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.
Good for you .. we all need to balance our lives with frequent sheer non-analytical normal life and withdraw from this sea of misery. It's too thick with bad actors, negativism and filth to inhabit all the time. I pretty much did the same this weekend.
Hey....heard that the NJ DemonRATS may pull the Torch tactic... on Menendez because he's under investigation for some conflict of interest violations.
Deja Vu of Lautenberg?
New Jersey Switcheroo
For pure entertainment value, not much can compete with the blood sport of New Jersey politics. Last week federal investigators launched a probe into whether U.S. Senator Robert Menendez illegally benefited to the tune of more than $300,000 from a rental-income deal he had with a nonprofit agency that received millions of dollars in federal contracts. Even liberal good government groups agree that the relationship may have violated congressional conflict-of-interest rules.
The allegations have sparked a mini-panic among state Democratic operatives, who not so long ago thought Mr. Menendez -- who was appointed by Jon Corzine to complete his Senate ...
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB115828287725863862.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj
Jeb Bush!!
Look at this mess on McDermott. So very confident that no WMDs would be found in Iraq. I want to know what he knew, when did he know and how did he know it.
I have come to the conclusion (code for read my tagline), the Dems attempts to drive Bush from office and short circuit the war are attempts to protect some one(s) in the Democrat Party. Bottom line. The party is corrupt and many of its elected officials evil to the bone. They are afraid of the secrets that are locked up in those still to be translated documents and equally afraid of information will come out in a truely free Iraq.
Yeah, a tinfoil hat rant for sure. But I have been following politics for a long time and have never seen this level vitriol, intellectual dishonesty, deceipt from the Democrat Party. All for power? That is the short, easy answer. The Dems are in a race against time and their existence as a party depends on them winning the race.
From Wikipedia.
Visit to Iraq in 2002
Rep. McDermott visited Iraq in 2002, prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. He received sharp criticism from conservatives, both for his visit and for his prediction that President George W. Bush would "mislead the American public" to justify military action. During the run up to the Iraq war, McDermott insisted that no WMDs would be found in Iraq.
After his visit to Iraq, Rep. McDermott received a $5,000 contribution to an unrelated legal defense fund from Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman with alleged ties to the Oil for Food scandal. McDermott returned the contribution in 2004 after it was questioned in the media. Aides asserted that McDermott had no prior knowledge of Khafaji's alleged connections to Iraqi oil money.
McDermott's opponents frequently use the nickname "Baghdad Jim" to call attention to his controversial Iraq visit.
MR. WEBB: There is no—as long as the United States forces...
SEN. ALLEN: ...options, whether it’s ground forces or air forces.
MR. WEBB: ...conventional forces are in Iraq there will not be peace in the Middle East.
SEN. ALLEN: No, that’s not the...
MR. WEBB: That is the point. That is different from Kuwait, that is different from Qatar.
If I remember correctly the fatwas say that all foreign troops need to be thrown out of Arab lands.
Saudi Arabia Text of Fatwa Urging Jihad Against Americans
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
IMHO that includes both Kuwait and Qatar.
Pure Democrat Surrender Monkey BS. 1st off retroigrade is a clever way to say retreat.
None of the Democrat Surrender Monkeys have asked Kuwait or Qatar if they would take the troops. There is reason to believe they would NOT since the terrorists would simply follow them there.
Once they moved the troops out of Iraq is would be poltically difficult to send them back into Iraq.
More Democrat lies. Just another gutless attempt by a Democrat Politican to be on both sides of the Iraq War.
They are not talking publicly. Corslime is still defending Menendunce.
Webb was right about Tail-hook though. That was a witchhunt.
This is Webb's quote that got me.
" You should—we should remember that when we got Zarqawi, we did not get Zarqawi by—from troops based inside Iraq. This was a unit that was based outside of Iraq. And you could do that. "
If you didn't see it in person- he was very dismissive . Almost like the troops on the ground were incapable of getting it done. So why bother keeping them there.
Sub para (c) is the supposedly "controversial" provision. What could POSSIBLY be more vague and non-transparent than this paragraph? Imagine trying to use this para as the basis for a private-sector lawsuit. Whatever happened to common sense? (We all know the answer to that one, but clearly this is NOT an "debate" over the meaningless opacity of a horribly written sub-paragraph.)
Well, we do have this little document called the Constitution and there's this passage in the Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think we've spent most of the 215 years since the adoption of this and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights arguing just exactly what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. Bush is asking to avoid having such a moving target be part of the equation when we are dealing with our enemies. After all, arguments among Americans over what the Eighth Amendment means is a civilized and relatively friendly affair compared to the arguments we'll get into with Iran or even the EU over the crap in the Geneva Conventions.
And while we're at it, what ever happened to "they're not in uniform, shoot them as spies"?
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think we've spent most of the 215 years since the adoption of this and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights arguing just exactly what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. Bush is asking to avoid having such a moving target be part of the equation when we are dealing with our enemies. After all, arguments among Americans over what the Eighth Amendment means is a civilized and relatively friendly affair compared to the arguments we'll get into with Iran or even the EU over the crap in the Geneva Conventions.
And while we're at it, what ever happened to "they're not in uniform, shoot them as spies"?
Phsstpok, Wonderful post!!! I really loved the way Secretary of State Rice answered it during her recent interview on Rush Limbaugh's radio program. To paraphrase: "We interpret international treaties all the time." And Phsstpok rightly points out that we do it time with the US Constitution. I an just as baffled as you re the "disappearance" of the "they're out of uniform. Shoot 'em as spies" clause.
I immediately thought of John Houseman's Professor Kingsley from The Paper Chase.
"Mr. Wallace, when you can frame a cogent and coherent question, will you please inform the rest of the class? Until then, please be silent."
Talk about an iconic role!
In today's age of new media, the Stepford Candidate cannot survive a full campaign. Oh, maybe a few weeks or even months, but a full cycle? Not a chance in hell. Look what happened to John F'n Ketchup. They cannot maintain the lie because they no longer control all of the means of communications.
They are toast.
Somewhat seperate point: remember that the 1962 Manchurian Candidate is on Turner Classic Movies this Saturday night. Spread the word. This is the one where the Communisits are the bad guys, not the Republicans, as in the 2004 version.
So far as I can recall Rudy's "scandals" all involve his wife's betrayals of him, not the other way around. IIRC how does other people betraying him, yet he still doing his job and seeing a large portion of our country through one of our greatest traumas, hurt him? I know it won't be portrayed that way, but that's how I recall the pre-911 hit on Rudy.
That was one hell of a game, especially after the Gints (that's not a typo) decided to show up halfway through the 3rd quarter.
Hey, I go back to the Y.A. Tittle/Frank Gifford/Coach Sherman era of the Gints. I grew up with those guys! I actually grew up with Gifford's son Kyle in my class throughout elementary school till we graduated High School, and Coach Sherman took a personal interest in my brother's football career (helped convince him NOT to go pro in 1969 and subject himself to that other draft).
This bunch is a young team building up to something very special. This year it would be a Cinderella story. Next year? Watch out!
Having said all that... how about them Cowboys?
Me, I'm from Joisey. I love the Giants and Tiki but I don't hate the Jets. They're just such an embarrassment usually.
Glad the Bears won too. I remember the days of Refrigerator Perry.
Twist of fate, my father was hosting a corporate dinner in 1980 with Roger Staubach as the guest speaker, sitting at his table, on the night I went in for my first corneal transplant (a big deal even in 1980, though nothing unusual today). Staubach was sitting there when my dad got the note that I was going into surgery, asked about his reaction and ended up sending me one of the greatest letters I've ever received, about how he was adding me to his prayer groups list for my recovery. It meant a lot to me. My long term love for the Cowboys was sealed, even to survive that clown from Arkansas buying them years later.
Only the next year after my surgery I and some friends ended up spending several nights out at Candelstick Park waiting to buy tickets for the championship game against the Cowboys. We prevailed and got seats (in the Cowboys section) and went to THE GAME. I had to choose while going into the stadium. I chose the 9ers and the game was unbelievable, ending not only with THE CATCH from Montana to Clarke but also the interception shortly thereafter. I couldn't speak for a week. With all the ups and downs I've been a die hard 49ers fan since then.
But I'll always love the Cowboys. And when it doesn't conflict, the Giants have a spot in my heart (except for the year they hurt Montana).
Where you from in Joisey? I grew up in Westchester (Scarsdale) in NY, but, before my company moved out of Manhattan, I lived in Old Bridge, Ocean Township and East Windsor, NJ. Frankly, except for the Italian restaurants, I don't miss it that much, but that may have something to do with the 2 hour commute (each way) I was forced to give up on moving here. I'm now 3 miles from my office. Oh the sacrifices we must make! <g>
Listening to Susan Collins yesterday talking about "torture" I couldn't help but think she sounded like the female Liberace.
The Colon Backstabbers
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.