Senator John Kerry (D-MA) speaks during an interview on 'This Week' with George Stephanopoulos, in Washington January 22, 2006. NO SALES NO ARCHIVES REUTERS/ABC News/Linda Spillers/Handout
Posted on 01/22/2006 5:21:05 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, January 22nd, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; University of Maryland's men's basketball coach Gary Williams.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
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.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz; formerUnited Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke; former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon.
Quite welcome, I'm not good for much, but I can run down pertinent links!
It must be on a really limited market. Maybe so it'll look more successful than it is. Sort of like the gay sheepherder movie.
he will .. if he wants to have any chance of running in 08
Yes, another red herring by Kerry and the Rats. It adds to the weight of what they already carry and some troops would rather not rely on heavier armour but on freedom to move and respond quickly to gunfire.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060122/pl_usnw/rnc_response_to_john_kerry_s_appearance_today_on_abc_s_this_week101_xml
To: National Desk, Political Reporter
Contact:
Republican National Committee Press Office, 202-863-8614; Web: http://www.gop.com
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- RNC Communications Director Brian Jones responded to Senator
John Kerry's appearance on ABC's This Week with the following statement.
"Sen. Kerry displayed his signature pessimism and defeatism today that the American people rejected during his failed presidential bid. While Democrat leaders like Sen. Kerry continue to show they still do not grasp the dynamic and dangers of a post 9/11 world,
President Bush remains focused on doing everything in his power to keep Americans safe and secure."
---
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
FISA is not the rubber stamp the Dems would have us believe."
Especially for the Bush Administration:
Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them (FISA Court denied them in unprecedented numbers)
UPI ^ | Dec. 27, 2005 | UPI
Posted on 12/27/2005 10:47:23 AM PST by Pragmatic_View
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547700/posts
and (sorry for the bad formatting - I need to learn how to do that):
FISA Court reports pursuant to 50 USC 1807
Year Applied Granted Denied Modified
1979 199 207 0 0
1980 319 322 0 1*
1981 431 433 0 0
1982 473 475 0 0
1983 549 549 0 0
1984 635 635 0 0
1985 587 587 0 0
1986 573 573 0 0
1987 512 512 0 0
1988 534 534 0 0
1989 546 546 0 0
1990 595 595 0 0
1991 593 593 0 0
1992 484 484 0 0
1993 509 509 0 0
1994 576 576 0 0
1995 697 697 0 0
1996 839 839 0 0
1997 749 748 1* 0
1998 796 796 0 0
1999 886 880 0 0
2000 1,005 1,012 0 1
2001 932 934 0 2
2002 1,228 1,228 0 2
2003 1,727 1,724 4* 79
2004 1,758 1,754 0 94
* 1980: No orders were entered which modified or denied the requested authority, except one case in which the Court modified an order and authorized an activity for which court authority had not been requested.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1980rept.html
* 1997: In one case, although satisfied as to the probable cause to believe the target to be an agent of a foreign power, the court declined to approve the application as plead for other reasons, and gave the government leave to amend the application. The government has filed a motion to withdraw that case as it has become moot.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1997rept.html
* 2003: Of the four applications that the Court denied, two merit additional discussion:
(1) In one case, the Court issued supplemental orders with respect to its denial, and the Government filed with the Court a motion for reconsideration of its rulings. The Court subsequently vacated its earlier orders and granted in part and denied in part the Government's motion for reconsideration. The Government has not yet appealed that ruling. In 2004, the Court approved a revised application regarding this target that incorporated modifications consistent with the Court's prior order with respect to the motion for reconsideration.
(2) In another case, the Court initially denied the application without prejudice. The Government presented amended orders to the Court later the same day, which the Court approved. Because the court eventually approved this application, it is in the 1724 total referenced above.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2003rept.pdf
23 posted on 01/21/2006 2:59:56 PM PST by Cboldt
On that subject - I have not heard asked or questioned ....
The clinton Administration, knowing the next area of concern would be in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, had 8 years to work on this problem - also the vehicle armour! The need had to be know after Desert Storm, even if the extreme weather wasn't experienced.
If our military is doing catch-up, again, as President Reagan had to do after Carter, then it ought to be said.
Taking blame for an idiot, who ridiculed our military gets to be tiresome.
(My spellcheck is off and FR's says armour is mispelled - sorry -- and -- if anyone can suggest a good spell/info site I would be very grateful - was using Guru - went to answers.com didn't like)
Perfect comparison!
:-D
The expression on Pres. Jaafari's face is priceless.
That is still true here, and maybe The Uk has had enough of "anything goes". That MP that was just outed for his hiring of boy Prostitutes in threesomes is sure going to be paying the price. He is after all a Husband and Father of two who claimed "family Values" yet was doing such depraved things with the "Male Hookers", that they would not even talk about it. I cannot recall his name this minute, it was on an earlier thread, it was Mark something. I cannot imagine what his wife is going through thinking about all the diseases he could have given her. If she beats the fool to death it would be justifiable homicide IMHO.
And Grandchildren - the image the MSM try not to show of the VP
Personally yes, think about it if he has any serious aspirations of running in 2008 he cannot allow the Dims to filibuster he must support his own party.
Thanks for this and the Broncos comment. To be honest with you I'm a bit stunned. I have to admit I did not believe the Broncos would do well this year. LOL
I'll go over the post later after I get caught up. I really appreciate your efforts and insight too. One thing about FR, there are always people who remember these things so well that it just works out great when someone needs something. Much of this just did not hit my radar as important at the time and now I have to get back up to speed.
Great minds think alike LOL
Tht is the correct URL for the World Net Daily article.
That's never stopped Democrats before, why now?
I'm not so sure. I think he will pick the most populist stance and go with that. I hope it is the same as the Republican aims.
Being pro choice though, I believe he does not want to see Alito on the Court. One of my New Year's prediction is that he will not stop a filibuster if the Dem's are dumb enough to do one.
I hope I am wrong.
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.