Television Live Coverage of President Bush's Monday Night Speech

The Associated Press ^

[repub32]

Television live coverage plans for President Bush's scheduled 8 p.m. EDT speech Monday in Cincinnati. The speech, which is expected to address the threat Iraq poses to the United States and the possibility of war, comes as Congress prepares to vote on resolutions authorizing military action. - ABC: Not planning live coverage.

- NBC: Not planning live coverage.

- MSNBC: Planning live coverage.

- CBS: Not planning live coverage.

- FOX News: Undecided.

- FOX: Undecided.

- CNN: Planning live coverage.

AP-ES-10-07-02 0908EDT

[MJM59]

As if he is going to have anything new to say. He'll probably throw around the "weapons of mass destruction" line a few dozen times and tell us just how afraid of Iraq we all should be...

[erk]

More than likely, the news conference will air in the stadium anyway.

Don't count on it - it is in Atlanta and I would remind you that the nickname for the stadium is "The Ted".

[texasbluebell]

I do worry, as many people get their news from networks. I don't have cable, and need one of these creepy networks to carry it......maybe PBS?

Somebody further down says PBS isn't carrying it either? You know, many millions of people do not have cable, you're not alone. I forget the numbers, but far more people don't have cable than do, even now.

People depend on the so-called big 3 and often all they get is drivel. To not carry this speech is beyond the pale.

[Howlin]

I'm afraid, aren't you?

[Howlin]

I'm going to put up a live thread for it later on this after -- I've had MANY requests for one!

[Wait4Truth]

The Fox News Channel is showing it but I called my local affiliate and they are not - at least not unless they get enough complaints. There is another thread going on FR that has links to the alphabet networks and I contacted all of them plus my locals. I refuse to remain silent this time!

[TLBSHOW]

Mainstream media must be destroyed!

[MJM59]

Nope, Iraq doesn't particularly frighten me. However, I do think that Saddam would be better off gone. But then again, George Sr. should have finished the job a decade or so ago, after Saddam had tried to take over another country. Now, we all are supposed to be shaking in our shoes about what he might do. If that scares you, then you must be ready to wet yourself when it comes to countries that are already nuclear capable and have a problem with the U.S.

[Jonathon Spectre]

ANBCBS have been FReeped by me, now I'm going to call my cable company and demand they cut those channels off at the source. This makes me madder than anything I've seen since, oh, this horsesh*t in NJ.

[Howlin]

Well, he didn't; try to stop fighting old wars. We have to deal with what's in front of us.

[TLBSHOW]

This is about the war and the networks refuse to air it? Unreal!

[shetlan]

Media liberal control and bias is undeniable. They are flaunting it tonight by not airing the speech. Nothing new.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Fox has a policy of ALWAYS covering POTUS. Did that change?

[Bonaparte]

"...horns, beard and pitchfork?"

Don't forget the tail. The tail's important. Plus, it pleases the neo-darwinist viewers.

[Bonaparte]

"...Monday Night Football..."

They won't cancel. They'll just move it.

[Bonaparte]

"...have been calling for a good open debate on the subject, yet they won't even carry it?"

To the liberal media, "good open debate" means "favoring only our point of view." This tacit definition excludes the airing of a Republican President's policy rationale. After all, it's an hour in which they could otherwise broadcast film footage of Sarandon, Robbins and Sheen rhapsodizing over terorist fanatics.

[bybybill]

I called all of our local stations in Portland, Or. and raised a little hell. I wasn`t the only one-- just heard that one of them now will air the speech.

[anymouse]

Hope Dubya opens up with these jabs at the judicial corruption:

"NJSC to NJ Votors - Election Laws, Fuhgettaboutit!"

"SCOTUS to American Voters - We didn't see nuthin', no how."

[LS]

I'm not shaking in my shoes, but I do see a HUGE difference between "nuclear capable" countries like Pakistan, France, and Russia and Saddam's Iraq:

Threat #1 (and Bush downplayed this): Saddam was clearly linked to 9/11, STILL has ties to Al-Quaeda, and probably has already armed a few terror cells with gas/bio weapons.

Threat #2: He is feverishly working to get longer-range delivery systems that can reach our bases.

Threat #3: the nukes.

It is a simple question: if on Sept. 10 you knew what was known on Sept. 11 about Al-Quaeda and OBL, would you have acted preemptively? The answer is obviously yes. We know much more about Saddam's abilities and intentions, and they are both worse than OBL. He needs to go. He's the one shaking.

[Sacajaweau]

This wouldn't even be in play if the UN had invoked the proper means to disarm Saddam. The UN has finally been taken to task on their weakness.....appeasement (where have I heard that before).

UN: GET SOME "OO"s.