don't really think about it, a war, I think it's primarily a law enforcement action, that's not the right mind set to do what needs to be done to win this war against terror. We're not interested in getting terror down to some acceptable level where we can live with it, we're interested in defeating it. And that's what George Bush will do. (Applause.)

And John Kerry is perfectly prepared to say virtually anything to try to get elected this time around. We've seen it now, and as we get closer and closer to the election, we get more and more outrageous charges being made that can't be substantiated. The most recent one, of course, he's claiming now that somehow the troops on their way to Baghdad overlooked an arms depot where a lot of munitions were stashed and our guys should have wrapped them up. And he's been critical of the commanders and the President and the troops for not having done that, claiming there's several hundred tons of explosives missing. But as the evidence accumulates over the last couple of days, it looks as though those materials were moved long before our guys ever got there, and that, in fact, Saddam Hussein moved his stuff out before the war started.

And so it's another fallacious charge that's not supported by the facts. I think it's a cheap shot. I think it's criticism of the troops and the commanders that absolutely is not warranted. I just think John Kerry, as I say again, has reached that point where he will say literally anything in order to try to advance his political interests.

---

Kerry will try these tactics again if he tries to run.

He is a right piece of work.

[Morgan in Denver]

Morning anita, from your perspective, what are the social issues McCain supports other than pro-choice? He's pretty much blown off the AZ GOP and he seems to support more government over less. Beyond that, I'd like to find more.

[rodguy911]

You mean FRN instead of FNC? Now there's a thought.
Especially after Major Garrett let us down so big on the Barrett report last week on Britt's show.

[maggief]

Re: GQ

Ouch, tough article! Was Kerry his usual sedative self?

He was prepared for the GQ question, started to laugh half way through Steffy's question and called it "chatter" twice.

[Mo1]

"Now asked about the "Spying" question... Kerry said it is a violation of law, and that Osama will die of Kidney failure before Chaney 'or his guys' get him. He says he is for going after Osama, but for protecting the rights of citizens and not ignoring the constitution. "


Gee .. During the 2004 Debates - Kerry got on the President's case for not listening more


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.5/index.html

KERRY: The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to.

On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.

And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?

We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe.

[A.Hun]

Good morning Johnnie,

Shrillary is taking a hawkish tact on Iran, trying to say that GWB has not done enough to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. Her quote for this is from her speech on the 19th

She also blasted the Bush administration for allowing European countries to lead negotiations with the hard-line regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"I believe that we lost critical time with ... Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," she said. "I don't believe ... in standing on the sidelines."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill194593036jan19,0,5773049.story?track=mostemailedlink

Funny though, I couldn't find a single major speech or press release where she said this before...

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/index.cfm

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/columns/

The closest I could find was this address to the AIPAC conference:

So let us be unequivocally clear. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, but it is not just unacceptable to Israel and to the United States. It must be unacceptable to the entire world, starting with the European governments and people. I know that during your conference and in the lobbying that you will be doing on Capitol Hill, you're trying to draw attention to the threat that is posed by a nuclear Iran. And I commend you for these efforts; this is one of our most serious security and foreign policy priorities. And we need to make working with our allies to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon a top priority.

She is two face, no doubt, but the pro Palestinian wing of the Dems don't like it! She is now a "warmonger!

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_383.shtml

I sure hope she runs as the Democrat nominee in 2008....

[TomGuy]

MTP

Obama just told Russer he 'absolutely would not' run for any other office until he finishes his full Senate term (6 years).

[We'll see if he shows up in the Dem presidential primaries or gets the nod for the VP slot on the Dem ticket in 08.]

[MNJohnnie]

"But he's right about the ear marking pork projects"

Yeah but Sen McMedia ONLY talks about it. He NEVER does ANYTHING about it. Would be REAL nice if he did something about THIS problem instead of pushing his Terrorist Protection Act, the Baseball Steroids thing and CFR. Amazing how get stuff done of THOSE items but does NOTHING on spending.

[snugs]

I thought he was the Number One DemoRAT receiver of money can he ever tell the truth.

[rodguy911]

Great job to everyone last week, over 1,100 posts and more than 18,000 page views! Doesn't get much better than that!!

[Mo1]

Durbin is lying - Congress was asked to change the FISA law and Congress said no

AG Gonzales mentioned it in a presser

[LibLieSlayer]

My firewall software will not let my computer load the DU. It states something about STD's on that site, and blocks attempts by their satanic sysops to infect me. ;-)

LLS

[cardinal4]

Chatter my butt! No one wants him to run! He is a walking cadaver who painted himself orange for a debate!