The Sunday Morning Talk Shows (preview)
Clinton (Bill), front-and-center
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For Sunday, September 24, 2006
Meet the Press (NBC): Host Tim Russert hosts Clinton (Bill), then he talks to a relevant guest, Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
FOX News Sunday (FNS): Host Chris Wallace hosts Clinton (Bill), then he talks to a relevant guest, Senator Lindsey Graham.
Face the Nation (CBS): Host Bob Schieffertalks to John McCain.
This Week (ABC): Host George Stephanopoulos talks to Bill Frist then looks at the New Jersey Senate Race (Tammany Hall Menendez vs. Kean dynasty.)
Late Edition (CNN): Host Wolf Blitzer interviews Karzai, hosts Specter and Harman sittin' in a tree, and holds court with his usual cast of thousands, including former Clinton (Bill) apparatchik Dick Holbrooke. (I thought he had died, or am I thinking of Hal? Hal Holbrooke is kicking? Go figure.)
-----
A lot of Clinton (Bill). (I specify Bill, because if I were to use Clinton these days, I'd mean Hillary, who is still relevant.) He hosted a global warming summit last week but lost the headlines to a mad, wealthy person named Branson.
As we've learned, Clinton tells Wallace that he tried to get OBL. (Honest Injun!) I wonder if Wallace asked him about creating the conditions which made OBL and friends believe that the United States was, in bin Laden's words, a "paper tiger."
And I wonder if Russert or Blitzer will ask Karzai about Pervez's book tour.
Joshua Beall has his Sunday Show preview up at Free Republic.
The show-by-show review will be live here at RedState on Sunday afternoon.
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - preview — Comments (2) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows (preview) 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Is that Clinton is going to be asked to comment on the newly-leaked classified National Intelligence Estimate from April, which is being splashed across the front pages of both the Washington Post and the New York Times this morning. It's going to form the perfect backdrop for the reconstruction of Bill Clinton.
Clinton still doesn't get the fact that the weakness shown in Somalia invited the aggression that came later in the 90s. He focused on the fact that we didn't know UBL in '93. So what? There may be others we don't know now that watch Clintn and the Dems and calculate they can attack us and escape consequences if they get power.
The new fact I learned that UBL scattered his org's leaders after the embassy attacks in 1998 expecting an attack that never came was huge.
Clinton came off as paranoid and a tortured soul that knows he let his country down when he let media wag the dawg yakyak stop him from doing his duty.
And to attack Bush was sorriness to the max.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Clinton still doesn't get the fact that the weakness shown in Somalia invited the aggression that came later in the 90s.
Statement of Republican Policy on U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia, Adopted April 1, 1993
U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our troops home.
So, who's weakness were you talking about?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
The fight in Mogadishu happend on October 3, 1993. This statement is dated April.
Since the weakness we are talking about is the withdrawal after the fight you do see how this makes you look like a clueless moron, right?
THE REPUBLICAN POSITION (House of Representatives - October 20, 1993)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1993, the Republican Policy Committee had this to say:
U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our troops home.
Mr. Speaker, we're still waiting.
President Clinton chose to ignore our advice. Instead, he preferred to put our troops under U.N. command, and in real danger.
The mission has degenerated from humanitarian to humiliation, and it is past time for it to stop.
So what?
The bottom line is that Clinton stayed in Somalia after the initial mission was completed, created another mission, did not have enough forces there to implement it (whatever it was), presided over a debacle and then withdrew.
Got that? The Democrats were the MAJORITY, GOVERNING party in 1993. They were in charge, they blew it and they withdrew.
OBL & Co drew some significant conclusions from that.
Any questions?
OBL & Co drew some significant conclusions from that.
As he did from our actions 10 years prior to Black Hawk Down in a city a little north and east from Mogadishu.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
get it. And I don't recall Reagan ever blaming democrat criticism for his abrupt withdrawal from a peace keeping misssion.
The dems are still proud of their Vietnam retreat and promise to do the same thing if they get power now, even after 911.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
invading Grenada to blame the Democrats.
Interesting non sequitur, Gamey. Was Clinton at fault for leaving Somalia or for blaming the Republicans in 2006 for his leaving Somalia?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The Dem Party congress majority was at fault for cutting off funds to a South Vietnamese army that was winning.
Reagan was at fault for putting peace-keeping troops where their was no peace in Lebanon and for not retaliating against the Hezbos.
The Dem party majority in congress was at fault for supporting communists in Nicaragua.
Clinton was at fault for not allowing our troops in Somalia to have the equipment necessary to defend themselves and for retreating.
Clinton was at fault for inaction or weak action in response to Saddam, WTC 1993, Khobar, Embassies and Cole.
Reagan was responsible for abaondoning containment and winning the Cold War, liberating Grenada and Nicaragua and deterring Libya.
41 was at fault for leaving Saddam in power.
Bush43 is responsible for removing two terror regimes, decimating al qaida, rounding up 700 illegal alien muslims in the US after 911 and liberating 50 million people, as well as Libya's surrender.
Clinton was at fault for giving N Kor nuclear technology and giving China missile and nuke tech.
more to come
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
here that it went from humanitarian to humiliation? I'd think not. Is there a denial that Clinton igored advice about putting US troops into some polyglot UN outfit? I'd hope not.
To the point Bunning was wrong and demonstrably so. More to the point Bunning was not the president and didn't have authority to bring the troops home. No matter how many people demanded the troops be brought home only one man had the authority to do it, and he did.
You seem to be saying that Clinton's pell mell retreat from Somalia was fine so long as one person, somewhere, in some capacity, wanted the troops taken out. Sort of elevating gutlessness to a virtue it seems.
Please note that the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has not done that despite calls from wusses in both parties to do so.
Branson is pledging to "donate" billions of dollars to research and developement of products that will ease global warming. The fact is that he will own the patents to whatever he produces. IF he produces a product that performs nearly as well as current fuels while reducing total carbon output*, he'll make billions more than he put into it. The kooky stuff he shows to the public is just a schill to get the libs to all fly Virgin Airlines instead of United. Despite his hippy appearance, he's one of the best capitalists of the past few decades.
(* I'm not a big believer in the human caused global warming theory. I tend to think any changes in earth temps are more likely due to that big ball of fire I've heard called the "sun". But there are a LOT of people who do believe in it and a "reduced carbon" fuel is a marketing bonanza.)
Hits two shows this week eh?
Is he selling a book?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"Frankly Wolf, I can't make an assessment based on [experts] your program. I rely on people on the ground in Iraq."
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
The lefty Think Progress web site was kind enough to post the transcript of Chris Wallace's interview with Clinton (Bill) which airs tomorrow, allowing me to prepare some of the review a little early and to digress a little.
We'll see what Russert does. I honestly do not think Russert will ask him only about global warming and the kooky Branson guy.