Posted on 09/07/2006 5:29:11 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Edited on 09/07/2006 5:48:06 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
by Mark Finkelstein
September 7, 2006 - 08:00
Winter, spring, summer or fall, All you've got to do is call. Lord, I'll be there, yes I will. You've got a friend. - James Taylor, 'You've Got a Friend'
Was it an interview, or a benefit concert - 'Dem-Aid'? Matt Lauer and Tim Russert got a one-day headstart this morning on the Today show's traditional Friday music-on-the-mall. In the course of their conversation, Matt and Tim went karaoke on us, the duo belting out a heartfelt rendition of 'You've Got a Friend' to their buddies in the Democratic party.
Yesterday, President Bush announced that 14 heavyweight terrorists, including presumed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had been transfered to Guantanamo. President Bush is now calling on Congress to promptly pass legislation establishing war tribunals for the trial of the accused terrorists. The news creates a terrible bind for Democrats, forced to agree with the president on an element of the war on terror. The depth of the Dems' dilemman was evidenced by a clip Today played of Nancy Pelosi having to admit, if grudgingly, that she was "very pleased" by the news of the transfer and impending trials.
Before even a note was sounded, Today had set the stage with the graphic on display here, writing off the president's move as "the politics of terror." But once he began, Lauer wasted no time in playing the president's move as sheer political calculation.
Lauer: "Let's talk about the timing of this. The Supreme Court handed the administration a defeat on this subject back in June, so several months ago. The president any time in the last couple of months could have made this announcement. Why did he wait until now?"
Russert was happy to sing along: "Or he could have done it on November 8th, the day after the mid-term elections. But the political and legislative calendar is front and center there's no doubt about it. This was important politically for the president because it focuses the conversation on September 11th and not Iraq. And you heard Kelly, the Congress must deal with this issue. And so for the next three weeks the president will be saying where is the bill? Where is the bill? Where are my war tribunals?"
Lauer even 'helpfully' sung a line of defense for the Dems: "If you are a Member of Congress, you will say you could have given us months to discuss this. You've now given us three weeks!"
Matt invited us to hum along with those poor Dems, put in the terrible position of doing something right on terror: "So put yourself in the position of a Democratic lawmaker today, Tim [and gosh knows that shouldn't be too hard for the former senior aide to Mario Cuomo]. If that woman or that man stands up and says I am opposed to this, I don't want to discuss this, I want more time, they're going to be seen or painted by the administration and Republicans as weak on national security."
Right on key, Tim crooned back: "Precisely. And that's the attempt over the next three weeks."
If the sky above the Dems should turn dark and full of clouds, and that old north wind should begin to blow, the MSM will be there. Ain't it good to know that you've got a friend?
That is what I have heard Rush say. Recall there was a time when Rush would sit down with Russert for an annual interview/discussion. That has NOT happened in the past few years, giving more evidence that Rush has lost respect for the biased liar Fat Tim.
And it never occurred to one of these brainchilds that they (Congress) could have thought up this legislation all on their own after SCOTUS handed down its decision in June?
They have to wait for the President to ASK for legislation like this? ROFL
Of course we know that the Dems never do anything for political calculation (Clinton, Tomahawk, Lewinsky)
Correct me if I am wrong but I think when the Supreme Court handed down their decision some months back, the White House did request this?
Exactly. The moderator has now fixed the error in the main text, by the way.
The USSC decision came down at the end of June
And Matt and Timmy seem to forget that Congress was not in session in the month of August .. they just came back in session this week
They also forget this
http://www.senate.gov/~lgraham/index.cfm?mode=presspage&id=258047
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Hamdan case:
“We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.
"It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.
"In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, ‘Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.’
"We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."
Nicely done - thanks for posting.
What's unfortunate is that Tim is supposed to be a news guy. A news guy should give his audience the facts. Tim knows that nothing happens in August because of recess, and he knows it takes more than a couple of weeks for the government to put together a bill on something of this importance.
Therefore, he knows that the week following labor day WAS the first week would could have expected this bill. He could have pointed these facts out and made his audience just a little smarter. He could have explained that democrats complaining about the timing were therefore making a political matter out of this, not the President.
But he didn't, because he's singing the democrat talking points.
I could stand the liberal opinion if they would just give us the facts first so people could see that their opinions are baseless.
Good post.
Russert and Lauer. The Dim Duet.
I wonder how many of the Today Show regular viewers actually bother to vote?
Thanks, 7th, glad you enjoyed it.
Translation:
"So put yourself in the position of a Democratic lawmaker today, Tim. IfWhen that woman or that manDemocrat stands up and says I am opposed to this, I don't want to discuss this, I want more time, they're going to be seen or painted exposed by the administration and Republicans as weak on national security."
BTW, why are Republicans able to deal with tis in 3 weeks time, but not the DUmmies? I thought they were all so smart?
Did you catch Ann Curry's interview with Jersey Girl, Kristen Breitweiser?
Four alarm MSM bias barf alert!
Note to self on the West coast: Don't watch the Today show today unless you want your blood pressure to go sky-high
Entirely understandable. It's easy enough to confuse Russert with the Dem hack from (MS)NBC who was a top aide to O'Neill.
That sounds like a good policy regarding all network news. Yesterday on the CBS news, this reporter was entrenched with the Taliban as they were shooting at our soldiers, then in the next segment with American soldiers. I don't think that meets the standards for being a good journalist. They place the importance of being "objective" over being American. I could never mingle with the Taliban like she was, unless I could get intel and pass it on to our guys. Somehow, I doubt that was her intention.
If this was the decision of a Democrat President it would be hailed as a brilliant political move in response to the Supreme Courts decision of June.
There is an old gambling ploy where when someone raises, you reraise back.
The Dems COULD re-raise and ask for the death penalty for the terrs, but they lack the will and the guts.
They've been hammering Bush and now they cry foul? Politics ain't beanbag.
If this was a brilliant move and we want the Dems to have to vote on these issues, why are you upset that Russert reported that? Since when is it biased to report the truth? Is he supposed to say I have no idea why they are doing it now or create some other reason. It's obvious that at least part of the reason is political.
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.