The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review

With Secretary Chertoff (and featuring Pat Leahy and Dick Lugar)

By Mark Kilmer Posted in Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Sunday, July 1, 2007

Secretary Chertoff was everywhere.

On ABC's This Week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warned of Europeans who train in Southeast Asia and return to Europe, either to attempt an attack their or to attempt one in the United States. On FNS, host Chris Wallace asked if the President would propose now an "enforcement first" measure for border security. Chertoff replied that the White House had proposed what it was going to propose; what happens next is up to Congress. On MTP, Russert asked Chertoff why the United States hasn't been hit with easy-to-make car bombs. Chertoff mentioned Oklahoma City and the Clinton WTC attack in '93. On LE, Chertoff said that we can't solve the immigration problem simply by building a really big fence, a la Duncan Hunter.

On MTP, Pat Leahy confronted the White House with "choosing confrontation over cooperation." He laughed off Fred Fielding's offer of cooperation by pointing out that Fielding had worked for Dick Nixon. And Leahy said that it will be difficult for a U.S. attorney not to prosecute the President for contempt of Congress once the resolution is voted out of Congress. He doesn't want to do it, he said, but the White House has to agree to submit to repeated public harassment from the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's doing this, he said, because the American people care a lot.

On TW, Joe Lieberman suggested that the United States emulate Britain in putting cameras everywhere to monitor people in order to detect terrorist activity. Steph wanted him to say that he'd support a Republican in '08, but Lieberman instead said that the Democrats were making a mistake by letting the party's extremist fringe choose its nominee.

On FNS, Air America boss Mark Green said that he does not support the Fairness Doctrine; rather, he wants the Federal Government to use its licensing power to end the dominance of conservative talk radio. Green holds that conservative talk radio is not winning in the market; rather, he says, the big corps who run the major broadcast networks are forcing the public to listen to conservative radio. Green expects Air America to become profitable earlier than did FOX. Radio talker Mike Gallagher was on hand to laugh at Green.

On FTN, Dick Lugar stated that he wants the President to get together with a bipartisan group from Congress to discuss diplomacy and a Murtha-Pelosi style "redeployment" of U.S. troops. Lugar said that General David Petraeus's September report should be ignored as irrelevant because the Iraqi government will not get its act together. Lugar maintained that he was not saying that the surge would not work; rather, he was saying that it would not achieve its goals. Lugar said something about Turkey invading Kurdistan.

The show-by-show review is beneath the fold…

CHERTOFF ON MTP. Tim Russert's first guest on NBC's Meet the Press was, of course, Secretary Chertoff. As this was early, he could not yet say definitively that there was any link to an international terrorist organization. And he saw no specific connection to any attacks in the United States. Russert asked if we would increase the number of Air Marshalls on flights to Europe to prevent terrorists getting there from here. Secretary Chertoff answered that we'd been doing this since last August but would increase it even more.

Chertoff reassured that there would be stepped up security measures, both visible and non-visible, for the Independence Day holiday week.

Russert posited that it was easy to make car bombs, so why hasn't the United States been hit? Chertoff mentioned Oklahoma City and the Clinton WTC attack in '93.

LEAHY ON MTP. Russert next talked to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, who seems to have been adequately brief by Chuck Schumer before the interview. Russert asked him about the subpoenas his committee had issued regarding the terrorist surveillance program and how critics would argue that he's jeopardizing national security by doing so. (Russert phrased the question in a much more mealy-mouthed manner, of course.) Leahy dismissed these concerns as White House talking points. He confronted White House with his charge that they were choosing "confrontation over cooperation."

Leahy wants to know how the White House justifies itself legally.

Leahy sneered that if the Bushies didn't like a comment Tim Russert made, they could tap his phone, examine his bank account, and strip him of all privacy – even if he had no contact with someone overseas.

Leahy said that because the White House's asserted legal justification for this is constantly changing, we (Schumer and Durbin) would like to find out what it is. They do not want to let Bush become another Nixon, wiretapping political enemies for thrills.

Russert asked Leahy what he meant last week when he accused the Administration of "Nixonian Stonewalling." Leahy declared that the White House thinks it is "above the law" and that no would should question their dictatorial mandates.

"In America, no one is above the law."

This attitude is unfortunate, Leahy argued, because "it taints everything else."

Leahy said that "nobody has confidence" in Alberto Gonzales and everyone is quitting the justice department.

Leahy had confronted the White House with his threat to use "THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW" to force the White House to cooperate with him. Russert asked if there would be a Constitutional crisis, and Leahy said that he hoped not, but that the White House had chosen "confrontation rather than cooperation."

Russert asked if Leahy were prepared to hold the President and the Veep in Contempt of Congress. Leahy said that both the House and the Senate would have to vote on it, but he was ready to go that far "because this is important to the American people."

He accused the White House of "manipulating law enforcement" against Democrats.

Russert brought up White House Counsel Fred Fielding's letter to Leahy offering the specific types of cooperation that Leahy says he seeks. Leahy Chuckled that Fielding was a "clever lawyer" who had worked for Nixon. He said that what was offered by Fielding was too limited to sate his desires. He wants, he said, to drag Administration officials before the committee repeatedly and constantly.

Russert cited Orrin Hatch as pointing out that they'd be much further along in finding any impropriety if they'd "just sit down and talk to these people." Leahy said he's talked to Fielding but Fielding is stubborn and won't let him have it his way in perpetuity.

Leahy boasted that his hearings have been excerpted on Comedy Central.

He said that when Congress votes out a Contempt of Congress resolution, "it would be vary difficult" for a U.S. attorney not to prosecute the President on it. Then Leahy said that he was not trying to play gotcha.

He accused Chief Justice John Roberts of "cavalierly throwing aside Brown v. Board of Education".

And after all this, I almost wish I still drank.

SECRETARY MICHAEL CHERTOFF ON TW. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was all over the shows this morning, always the same shot with a serene flag over his right shoulder, and of as much not as any was his appearance with host George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week. He made clear that the saga in Britain, with the two bombs, was still unfolding. He stressed that the flow of specific information regarding the situation was in the hands of the British.

It is possible that this was a copycat operation, he said, and he told Steph that he doesn't like to apply labels like "amateurish" and "sophisticated" prematurely. How sophisticated would one think box cutters were as a terrorist tool, for instance? No matter what the label, he said, the danger was real.

He stressed his ongoing concern with Europeans who train in Afghanistan or the Sudan, etc., then return to Europe to attack or then leave Europe for the United States to attack.

He said that he wished "we had the tools left on the Senate floor," meaning what the Democrat Senate took when

JOE LIEBERMAN ON TW. Steph next spoke with Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, after teasing that the Senator might support a Republican in '08 rather than one from his former party, the Democrats.

Lieberman said that the United States should emulate what the Brits have done in London, look into putting cameras all over our major cities to monitor what people are doing. He said that privacy was not a concern, as this would be for our national security. He said that this was "common sense."

On a less frightening front, Senator Lieberman said that the "surge is working" and there is reduced violence in al Anbar and in Baghdad. He said that "we have the enemy on the run," while others want us to run before we get the job done. He wants people to give our soldiers a chance and wait until September to examine the effects of the surge.

Lieberman said that we (coalition and Iraqis) control half of Baghdad and almost all of al Anbar, and we're working on Diyala now. He respects Dick Lugar and takes whatever Lugar says seriously, but Lieberman wants to give the troops until September. (Lugar declared the effort lost and demanded a change in strategy beginning this month.)

Lieberman said we have to look at Iraq in the larger context, intoning that a Middle Eastern diplomat said that the situation there now reminded him of that of Europe in the 1930s. If we don't win, Lieberman averred, Iran and al Qaeda will.

Steph asked Lieberman if he would endorse a Republican, and Lieberman did not answer directly. He said that the Democrats were selecting their candidate in the wrong manner, allowing the lunatic core to drive the nominating process and to select the nominee while ignoring the moderate middle where the majority of voters reside.

CHERTOFF ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY. First up on FOX News Sunday was Secretary Chertoff. He told host Chris Wallace that while the really big fence had "symbolic significance" to border protection; the problem was too complex to be solved by a really big fence. Wallace asked him if the White House would now propose that Congress pass "enforcement first." Chertoff said that it was up to Congress to pass what they'd wanted. The White House had proposed its immigration measure, and the ball was in the court of Congress.

Chertoff said that there was no specific, credible evidence that the Brit bomb plots would be followed by attempts in the United States. Wallace indicated that the Brits claimed a link with al Qaeda, and Chertoff noted that it's up to the British to release such information.

Wallace asked him about cries that Iraq is the new terrorist training ground. Chertoff said that they go to Southeast Asia for training, but he did allow that Iraq is a "laboratory for techniques" used by terrorists to wreak havoc.

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ON FNS. Host Chris Wallace had on radio talker Mike Gallagher and Air America boss Mark Green to discuss the Fairness Doctrine, although they didn't. Green had evidently lied to the producers, telling them that he favored reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. He doesn't. Green opposes censorship, he said, but he favors the use of the federal licensing process to mandate diversity.

Green rebutted arguments that conservative superiority in talk radio is market-driven, asserting instead that it is the companies who own the stations who make talk radio a conservative medium. He mentioned Major League Baseball owners refusing to employ black players.

You see where this one was going and went. Green was calm, articulate, and very delusional. Mike Gallagher talked over Green and laughed at what he said, which perhaps couldn't be helped. It was Wallace and Gallagher versus Green, but that couldn't be helped either. Green's ramblings were so at variance with reality that there was little anyone could do with it.

Although at one point, Green argued that the broadcast spectrum was "scarce," perhaps meaning finite, and Gallagher laughed that argument off. However, when one considers the broadcast spectrum as that only, it is limited to the available frequencies. However, this is not an argument, as Green maintained; that the government should determine what types of political speech should be presented.

Green said that he expects Air America to become profitable in fewer years than it took FOX. (I'm not sure if he meant the news channel, the broadcast network, or both.) Green and Wallace wished him good luck with that, clearly unconcerned. Who knows? Maybe they'll give Ned a show and it will become the next big sensation.

JOHN O'CONNOR ON FTN. Former Scotland Yard commander John O'Conner indicated that the London perpetrators were "disaffected young men," under the general umbrella of al Qaeda. They are Moslems.

O'Connor said that the "style of the bombs" in the London and the Glasgow bombs are similar, with both being similar to the roadside bombs in Iraq.

"In fact," he said, "the three attempts were bungled."

DICK LUGAR ON FTN.Schieffer next spoke with the New Maverick, Senator Dick Lugar, the Indiana Republican. Schieffer posited that what has happened in England "reminds us that the war on terror is about much more than only Iraq."

Schieffer asked if Britain were more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than were we, or less so? Lugar posited that these things have happened in European capitals with Moslem populations.

Lugar says he believes it is important for the President to get together with a bipartisan group in Congress to discuss diplomacy, Middle East security buttressed by American forces doing training and border security, and pulling back the majority of American troops to other places. (To his credit, Lugar did not suggest Okinawa.)

Lugar said that General Petraeus's report in September should be ignored because the Iraqi government will be unable to get its act together. He said that we're trying to provide security for all eighteen of Iraq's provinces and we cannot do this.

Lugar said that we need some troops there to "fortify" the diplomacy.

Lugar predicted that the Turks will invade Kurdistan and the United States will be in jeopardy.

Lugar said that he was not saying that the surge wouldn't work; rather, he was saying that it wouldn't buy the necessary time for the Iraqis to come to a political conclusion. He is saying, then, that it wouldn't work, even while he is saying that he is not saying it wouldn't work.

Schieffer asked him what his colleagues thought of his little scheme, and Lugar said that they were interested. He said that Jack Warner was interested but had his own little scheme. Lugar wants "something to come of this now" rather than "punting" it until September, when Petraeus would report some positive things and some negatives. (Has he seen the yet-to-be-drafted report? Yes, that is a rhetorical question.)

Lugar said that he hopes that the President is thinking more of diplomacy now, so that we don't "have one dog fight after another in a Presidential campaign."

Schieffer asked Lugar about Harry Reid's promise to add an amendment to the appropriations bill next month which would end the war. Reid doesn't approve of this, calling it a "feel good vote" for Democrats so that they can show something to their constituents.

I don't know if it were Senator Lugar, Schieffer and the format, or me, but this came across as babble. At least it was better than Mark Green discussing talk radio on FNS.

CHERTOFF ON LE. We had Jeffrey Toobin substituting for Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition, and his first guest was, of course, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. He said he's not certain if the British attacks were "al Qaeda central" or homegrown copycats. He had evidently talked to the Brits, whom he's letting control the flow of info on this matter, and verified that they'd mentioned al Qaeda. He told Toobin that they're always looking at this possibility of al Qaeda involvement.

Toobin quoted an article in News of the World by Sir John Stevens talking about linked cells in Britain linked to al Qaeda. Chertoff said that this problem was not limited to Europe, and he repeated that Europe is becoming a "platform" for such attacks and we have to more closely watch travel from Europe.

Toobin played a clip of Duncan Hunter criticizing Chertoff for not building as much of the really big fence as he'd like, of not protecting the boarder. Chertoff countered that they've arrested more people and put more high tech on the border. He argued that you can't solve the problem simply by building a fence, pointing out that they'd discovered a tunnel yesterday.

Toobin asked him to compare the days when he prosecuted the mafia to what he's doing now, and Chertoff said that the enemy is more dangerous now. He said that the mafia was a criminal problem while now we're engaged in a war.

« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The ReviewComments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - lineupComments (13) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

I really enjoyed watching Mike Gallagher take shots at Mark Green. Mark Green was in a bad position. Air America has already filed for bankruptcy and the best spin he could put on it was "blame those evil conservatives".

Good luck with that one, Mark.

I do hope that Joe Lieberman endorses a Republican in 2008. I disagree with most of Joe's domestic policy positions, but I'd be happy to welcome him to the GOP if he were willing to make the jump. I know there are at least 10 appellate court judges who need to be confirmed by the Senate.

Romney/Thompson 2008

My favorite part is when he told Wallace that he was "opposed" to the fairness doctrine, and Wallace asked him why he lied to the producers, when they were looking for somebody in favor of the doctrine.

Also, I don't get how his idea that it should be the local government deciding what is balanced verses the Federal government makes it more palatable.

The reality with talk radio is that the businesses that hire conservative radio show hosts do so, because it is profitable, if it was profitable to hire liberals, they would hire more liberals. Liberals who hate conservative radio need to realize this.

Also, I don't really get how you define balance for purposes of the doctrine-take almost any position and you don't have just a conservative and liberal position, shoot you may have five or six positions on just one issue.

I mean can anyone tell me the two opposing positions on immigration? Stem cell research? Education?

Lugar is the latest to catch their disease.
He is ignorant of the facts on the ground, he is capricious and fickle in the commitment he made when he voted for the war, and he is self-absorbed, more worried about what his colleagues in the Senate think about him at lunch than what is good for the nation.
If the guys would put a fraction of the energy the squander on finding ways to declare defeat in this war into actually supporting our troops and *winning* the war, we would be far closer to leaving Iraq and leaving it a far better place.
What is offensive completely in his joining up with Harry Reid is his blatantly false assertion the 'surge' is a failure.
That claim of his counter factual, since it only just now actually being implemented and we are winning.
I am tired of feckless leaders, and I am disappointed that Sen. Lugar has joined that group. so difficult to understand. There are two parts of the "surge" strategy: the part where the military creates the conditions for governmental stability, and the part where the government stabilizes. Lugar is not denying that the first part will be a success. He is saying that the second part does not look good. And he is acknowledging the political reality that in an election cycle, with anti-war sentiment being what it is, we could end up making some disastrous decisions.

Why attribute this to caprice or fecklessness, when it can be explained by the lack of progress (and in some cases, backsliding) of the Iraqi government?

There are plenty of rational arguments to be made against Lugar's stance. Why isn't anyone making them?

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

from Omar at 'Iraq the Model' blog.

"Uniting against al-Qaeda and even defeating it is not enough to solve all of Iraq's problems and the greater challenge of nation-building still lies ahead.
However, I expect and hope the world to show some gratitude to the Iraqis and Americans who fought, suffered, bled and died ridding the world of thousands of al-Qaeda terrorists..."

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

Here are a couple more things that Omar points out:

Uniting against al-Qaeda and even defeating it is not enough to solve all of Iraq's problems and the greater challenge of nation-building still lies ahead.


The internal struggle for power in Iraq will not end by pacifying al-Qaeda or the militias. It will continue in different forms until we have the correct legislations and institutions that can prevent bloodshed by facilitating peaceful sharing of power and treasure in a way that every individual or group get what they deserve, no more and no less.

Lugar's position is almost exactly that, except that Lugar is convinced that the government is not going to be able to get the correct legislation and institutions in place quickly enough. Omar does not present a factual argument about why he doesn't think this is true -- instead, he points out (realistically) that it is going to take a long time. Lugar's point is that the political climate in the U.S. creates sharp limits on the amount of time the Iraqi government has to show progress.

My guess is that the better arguments against Lugar are going to involve ways in which the political climate can be altered (or worked around), and military readiness bolstered. I think this because I haven't heard any good factual arguments that the Iraqi government is going to solidify in a short time frame.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

The argument Omar is making is that he expects the world to show some gratitude to the Iraqis who have fought, bled, and died killing the bad guys who would otherwise have more time to spend killing people in NYC, London, Paris, etc. That is the argument he makes that appears to fall on clueless deaf ears of many people, including Senator Lugar. Nobody seems to get the point that the really dangerous bad guys have been engaged in Iraq. They have not been able to get their most accomplished terrorists relocated to UK, USA, etc.

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

I can only imagine how it feels to hear our leaders say "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here".

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

We should look to the US Senate as an example of a functioning democratic institution that addresses rationally the needs of the country and reaches timely and effective conclusions?

He has the nerve to throw brickbats at the Iraqi legislature? What an a__.

Why is it that the problems of other people in other lands are always so much easier for our leaders to solve than our own problems here?'s so much easier to dismiss people than to argue with what they're saying?

Maybe he's wrong. I'd love to see someone actually discuss it.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

to be worthy of disputation.

Why does Lugar think it easier for the Iraqis to manage the Iranian border than for the Senate to handle the Mexican? Why should it be easier for the Iraqis to distribute oil revenue than for the Senate to institute the "fair tax?" Is Iraqi political pandering that much worse than our partisanship?

If Lugar is saying that the performance of the Iraqi parliament and the US Senate are both so disgusting that both should be abandoned next year he would at least have the virtue of consistancy. What gives him the standing to set deadlines on the operation of other democratic legislatures, but not his own? His self-fulfilling prophecy of "We are running out of patience." is contemptible.

I'd do the honors, but my good friend JD Johannes has done it so well already. You should have this in your inbox now, as well.

Email me if you have any questions, though, for me or for JD.


It's an excellent piece. I'm going to use it as a springboard for a diary, and then I will happily dismount and permanently stable the bloggyhorse.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

He is not offering carrot or stick to the Iraqis. He is just bailing out.
Nothing like having some haughty self-important Senator declare everything the Iraqis are doing to be not enough.
How about Lugar putting some heat on his fellow Senators to back the process and to stop undermining it and giving hope and comfort to Al Qaeda? How about actually supporting the mission? How about not being a newly popular poultroon selling out our troops and the war voted on?
How about some character from our Senators?

His speech last week was well-written, and he read with little problem, but his FTN appearance confused that.

Is it possible that his words led your own mind to the conclusions you've articulated and that you're romanticized his presentation to be yours?

What you've would be a basis for discussion. My objection is that you're three months too early. General Petraeus said will have a better idea of the military situation in September. Both he and Ambassador Crocker have said that we'll be better able to glean the Iraqi political scape in September. Lugar is saying, as I heard him, blast all that and let's get it over with now.

I'll admit that I may not have helped matters with my "new maverick" snark, but Lugar right now invites it.

Besides that, I'm still waiting for someone to talk about Joe Lieberman's "camera on every street corner" sentiment.

In America we do not need a "camera on every street corner" as Senator Lieberman calls for. England needs it because they lack our secret weapon. I support the idea of putting a Redneck on every street corner as the key to preventing any future terrorist attack on our soil. Sad thing is...It would work.

...because I don't even know if I agree with what he's saying. That's why I've been trying to get a reasoned discussion of it going. RedState is usually a great place to get into the details of such things. It hasn't been in this case.

I'm very slow to form opinions about things. But what Lugar says raises what I think is a scary and important issue. What if the Democrats gain enough momentum to force the administration into a truly bad set of choices? They are going to set up September as a crucible, and they're going to push very hard the argument that military success is irrelevant without measurable success on the part of the Iraqi government. And as the election year approaches, it just gets worse.

I guess we're going to find out if Lugar was right or not.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

One never knows with the Senate GOP.

On the Sunday shows several weeks ago, General Petraeus was on FNS the same morning Ambassador Crocker was on... well, one of the others. They both said something to the effect that their talks with the Iraqis indicated that there would be something by the Iraqi government before September to convince Congress and the citizens that this was worth it. Interestingly, an Iraqi official was on Wolf Blitzer's show the week before promising a surprise for the same reason. He had a twinkle in his eye. So I'm pretty sure that some progress, big progress, is forthcoming.

However, as you've indicated, the Dems have made September a wall, all or nothing. It's shrewd politics, but many of use do not think it should be used during a war where victory or defeat means more than a Presidential election. So the big question, if the Iraqis do have something, will it be enough for the Democrats? The answer is clearly no, but will it be enough to encourage the American people? This I want to see.

By giving up and moving the deadline to this month, if that is what he is doing, Dick Lugar is putting politics ahead of victory. I do want the Republicans to win, but not nearly as much as I want to see a stable Iraqi republic which is an ally in the war on terror.

He said that Bush said he's not involved in whatever the investigation du jour is, so he shouldn't claim executive privilege. He also said all the other administrations have cooperated.

I also find it interesting to hear someone from a lily-white state in effect calling the SC5 racists. Vermont is about 97% white and well under 1% black (source) What do they do there - force each non-white kid to go to a different school so they maintain diversity by keeping the white percentage at each one under 98%?

He also laid out the usual claptrap about having been a prosecutor for 18 years, and so therefore he's a tough law and order guy. What the heck does a prosecutor in Vermont go after? I'm guessing the top crimes in some order are:
- Owning a gun
- Smoking a cigarette
- Mentioning a religion (except Islam) in any public sector endeavor
Side note: Ronnie Earle has been a DA for >30 years, so he must be way tougher on crime than Leahy.

You just made me spew tea all over my keyboard:

Green holds that conservative talk radio is not winning in the market; rather, he says, the big corps who run the major broadcast networks are forcing the public to listen to conservative radio.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. One thing you can say about liberals - they're always good for a laugh.

I guess Mr. Green has never heard of ratings. But that's understandable since, in his world, Air America has never had any.

I rolled my eyes. I've heard several Mark Green interviews in the past several months [see here], and I am not sure if he really believes what he is saying or if he knows he has to say it to collect his paycheck from the lefty benefactors.

he looks like he is dying and the make-up job on FNS made him look like a clown and perhaps that is fitting. Seriously though is he sick? should we perhaps put a healthier person in his place? I don't think he gives off a strong front persona for DHS.

My stomach turns every time I hear mention made of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

The First Amendment of the Constitution instructs Congress to pass "no law" abridging the right to speak freely.

Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment prohibits the State from compelling speech (usually in a court of law, but if the Fourth Amendment can allow teenage girls to kill a fetus almost as old as they are, then what they heck).

Of course the Fifth Amendment has been dead since Kilo, but the prospect of a return (and THAT is the worst part) of "Fairness" makes me think hard about why it is we have a Constitution in the first place.

And by the way, there already is government subsidized "diversity" in the radio industry-NPR!

Contrary to what Mr. Green believes, I do not hear many Nazis' on my radio; are we to demand Clear Channel block out a time for them in the spirit of "fairness" and "diversity"?

This is where we are. A mere 231 years and it has all devolved into this? Where have all the serious people gone?

Blue and Yellow make Green!

There is either freedom or there is censorship.
Congressional democrats want censorship. The losers from Air America want censorship.
Green could not even credibly frame the debate, and was caught flat out lying, because there is no truth to his claim, and he and his side do not care.
They want censorship.
We live in amazing times.

I usually only get around to see one of these shows, but it's always great to get the low down on the ones I missed. Thanks.

In case anyone has noticed, they are about to create a Constitutional crisis with no foundation or evidence while trying to obtain information they have no right.

Does this alarm anyone besides my self?

It would be one thing if you had a smoking gun of a serious crime committed and were following, but you dont.

You have a series of accusations by in some cases former Schumer staffers and made up scenarios to rile up the press. Thats it.

Let them rant and rave. If all goes well the administration will look grand at the end of the day. The only way they seem to win is when their opponents go completely over the top.

Lets see how this would work. They file a subpoena. The administration laughs in their face. (politely) Leahy Fumes. They file a (writ ? tort ?) in the DC circuit. Either the DC circuit laughs at congress and it gets bucked up to the USSC. Or the DC circuit doesn't laugh and it gets bucked to USSC. The next thing you know the USSC doesn't laugh and asks some pointed questions about why congress is wasting their time.

In the end Leahy has tossed a pie at himself.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Indeed. Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, and the precedents in this area, I can't see how exactly Congress would expect to win.

No US Attorney would prosecute a contempt of Congress citation. First, there is a legitimate claim of executive privilege. Second, this is classic "political question" territory. The Courts, and SCOTUS has repeatedly agreed here, do not get involved in tiffs between the Executive and Legislative branches about the extent of their powers. The party in the "wrong" will clearly get the worse end of the stick at the voting booth next election.

That doesn't address the fact that no contempt of Congress citation would ever issue as it would have to pass both houses, and good luck getting passed a Senate filibuster on that one. Or the fact that, since the President is unlikely to agree to any such resolution, the US attorneys (who are agents of the Justice Department, an Executive Branch office) would be unlikely to even acknowledge it.

but didn't go far enough. Leahy made it clear that he wants it to be a public spectacle - he doesn't care to get the info in private.

Here's why the administration should tell him to stuff it. No matter who testifies or what gets turned over we're going to hear two things non-stop from Leahy and his ilk:
- "This paper/this testimony is troubling and it raises more questions than it answers."
- "There is still this piece of paper/that person not being made available."
No matter how far the adminstration goes they'll be accused of hiding thngs, so they might as well tell Pat to go pound sand.

No kidding. If the Bush Administration has learned nothing else. Nothing will ever be enough.


Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

My bet is the dhimmies go about 2 steps too far with this and really tick off the American people.
If only Bush would hammer this back at them as it deserves to be.
This Congress, with its very narrow democrat majority has done less and lied more than any Congress in memory.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Lugar needs to retire either voluntarily or by the choice of the voters.He is so out of touch with the voter its not funny.

Every day Michael Chertoff continues to serves as secretary of DHS is another black mark on the Bush Administration and another day that the United States continues to be put at great risk due needlessly. Look to the British isles and see what await us as long as tiny men like Chertoff stand between us and terrorism.

Mr. Bush, fire this man. Now.

I don't know if it were Senator Lugar, Schieffer and the format, or me, but this came across as babble.

I'm guessing it's Lugar. When he was my Senator in Indiana, it seemed like he went further downhill each election. Now it looks like he's become an inane repeater of liberal talking points.

Heck, just look at the immigration bill. Lugar, the Republican, voted for it, while Indiana's other senator, Democrat Evan Bayh, voted against it. Further evidence: his 2006 ACU rating was 64, down from a lifetime 80 rating.

(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service