Posted on 09/17/2006 5:26:28 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, September 17th, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio; national security adviser Stephen Hadley.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. George Allen, R-Va.; former Navy Secretary James Webb, Allen's Democratic challenger.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Hadley.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz; Hadley; singer and songwriter Jewel.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Hadley; George Soros, Democratic financier; Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni; Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie; Ali Mohammed Jan Aurakzai, governor of Pakistan's Waziristan province; Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and John Cornyn, R-Texas.
snugs, when I saw Lady Thatcher step out of the White House with the VP and his wife, it took my breath away. I was moved to tears.
Agreed. Thanks for the update. I'm anxious to see the program when it comes on here.
I agree Bahbah. For the most part, I could take him or leave him. But lately it seems that he is attempting to ingratiate himself with the establishment media.
BTW he does come on talk radio here in MA. On Friday afternoons, he calls in to the Howie Carr show on WRKO and Howie takes the conservative side of the argument. It works because Howie gives Wallace the benefit of the doubt and can be friendly even while he is taking apart Wallace's arguments.
I'd also add.... And Tim, the Democrats knew this too. They voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein just like the rest of us Republicans, due to the intelligence we had at that time. Second guessing after the war is what the democrats have done, and it makes them look foolish.
I can say it but not without laughing.
Is it just me or does the look on Negroponte's face just scream "You silly little man, Wallace. Try to find an intelligent question."
He simply will not tolerate stupidity, i love the way he calls out Won Williams.
Yes, the word is "craw" not "claw," unless snugs is making a subtle allusion to something else.
"Etymology: like something you cannot swallow, based on the literal meaning of craw (= the throat of a bird)" (source The Free Dictionary)
Of course, the first thing that came to my mind was the bit from the very un PC 60s TV show, Get Smart. The evil asian villain, the Claw, would pronounce it "the Craw," and Maxwell Smart would say "the Craw?" The villain would shout in frustration "not the Craw, it's the Craw!" Very racist. Totally unacceptable. Also hillarious. Mel Brooks and Buck Henry at their best.
Ironically, although I can't be 100% certain, the actor who played the Craw (oh, excuse me, the Claw), Leanor Strong, may actually have been at least partly of asian ancestry. Something fairly rare in TV and movies.
Clearly the shoe fit......the dems do have more concern for our enemies than for our troops.
Timmy quoting an article written by a Marine about Anbar province...I thought there was a clarification on this from the marines. ALlen doesn't know about it, and Timmy, in his standard democrat position, doesn't give all the fact, he only gives some of the facts. I can't stand Fat Dim. Webb looks and acts like a real clymer. "We don't have any more troops"...what a joke and what a liar....typical dem.
Agreed. I hope Allen grows into a better candidate. Time will tell.
:-) Thanks for posting this!
Hence their anger over it being pointed out.
Where is my fan Krisol with Bush not McCain
It's not just you - Wallace was quite frustrated by the end of the interview. Watch for the way he turns from Negroponte toward the camera.
Powell is already the rat behind Armitage.
« Numbers crunching in Maryland
September 15, 2006
What a load of Armitage!
That's the headline on Victoria Toensing's dynamite column on the Plame case i today's Wall Street Journal. In it she raises several uncomfortable questions about Joseph Wilson, Richard Armitage, and Patrick Fitzgerald.
About Wilson, a serial liar, there is not really much more to say, and Toensin simply notes that Wilson confirmed that his wife, Valerie Plame, returned to th United States from a foreign assignment in 1997-which means that disclosure o her identity in 2003 could not have been a crime under the Intelligence Identitie Protection Act, since that 1982 law covers only disclosures of the names of cover agents stationed abroad within five years of the revelation. Toensing also clears u any ambiguity as to whether Plame could have been a covert agent
As the Senate negotiator for this 1982 act, I know a trip or two by Ms. Plame to a foreign country while assigned to Langley, where she worked in July 2003, is not considered a foreign assignment. I also know covert officers are not assigned to Langley.
As to Armitage, she notes that he has said he did not disclose that he was the source of the disclosure of Plame's name publicly because he was asked not to do so by special prosecutor Fitzgerald. But Armitage learned that he was the source on Oct. 1, 2003, and Fitzgerald was not appointed special prosecutor until Dec. 30, 2003. And "any witness is free to talk about his or her testimony." She puts the responsibility for the controversy squarely on Armitage's silence:
Put aside hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds squandered on the investigation, New York Times reporter Judith Miller's 85 days in jail, the angst and legal fees of scores of witnesses, the White House held siege to a criminal investigation while fighting the war on terror, Karl Rove's reputation maligned, and "Scooter" Libby's resignation and indictment. By his silence, Mr. Armitage is responsible for one of the most factually distorted investigations in history.
I think the most troubling questions she raises are about Patrick Fitzgerald, who "knew from the day he took office that the facts did not support a violation of the act." So why did he continue the investigation? I think he has a responsibility to answer that question. And why didn't he find out that Armitage had disclosed Plame's name to Bob Woodward a month before he disclosed it to Robert Novak?
Mr. Armitage, who came forward after Mr. Libby was indicted, was told in February 2006, after two grand jury appearances, he would not be indicted. Mr. Rove, however, after five grand jury appearances, was not informed until July 2006 he would not be charged. Mr. Fitzgerald made the Rove decision appear strained, a close call. Yet of the two men's conduct, Mr. Armitage's deserved more scrutiny. And Mr. Fitzgerald knew it. Each had testified before the grand jury about a conversation with Mr. Novak. Each had forgotten about a conversation with an additional reporter: Mr. Armitage with Mr. Woodward, Mr. Rove with Time's Matt Cooper. However, Mr. Rove came forward pre-indictment, immediately, when reminded of the second conversation. When Mr. Woodward attempted to ask Mr. Armitage about the matter, on two separate occasions pre-indictment, Mr. Armitage refused to discuss it and abruptly cut him off. To be charitable, assume he did not independently recall his conversation with Mr. Woodward. Would not two phone calls requesting to talk about the matter refresh his recollection? Now we also know Messrs. Armitage and Novak have vastly different recollections of their conversation. Isn't that what Mr. Libby was indicted for?
To be charitable: Armitage has an honorable record of public service, and we should not assume he intentionally concealed the Woodward conversation. But, really, how likely is it that he forgot about it for all that time? Novak's most recent column on the subject makes it clear that Armitage was not a regular Novak source, as I had assumed he was; Novak says he never talked to Armitage before Armitage's office summoned him to the interview in which Armitage disclosed Plame's name. But Armitage surely was a regular Woodward source. Any fair reading of Woodward's books on the Bush administration shows that Armitage and the boss to whom he was fiercely loyal, Secretary of State Colin Powell, were Woodward sources. Would you forget that you had been interviewed by Bob Woodward?
I think Victoria Toensing has made a powerful case that Fitzgerald should have ended his investigation before it was begun, that Karl Rove was unjustly brought before a grand jury five times, and that Scooter Libby was unjustly indicted. But, as Glenn Reynolds says, read the whole thing.
Posted at 02:05 PM by Michael Barone
Numbers crunching in Maryland
LOL
i love Get Smart and I love Mel Brooks.
The shoe phone is still funny :-D
Democrats have to second guess. They wait until the polls and focus groups are in before taking a position on anything important.
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.