Daily Kos

Sunday Talk

by Jamato

Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:59:19 PM PDT

Update [2005-2-5 21:59:19 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando

ABC's "This Week" - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Rumsfeld.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Rumsfeld; Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

CNN's "Late Edition" - Rumsfeld; Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

"Fox News Sunday" - Vice President Dick Cheney.

Let us know what's going on!

Rumsfeld means Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. It should also mean Torture, Torture, Torture, but it won't.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 93 comments

  •  Hmm (none / 1)

    7 Republicans spots vs. 3 Democrats thus far.

    Yeah, gotta love that liberal media.

    Maybe they'll all talk about Rumsfeld wanting to resign last year.

    Mad Wombat

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:37:48 AM PDT

  •  It's Rumsfeld and Cheney week (none / 1)

    Is it time to start banging the war drums over Iran?

    Netroots Nation: Changing the face of progressive politics.

    by pontificator on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:38:07 AM PDT

  •  Rummy (none / 1)

     Is going to brag about how he resigned  twice but was refused by King George.

    May there be peace on earth and may it begin with me

    by lazbumm on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:58:35 PM PDT

  •  Rummy's on *4* shows?? (4.00 / 2)

    Geez, it would be fun to watch him jogging frantically between the studios!

    Sure wish someone would ask him if he's going to make a trip to Germany any time soon...

    YEE-HAW is not a foreign policy.

    by molls on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:02:50 PM PDT

  •  It's Rumsfeld Mania! (none / 0)

    I'm guessing they will talk about the resignation stuff. Dont know if this has been discussed, probably, but I think that makes Bush really look bad. He could have dumped him twice, but for some strange reason didnt want to. Probably cuz he is crazy.

    by jj32 on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:03:01 PM PDT

    •  Nah...it's Iran. (none / 0)

      He's going to try to disabuse the nation of the notion that we're all set to go after the Iranian nuclear facilities, probably at the request of the EU.

      Simply put:  American saber rattling through off the genuine success the EU was having through diplomatic channels; so, now, Rummy has been sent out to the Sunday morning shows to back-peddle the line Cheney gave a few weeks ago ("The Israelis might attack Iran.)

      More inept and incompetent diplomacy from the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

      But what did you expect.

      "The beginning of thought is in disagreement -- not only with others but also with ourselves." - Eric Hoffer www.InTheArena.bravehost.com

      by Thinking Republican on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:52:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  John McLaughlin - Freedom Fighter !!! (none / 0)

    It's a Riot this week.

    John takes down Shrub's social security Scheme - bit by bit (I think he reads DKOS).

    John tells the Dems to OBSTRUCT -FIGHT

    John makes an awesome Prediction

    Fat Tony whines and crys like a little baby that the only reason Boxer tackled Rice, was because she received support from the rank and file(i.e. us on the net).  Talk about Elitist

    Poor Clarence Page, he's suffering from Battered Spouse Syndrome.

    McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

    by Al Rodgers on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:10:48 PM PDT

    •  McLaughlin (4.00 / 4)

      Has increasingly been the only sane person on the show, which shows that the Republican drift has not been to the right, but to la la land.

      Looking at the way the debate is going on Social Security has convinced me that the only people that the founders of modern conservatism would not recognize as conservatives, are in the Democratic Party.

      No concern for the budget, no respect for privacy, no respect for national interest.  I think the "con" in neocon has to mean something else.  Confidence man?  Convict?  Both seem more likely than conservative.

      by Devilstower on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:15:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  John McLaughlin Rocks! (none / 1)

      What are things coming to when we consistently agree with John McLaughlin and even, on occasion, Patty Patty Buckbuck? It's a world gone mad, I tell ya!

      Give me the old-school conservatives anyday! As for the current crop of addlepated fundie wingnuts and neo-cons, I have just two words for them: "BYE, BYE!"

      Curiosity is, in great and generous minds, the first passion and the last.

      by northof45 on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:33:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  McLauglin (none / 0)

      MCLauglin doesn't seem to schedule Lawrence O'Donnell anymore, so Eleanor Clift is holding down our side all by lonesome most weeks. Clarence Page is beyond useless, talk about tokenism. Why does he still have a job with the Trib?
      I give Mclauglin credit for lending a helping hand to Eleanor some of the time.
      Buchanan sold what was left of his shrivelled up soul last fall, when he muted his criticisms of BushCo's Iraq policies.
      Mclaughlin's show is scheduled opposite "Capital Gang" here in Chicagoland and that's a good thing.

      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

      by meade on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:32:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One just has to love an honest to goodness (none / 0)

    republican.  McLaughlin is really keeping true to the old time beliefs --- fiscal sanity and cautious military actions.  

    I will have to watch this but it comes on here in Minnesota at really odd hours.  Have to check.  Thanks for the heads up.

    by GrandmaJ on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:14:12 PM PDT

  •  If only Sen. Kennedy would say (none / 1)

    President Bush wants to turn Social Security into Social Insecurity....etc.  He will shine tomorrow.  One of the few statesman in Washington.

    Republicans are not a national party anymore.

    by jalapeno on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:25:20 PM PDT

    •  I hope he doesn't let go of the torture vote. (none / 0)

      He and Byrd, the dinosaurs of the Senate, were brilliant, but are a dying breed.  Soon we will be left only with the fluffy dissemblers.

      "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."- Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

      by normal family on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:47:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or how about any of these? (none / 0)

      "Let's just call the President's plan what it is, gambling with grandma's grocery money."

      And,

      "There's no such thing as a safe bet"

      Or,

      "Do you really want Wall Street in charge of your old age?"

      by jibsail on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:02:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you again Jamato (4.00 / 2)

    You are like the DailyKos Longsnapper. You come out, you snap the ball of Sunday talkfests back to the holder... and the kicker kicks.... and... its GOOD!

    Then you trot back to the sidelines. Ah, special teams.

    "Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everyone in good society holds exactly the same opinion." - Oscar Wilde

    by LeftHandedMan on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:25:53 PM PDT

  •  I'm shocked (none / 1)

    NO BIDEN, yes Alice there is a Santa Claus!
    Of course McCain will put in his usual bit of phony concern about how things are going then he will get on his knees and worship the GWB doll Rummy, way to go John you're a real stand up guy.
    Go get em Teddy, you're one of our last hopes in congress, please don't take no shit.
    PEACE!

    by PC on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:27:13 PM PDT

    •  Good. (none / 1)


      Biden...I always hope he's trying to speak less and act more.

      Speaking of Senators I'd like to see speak, I'd like to see Saxby Chambliss given a venue.  No senator did more to get Bush elected...and, well, no senator suffered a bigger betrayal.  

      Chambilss is loosing an enormous amount of Lockheed aircraft-building jobs--losses that will kick in when he's trying to run for a second term.  And Chambliss was appointed head of the Ag. Committee--just in time to become the public face for the Whitehouse's huge subsidy cuts.  The dude is starting to sound like an angry democrat.

      Cagey Democrats, whenever they see Saxby--or speak to Georgia voters--should start talking up this "loyalty" Bush seems to be known for...  And Reid should talk up the ingratitude of "Washington" Republicans...

      by SpringBored on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:58:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well with the Super Duper Peoples Sports Bowl(TM) (none / 0)

      happening today and all, I think Teddy could actually say, live on teevee, "Fuck Bush and fuck all the horses these criminal texan bandits rode in on, fuck them all!".

      Today of all days he'd probably get away with it.

      Please Teddy! Do it for all of us here in the kososphere!

      .
      .
      .
      We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in - some of us just go one god further
      -- Richard Dawkins

      by deafmetal on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:04:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly... not. (none / 0)

        Missed the Rummy part of the show, but Timm-eh! was in full attack-mode with Kennedy. Seems to be his approach these days, let the Repubs blather on, roll-over, go to sleep and then as soon as a Dem appears, he seems to wake up and starts snapping and barking uncontrollably like a terrier who's just discovered a rat.

        Curiosity is, in great and generous minds, the first passion and the last.

        by northof45 on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:44:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's Super Bowl Sunday... we anyone watch? (none / 0)

    and lord knows, noone will be watching the evening news, were so many of the sound bites are recycled.

    Maybe Ole Dumbsfeld should stay in bed with a warm bottle of Geritol

    McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

    by Al Rodgers on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:45:17 PM PDT

  •  Nancy... or somebody... (4.00 / 3)

    ask McCain how he cold vote for a man who approves of America using torture.

    We need not think alike to love alike -- Ferenc Dávid

    by ogre on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:53:26 PM PDT

  •  Why? (none / 0)

    Are there no Democrats available to counter the drivel of Rumsfeld or Darth (no liability for me) Cheney?

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:56:31 PM PDT

    •  Uh, not exactly... (none / 0)

      There are no non-state owned media left, is perhaps a bit closer to the truth, though I imagine you were being ironic, and isn't it a sad state of affairs when irony and satire are becoming indistinguishable from the truth?

      Kennedy will, howeve be on Press the Meat with little Timmy, so imagine he will go after the Bushco, Cheneyburton folks with a carving knife.

      Popcorn anyone?

      by jibsail on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 06:49:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  next week (none / 0)

    how about donovan mcnabb and rush limbaugh?

    by brg6 on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:08:19 PM PDT

  •  What's going on ... (4.00 / 2)

    What's going on during this morning's gasbag shows is that we are changing the subject.

    Let's see what the prominence of the Bush Piratization Plan is, in relationship to the "Hey, Remember That Iraq Had Elections Last Sunday and Doesn't That Make US Courageous?"

    Well, here is the truth from Charles Pierce from that bastion of liberal thought, Massachusetts:

    You do not own their courage.

    The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.

    You do not own their courage.

    They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don't own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don't own their courage, Judith Miller. They did not stand in line to provide pretty pictures for vapid suits to fawn over, so you don't own their courage, Howard Fineman, and neither do you, Chris Matthews.

    You do not own their courage.

    They did not stand in line in order to justify the dereliction of a kept press. They did not stand in line to make right the wrongs born out of laziness, cowardice, and the easy acceptance of casual lying. They did not stand in line for anyone's grand designs. They did not stand in line to play pawns in anyone's great game, so you don't own their courage, you guys in the PNAC gallery.

    You do not own their courage.

    They did not stand in line to provide American dilettantes with easy rhetorical weapons, so you don't own their courage, Glenn Reynolds, with your cornpone McCarran act out of the bowels of a great university that deserves a helluva lot better than your sorry hide. They did not stand in line to be the instruments of tawdry vilification and triumphal hooting from bloghound commandos. They did not stand in line to become useful cudgels for cheap American political thuggery, so you don't own their courage, Freeper Nation.

    You do not own their courage.

    They did not stand in line to justify a thousand mistakes that have led to more than a thousand American bodies. They did not stand in line for the purpose of being a national hypnotic for a nation not even their own. They did not stand in line for being the last casus belli standing. They did not stand in line on behalf of people's book deals, TV spots, honorarium checks, or tinpot celebrity. They did not stand in line to be anyone's talking points.

    You do not own their courage.

    We all should remember that.

    *****
    You can't say it any better than that. Thank you Mr. Pierce.

    via http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/watering_the_spirit/index.html

    by jibsail on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 06:46:07 AM PDT

  •  I have a DREAM (none / 0)

    That one day, we will all be free of these talknig heads shows, and that this sunday thread will be commentless.

    aint watched them for 4 months now, feeling good, at least for me, my dream is getting closer.

    Buckeye State Blog

    by Pounder on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:09:58 AM PDT

  •  George Steph. on Fire (none / 0)

    Wow.  I'm watching This Week and George S. is handing Rummy's ass to him pretty hard.

    Or maybe Rummy is just starting to crumble.  

    Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth. -Mike Tyson

    by jmgotham on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:14:09 AM PDT

    •  Can't watch, do tell! (none / 0)

      by debraz on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:36:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hard to Explain, Really (none / 0)

        If I could do it justice with typed words I would be able to explain the blatant dodging and transparent confidence that Rummy displayed but, really, it's hard to put into words.

        For example (and I don't have the transcript so I'm paraphrasing):

        George S.: Seymour Hersh wrote an article claiming that US forces were already operating inside Iran.  Any truth to this?

        Rummy: It's a fictional document.

        George S.: Are US forces operating within Iran?

        Rummy:  Not to my knowledge.

        George S.: But would you know if they were?

        Rummy:  Um, well, yes.  I would.

        George S.:  So are American forces operating within Iran?

        Rummy:  Well, not to my knowledge.

        Notice how Rummy did not say NO?

        And you have to put these words in the context of Rummy looking very uncomfortable being asked these questions directly.

        Let's see.. fictional document?  Yes.  forces within Iran?  Um.. I don't know but I would be the person to know if there were.  

        My head is starting to spin.

        Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth. -Mike Tyson

        by jmgotham on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:08:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rummy might also be playing semantic (none / 0)

          games with the words "US forces"...perhaps another country has some forces working inside Iran for the US. Or again another possibility...it's not special US "forces" it's CIA "operatives" or some other slight difference in terminology that Rummy loves to play games with in addition to his non-denial denial. Or maybe it is some private contractor the DOD has paid to do this sort of work...if that is even possible...and he doesn't know if they are American or what, but Rummy thinks to himself "technically" they aren't official US forces.

          by emal on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:24:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  US and Israeli "forces" (none / 1)

            It's Rummy's no longer secret ops team plus Israeli ops teams. Remember how DiRita parsed the DoD response as "no team reports directly to Rumsfeld".  So Rumsfeld sets his secret band of merry men and the mission, then lets Wolfie handle the operations in Iran keeping the plausible deniability in a "not to my knowledge".

            by debraz on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:34:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Rummy (none / 0)

      That cagey old bastard sure is slippery... like a mean old greased pig.

      by Burton Halli on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:47:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Matthews (none / 0)

    In the "roundtable" portion of Matthews program, one of the guests just said that a big story next week, that just broke in the Washington Times (blech!, but why do they have to be the one to break news?), is that the American military targetted 12 journalists in Iraq and killed them.  I assume this killing was done over the course of the war, not recently.  Depending on the corroboration, this could be a huge story.

    ...that may not be God talking to you, George

    by daxie on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:23:34 AM PDT

    •  Here's the link (none / 0)

      This could be very big!

      linked text

      I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward freedom and democracy. But that could change. -Dan Quayle

      by tf cappello on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:39:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If relevance were important to the media (none / 0)

        it would be big.  There are 2 Al Jazeera journalists I can remember being killed at least.  And several others from European countries.

        Now ask yourself this question? since Washington Times does nothing without Rove's approval, why are they talking about this?  To change the topic from the elections? the continued violence?

          Unless someone is going to argue that even the Washington Times has abandoned Bush.  Nah.

        by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:03:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All good points (none / 0)

          But might this be a preemptive strike? Perhaps its a strategy to get out in front of the story. Case in point, the narrative quickly turns to discrediting the source and motivations.

          I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward freedom and democracy. But that could change. -Dan Quayle

          by tf cappello on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:30:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  WashTimes (none / 0)

          It's an op-ed going after the person who made the allegations, who is an executive at CNN.  They consider CNN to have an international, "America-hating" audience.  So it's not exactly the Washington Times trying to shed light on a real story, more them using a remark as a club to bash the SCLM.

          By the way, I highly recommend Control Room, the documentary about the Al-Jazeera network - it briefly covers the bombing of the Al-Jazeera Baghdad office during the war.  They certainly believed US forces were well informed of their location.

          on strike.

          by daria g on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:46:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, yes,that makes more sense. (none / 0)

            Should have thought about that a second longer.

            On CNN several days ago, they interviewed a person from the times and they were talking about an upcoming article re the journalist payola scandal.  I thought that was a preemptive strike.  So this makes way more sense, especially when they are only responding to a CNN international article.

            by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 11:09:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  this is a canard... (none / 0)

      Some CNN hotshot misspoke himself, and immediately retracted the statement----and now the wingnuts are trying to hang him with it as if it was more evidence of a "liberal media".

      Eason Jordan does stand by his claim that journalists are being targeted (he has mentioned in the past that fact that some Muslim journalists have been abducted and tortured by the US), and that 12 journalists have been killed by US forces.   He apparently conflated the two claims, was called on it, and refuted it immediately.

       

      by bushsux on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:42:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hypocrite McCain (none / 0)

    As of his ridiculous vote for Abu Gonzales the other day, I had officially written off McCain forever, but now he's on "This Week" shilling for Bush's piratization plan...

    I don't know if he thinks he is building himself up for a serious run in 08, but he sure seems to be giving the Dems alot of ammunition to drill him with, lately. He has dug himself a deep deep hole with his conflicting statements on just about everything.

    by Burton Halli on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:59:27 AM PDT

    •  I agree with the disappointment in McCain (none / 0)

      I saw him speak following the SOTU address and he implied that SS would start having serious problems in about 15 years!  He completely fed into the misinformation put out by Bush.  Any repsect I had for him in the past in quickly fading.

      by WisVoter on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:12:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  primaries (none / 0)

      McCain would win the general if he didn't have to win the primaries first.  

      Because he has to appeal to Republican primary voters to get the nomination, he's going to do and say all kinds of stuff that is just out there.

      by maineiac on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:13:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  McCain -unprincipled, shameless, flip-fopper (4.00 / 2)

      I used to think I could perhaps tolerate McCain because he appeared to be somewhat of an independent thinker and a man of principles. Even if I did not agree with all of his stances, I thought he was at least an honest broker and I could at least respect his consistency and being a man of principles. But after this year when he sucked up to the Devil that deliberately attacked and smeared his wife and child...I began to question his values, principles, and priorities as he put Party before Family...I do have a problem with that.

      I didn't even have a problem with the fact he didn't support Kerry, but he didn't have to actively support Bush the way he did, especially in light of what Bush did to his family. That was unforgiveable in my book.

      Then with the pro-Torture vote I believe he sold out another one of his principles and values and placed Party Loyalty over those of any POW, the constitution, human decency, and the rule of Law. Despicable.

      The man is shameless and has no principles. He is a flip flopper....and should be tagged with these labels accordingly whenever his name is mentioned so it becomes part of Conventional Wisdom. I have lost any shred of respect for the man...the torture vote was the last straw for me. Shame on you John McCain...you might have been a contendah. But that is what happens when you Dance with the Devil.

      by emal on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:19:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Call him "Shame McCain" (none / 0)

        instead of "John McCain".

        Not quit e a rhyme, but close enough.

        by MH in PA on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:39:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed on all points (none / 0)

        Not only has McCain lost fans because of his disgusting display of conformity of late, but politically speaking, he would have been much smarter to stay on the path of Independent thinking and set himself up as a very formidable third party candidate. If he thinks for one second that the bulk of Republican voters will tolerate his outspoken, Independent ways he is sorely mistaken. And conversely, if he thinks Democratic voters will tolerate his pathetic brown-nosing and pandering to the right, he also is in for a suprise.

        Now, by suddenly becoming a Republican brownshirt, he has put himself in the position to be easily criticized by BOTH sides... Not smart. But IMHO he deserves everything he gets for playing ball with the same scumbags who dragged him through the shit in 2000. It makes him look weak and desperate.

        by Burton Halli on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:44:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Email I sent McCain after his pro-Gonzales vote... (none / 0)

        Dear Senator McCain,

        I have watched you vacillate and waver and ride the fence on many issues between your support for this administration versus the unethical tactics employed by them.  You appear to be trying so hard to remain a loyal Republican, while you quietly are ashamed of many of the things this administration has done.  But now, the confirmation of Alberto Gonzalez only proves that you are simply using that image to your own political benefit.  Your personal experience with torture as a prisoner of war should have prohibited you entirely from supporting the confirmation of the man who wrote the torture memos.  Your yes vote for Alberto Gonzalez condoning his manipulation of the legalese to permit torture at Guantanamo and Abu Graib (and other prisons in Iraq as well) is appalling.   That you of all people in Congress could vote yes on this issue only confirms that the so-called party of morals and values truly only knows the words, but doesn't even remotely understand what they mean.  
        What a sad day for America.  You should be ashamed.   Republicans condone torture.
        Sincerely,

        by Jeanni on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:35:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, great!! (none / 0)

      As a member of the Keating 5, one would think that Senator McCain would not want to contribute to any campaign that would bilk the elderly out of their hard-earned money!! One would think that he would continue to try to make penance for his sorry behavior in the mid-1980s. But no, he has decided to join the Bush crowd in social security piratization as well!!

      Can't say that I'm disappointed in him. I've never liked him anyway, especially after finding out that he voted against MLK Day from becoming a federal holiday.

      If he does run in 2008 and becomes the Republican nominee, I hope that the Dems smear him up good!! I can't stand him!!

      Here's a link to some skeletons in McCain's closet that Dems could fully exploit:

      http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm

      I don't know if all of the allegations are true or not, but does it really matter? As Bushco. showed in this last election, NO it doesn't!!

      by ademption on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:44:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rummy on MTP (none / 0)

    He hasn't said one coherent thing.  Hasn't answered one question directly... just his usual double-speak.  He is a war criminal.

    Jail to the Chief Jail to the Chief

    by Barbara H on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:27:44 AM PDT

  •  Katrina vanden Heuvel (none / 0)

    Katrina on Chris Matthews:

    "Gambler in Chief"

    Great to see a progressive voice on this show.  

    Hillary '08.

    by Athena on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:35:19 AM PDT

  •  Can you add the broadcasting times EST ? (none / 0)

    If you write your "Sunday Talk" list, could you add in parentheses the times they broadcast them?

    They seem to change around. Thanks.

    by mimi on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:39:15 AM PDT

  •  Rumsfeld on This Week (4.00 / 2)

    Q: Let me press the question. How long will it take to get enought security forces to secure Iraq?

    A: It's not knowable

    Q: Why not?

    A: We don't know the behavior of Iran and Syria. We don't know if the political process it going to tip people away from supporting the insurgency. We got a clue when you saw people standing in line to vote.

    Next, the money flow. The people causing the trouble are Baathists, jihadists, and criminals who are doing it for money. So if money flow is restricted... you need economic progress. That will determine the level of the insurgency.

    Q: But those are a lot of ifs.

    A: Of course, that's life.

    Q: So you can set no expectations for the Am public right now.

    A: I can say that as the Iraqi security forces grow, some are well trained, others just came out, there's another 15,000 currently in training. People are trying to complexify it.

    Q: You said the elections may be a tipping point. [Quotes Vietnam election article]. I know you reject the Vietnam analogy. Who do you reject it? What do you say to Senator Byrd?

    A: Well, of course I'm worried. Anyone has to be worried. No one can predict the future. We've said this is going to be tough stuff. This isn't easy. You don't go from a vicious dictatorship to a democracy on a featherbed, as Thomas Jefferson said. This is difficult stuff. People of Iraq lived under a terribly repressive dictatorship. Pretty soon you get frightened and you don't know how to conduct a political process. I don't think we can be certain, but we can be hopeful. I agree with you, there are a lot of people who are skeptical. Those people can't handle democracy. Well I think the sweep of human history is for freedom. Look what happened in the Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, PLO, and what took place last Sunday. There's hope there.

    Q: Let's turn to Iran. Several of us met with the president on the day of the SOU....

    A: You didn't get paid, did you?

    Q: No sir, not for that.

    A: I just want to make sure everything's all right here.

    Q: It was clear that the president believed two things about Iran. 1) They're going to do whatever it takes to get nuclear weapons, and 2) There are no good options to stop them.

    A: Is that what the president said?

    Q: I'm not allowed to say what the president said. I'm saying those are my impressions after a 1-hour meeting.

    A: Well if that's your impression and it's accurate, then it's probably right.

    Q: But just on Nov. 1 he said that our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon. Is that US policy?

    A: I think the president has spoken on this. Condi Rice has spoken on it this week. It is a matter for the pres and the DoState. If I say something and I move a comma from one place to another, someone will say, ah, there's daylight there. And the reality is that the pres has said he wants to approach this on the diplomatic path and he is doing it. He has expressed concern about Iran developing nuclear weapons because he believes it will be destabilizing.

    Q: But the question is, can it be stopped?

    A: Time will tell.

    Q: Quotes Seymour Hirsch about group in Pentagon advocating limited military strike to cause the regime to topple. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.

    A: Well, that's fiction. First of all it's an unidentified consultant. How would anyone know what Wolfowitz's and Rumsfeld's views are on this. We didn't say that to anyone.

    Q: But do you believe that a limited military strike could cause the regime to topple?

    A: Who knows? I'm been amazed many times in my life. I've been amazed by how rapidly the Shah of Iran fell. And when Romania fell, it was fast. We can't predict these things. I just don't know. I do know young people and women in that country know what's going on in the rest of the world. They know how people live. Iran is a country of an important history, intelligent people with access to the outside world. It's not as though they're in N. Korea.

    Q: Are there US military operations going on in Iran right now?

    A: Not to my knowledge.

    Q: But you would know, wouldn't you?

    A: Probably, but not to my knowledge.

    Q: If reformers in Iran rise up, what can they expect from the US. Monetary aid, military, or just moral support?

    A: Look, that's a matter for the president, depends ona whole set of circumstances.

    Q: Are confident the al Qaeda have not obtained nuclear weapons or nuclear materials?

    A: I have no information that they have. How can you prove a negative. It's difficult to know things that get up every morning and try to keep you from knowing.

    Q: Is there any greater threat to our national security than terrorists obtaining nuclear materials.

    A: Certainly it would rank right up there. I would also rank biological weapons. I think nuclear weapons are more complicated to manage and deliver. Biological weapons can affect people's physical makeup for another generation or two. Biological weapons can be contagious and can spread quite rapidly.

    Q: You said you offered to resign twice. [Shows Larry King segment referring to "midnight shift at AbuG"] If what was happening could not be managed or dealt with from Wash DC, then why did you offer to resign.

    A: Well, very simply, I was SoD when that happened and it seemed to me the pres deserved to have the option of deciding he might want someone else. My judgement was rooted in whether or not that I thought I could be effective. I did feel I could be effective. It happened on my watch, but if Secof D resigned every time people did something they shouldn't do out of the millions of people involved, if a mayor or governer, you wouldn't have anyone left in public office. I wrote out my resignation and told him he should carefully consider it.

    Q: When was this?

    A: April or May. But he made a conscious decision and there we are.

    I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

    by lesliet on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:44:56 AM PDT

    •  What an eel (none / 0)

      Q: Let me press the question. How long will it take to get enought security forces to secure Iraq?

      A: It's not knowable

      A: We don't know the behavior of Iran and Syria

      Our official policy is now allowing Syria and Iran to define our military objectives?  Isn't Iraq the "front" on the WoT or has that changed too?  If it is, isn't Rumsfeld placing the "security" of Iraq and America in the hands of "terrorist" nations?

      by debraz on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:00:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for watching so I don't have to (none / 0)

      So many interesting slimy things and answers in there.

      One of my favorite ones is this.

      (Russert)Q: Let's turn to Iran. Several of us met with the president on the day of the SOU....

      (Rumsfeld)A: You didn't get paid, did you?

      (Russert)Q: No sir, not for that.

      Russert says "No sir, not for that"...meaning (at least to me) that he Russert didn't get paid by the WH to go to that one interview with Bush, but Russert leaves an impression (to me) that he may have been paid for other things by this WH....???

      Correct me if I am wrong and if that is not how it played out with the tone and body language of it all was this the gist of what Rummy was joking about..payola?

      by emal on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:11:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not Russet, Stephanopolous (none / 0)

        Sorry I didn't make clear who the interviewer was, but this was This Week and it was Stephanopolous, not Russert.

        I didn't read into it anything sinister. When he said, "not for that", I was assuming that he was saying that he was paid by his network as a journalist, but not paid by the administration to attend their briefings.

        Yes, it was a joke about payola, but I took it as just a joke.

        I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

        by lesliet on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:47:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the clarification (none / 0)

          I really do love the recap....even if it was Stephanopulous's show...I don't watch him anymore either.

          And, I appreciate the fact you felt it was a joke and made that clear.

          I just can't stand that swarmy Rummy....and interviewers need to rephrase and reask questions in as many ways as they can because he is so good a non denial denials and uses semantic word games to technically claim innocence about things in order to dodge issues, when he is clearly purposefully misleading and and parsing. To me He is so full of evil BS...I can't watch the guy. I'm glad you were able to watch and recap so I don't have to.

          by emal on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:18:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Right on, George Stephanopoulus! (none / 0)

    The "Funnies" segment of "This Week" included footage from a Daily Show piece on the various forms of clapping engaged in by Congress that went on during the SOTU.

    Jon Stewart made emphasis on Bill Frist's strange "safe clap" wherein Mr Frist was clapping left palm over the top of this right wrist, and not a palm-on-palm clap which "causes AIDS."

    As many of us "in the know" are aware, the controversy about the transmission of HIV and Frist culminated when he was opposite George Stephanopoulus on "This Week" several weeks ago, stunning George (and the rest of us) in admitting he believes HIV is transmittable through sweat and tears.

    A great retributive on George's behalf.

    --Brian

    by BT77 on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:05:55 AM PDT

  •  Russert's Potato Head (none / 1)

    was, as usual, in the deep fryer while hauling out old comments from Kennedy to fringify him, while at the same time totally ignoring the chain of events that got us into Iraq in the first place.  Tubular Tim spuddered on and on about Kennedy's observation that the lead up to the war was a "fraud manufactured in Texas" (aren't pretty much all of the major ones?).  It dismayed me to no end that Kennedy did not stand by his comment and stick it right back into Russert's eye.

    The war was rolled out like a product that the non-thinking public could just not live without.  It started with the Power Point CD that was "found" in a park in early 2002.  It outlined the mid-term election strategy to drum up a war to play up the Republican's "perceived" strength (don't even get me going on that one). Then during the summer of 2002 like standing by watching Popeye winding up to knock Bluto into orbit a number of administration officials hinted at war, and proceded to use non-affirmation affirmations to say it wasn't time just yet to let the dogs loose. It grew to a crescendo as the election approached and was a runaway train by year's end.

    To the "fraud" claim? C'mon Ted, not a single pre-reason for the war turned out to be true. WMD, nope! Terrorist ties, uh uh? Weapons pograms, ah, na? Weapons related program activities, only the thought police knows the answer to that one for sure.

    Letting Bush off the hook was an example of the type of political cowardice that has come to define main stream Democrats. If you say something admit to it, defend it, and at the same time make mashed potatoes out of "journalists" like Russert who should have known the answer before they asked the damning question. Trial lawyers love these sort of lead-ins.

    On another note.  If Rumsfeld twice submiited his resignation to Bush about abu Ghraib isn't that an admission of complicity on his part? And further, if Bush refused to accept the resignation of the person behind the torture tactics doesn't that mean he condones such practices? They can't have it both ways in regards to doing what is right.

    by YT Cai on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:13:58 AM PDT

    •  Do they grow spuds on Nantucket? (none / 0)

      Gee, didn't you appreciate the list of "crises" lifted from Kennedy's website? That was sure a cute "Gotcha!" stunt, wasn't it?

      What an ass!

      Curiosity is, in great and generous minds, the first passion and the last.

      by northof45 on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:37:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Go to hell Rumsfeld and take Blitzer with you (none / 0)

    Wolf and Rummy discussing specific criticism from a member of the CPA on the decision to let "looters" loot.  Rummy's famous "democracy is messy" quote.

    Rumsfeld says that the military's objective was to take down Saddam's army not "guard some museum".

    Blitzer offers no follow up.  How about sites like Al Qaqaa?

    The explosives -- considered powerful enough to demolish buildings or detonate nuclear warheads -- were under IAEA control until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

    by debraz on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:21:51 AM PDT

  •  What did Kennedy say on Meet? (none / 0)

    by skipper2379 on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

  •  Not Just the Broadcast Media (none / 0)

    Is there any place where the Dems are given a chance to rebut this free Propaganda Newsweek is running written by the White House itself? [see bottom of page two: "Allan B. Hubbard is assistant to the president for Economic Policy."]

    Post-Armstrong Williams, I challenge the print media to clearly label any White house funded opinion pieces so that they can be clearly recognized by the reader. And that either Dean, Pelosi, or Reid be given the opportunity to respond prior to publication.

    by Cy Guy on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:57:21 AM PDT

Permalink | 93 comments