Unsurprisingly, Russert lead off this morning with Mike Chertoff. The interview was brief. Russert opened with questions about links between the Glasgow bombings and Al Qa’eda or other international terror. The program was obviously taped before Gordon Brown and Fox broke the news of the links between Al Qa’eda and the latest actual and attempted attacks in the UK. The dialogue about plans to increase security over Independence Day, etc...were pointless. Of course, no operational details were discussed.
Russert asked the same question as Wallace about car bombs, as if they were a new terror weapon. Chertoff again reminded the viewer that car bombs are a historical weapon of terror and we have ways of dealing with them.
Then the show turned to Sen. Pat Leahy and the Democrat attempts to weaken the Bush Administration’s program of 100% success in preventing terror attacks in the United States since 9.11.
Leahy continued the amorphous attacks on the Bush Admin about secret wiretaps, etc…. It strange, but the Dems have never produced a single decision to support their proposition that the President’s plan is illegal or rests on infirm legal principle. They’ve lost every court battle on the subject so naturally they require the viewer to just assume, like an article of faith, some malevolence from the monster George W. Bush.
Leahy and Russert jumped right on the Nixon parallel. Wow, dig up Richard Nixon and compare W to Nixon. Now there is a new approach for the Dems, is it not? Leahy then went on to misstate the scope of executive privilege in a further attempt to attack the Administration. Nixon’s name rolled off Leahy’s lips a number of times. Liberal nostalgia is in full bloom this season as, in their waning days of political life, the old guards of absurdity are returning to Watergate and Vietnam. You know that Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Boxer and Feinstein are praying for another Kent State to burnish their legacies.
Leahy continued the canard about partisan criminal prosecutions. I wonder why Russert never asked the question-name one partisan criminal prosecution. Democrats have never been able to describe even one actual political prosecution; they just make the accusation in the absence of any factual basis therefore. But then, when did facts intrude into liberal thought?
Leahy did prove one thing this morning; he badly needs to follow Dick Cheney’s advice more frequently.
The panel discussion began right at 10:20. Three known Democrats, Broder being the least offensive, jumped right on the Republican “blame” for defeating the immigration bill. Did I sniff glue this morning or was the bill not unpopular? After months of advocacy for it, the comprehensive plan that died this week was at 30% on the day it failed, and that was as popular as it ever got. Even Democrat polls showed the unpopularity of the bill. Never mind that organized labor fought hard to stop the bill and the likely civil war that will happen if we remember to exploit our adversaries divisions, leave it to NBC to find the theoretical dark cloud surrounding the vast political silver lining represented by defeat of the immigration bill.
The political discussion was tame. Russert almost wept when the extent and intensity of Hillary’s negatives came up. Most surveys show that over 50% of likely voters would never consider voting for Hillary. David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network confirmed reasons for Rudy’s consistently good numbers among evangelical voters, significantly his commitment to Roberts/Alito type judges. Given the first full term of the Roberts/Alito court I think we know why.
Russert asked the same question as Wallace about car bombs, as if they were a new terror weapon. Chertoff again reminded the viewer that car bombs are a historical weapon of terror and we have ways of dealing with them.
Then the show turned to Sen. Pat Leahy and the Democrat attempts to weaken the Bush Administration’s program of 100% success in preventing terror attacks in the United States since 9.11.
Leahy continued the amorphous attacks on the Bush Admin about secret wiretaps, etc…. It strange, but the Dems have never produced a single decision to support their proposition that the President’s plan is illegal or rests on infirm legal principle. They’ve lost every court battle on the subject so naturally they require the viewer to just assume, like an article of faith, some malevolence from the monster George W. Bush.
Leahy and Russert jumped right on the Nixon parallel. Wow, dig up Richard Nixon and compare W to Nixon. Now there is a new approach for the Dems, is it not? Leahy then went on to misstate the scope of executive privilege in a further attempt to attack the Administration. Nixon’s name rolled off Leahy’s lips a number of times. Liberal nostalgia is in full bloom this season as, in their waning days of political life, the old guards of absurdity are returning to Watergate and Vietnam. You know that Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Boxer and Feinstein are praying for another Kent State to burnish their legacies.
Leahy continued the canard about partisan criminal prosecutions. I wonder why Russert never asked the question-name one partisan criminal prosecution. Democrats have never been able to describe even one actual political prosecution; they just make the accusation in the absence of any factual basis therefore. But then, when did facts intrude into liberal thought?
Leahy did prove one thing this morning; he badly needs to follow Dick Cheney’s advice more frequently.
The panel discussion began right at 10:20. Three known Democrats, Broder being the least offensive, jumped right on the Republican “blame” for defeating the immigration bill. Did I sniff glue this morning or was the bill not unpopular? After months of advocacy for it, the comprehensive plan that died this week was at 30% on the day it failed, and that was as popular as it ever got. Even Democrat polls showed the unpopularity of the bill. Never mind that organized labor fought hard to stop the bill and the likely civil war that will happen if we remember to exploit our adversaries divisions, leave it to NBC to find the theoretical dark cloud surrounding the vast political silver lining represented by defeat of the immigration bill.
The political discussion was tame. Russert almost wept when the extent and intensity of Hillary’s negatives came up. Most surveys show that over 50% of likely voters would never consider voting for Hillary. David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network confirmed reasons for Rudy’s consistently good numbers among evangelical voters, significantly his commitment to Roberts/Alito type judges. Given the first full term of the Roberts/Alito court I think we know why.
Russert did earn some respect here at the Real Sporer by covering yet another of the Democrat House leadership’s grotesque hypocrisies. After spending millions of dollars attacking Republican Congressional pay raises the Democrats gave themselves a pay raise last week. One cannot call them liars per se, however, they only promised a “change of direction”. So when it comes to pay raises, like earmarks, the change Pelosi, Murtha and Emanuel meant was a lot more of it.
1 comment:
A court in Michigan ruled against Bush's domestic wiretap program. Everything Bush wants to do can be done under FISA the way it is currently written. If you want to wiretap someone, go to FISA, get the judge to give you a warrant. If it is such an emergency and you can't go to the FISA court, you still have 3 days after the fact to go to the court and get the warrant. In the over 25 years of the FISA court only 4 requests have been rejected.
Post a Comment