Another tough Biden interview...scrubbed from the Internet...
Posted By: sm on 2008-10-28
In Reply to:
Marxism at its best, once again, what we will be able to expect from an Obama white house
Try putting the following in google, and the interview has been scrubbed clean off the Internet. It's hard to even find a transcript of the interview, and could only find parts of it.
Like Orlando, Obama - Biden Bans Philadelphia Station CBS3 After Tough Biden Interview
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Its all over the internet that the plan has been for Biden to step down (sm)
and Hillary to take his place.
I saw Biden in an interview this morning....
he got realll agitated when confronted about an issue they really did not want to break. Talking to a reporter and he almost got loud. They are not on the run, but they are definitely concerned. The debates will be verrryyyy interesting.
To Biden's credit, though, he was almost snarly to the press for sexism and attacking Palin's family. Much more forceful about it than Obama. Good for him!
Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden...sm
Seems like if any news source asks any tough questions, and not softball easy ones, that the Obama campaign cuts them off.
Sounds like Socialism 101 to me....silence any nonbelievers at all costs
Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden
posted by halboedeker on Oct 24, 2008 11:12:15 AM
Discuss This: Comments (60) |
WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it's some of the best entertainment he's seen recently. What do you think?
West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.
"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said.
West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.
"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.
Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."
Here's a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html.
WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."
Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.
"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions."
Jordan added, "I'm crying foul on this one."
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/obama-campaign-cuts-interviews-florida-tv-station/
Who Scrubbed Palin Clean?
Why?
How the Wikipedia entry of Republican vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin was mysteriously scrubbed clean in the hours before John McCain revealed his running mate
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture-tech/2008/09/usa-vote-palin-wikipedia
Wiki was also scrubbed clean,..
when Palin was picked. Imagine that! They scrubbed what they could without being TOO obvious.
Is it true that Obama's website has scrubbed his 25 campaign promises? sm
I heard they are no longer there, and have been scrubbed off. I looked and can't find them.
Any thoughts on this, or am I looking in the wrong place?
I think this is a tough one
because some woman are obviously so put off by Palin it isn't funny and others think she is great. I personally find her to be well accomplished and quite capable of being the VP.
However, I did see a woman on TV a few days ago who is a democrat and a Hillary supporter who said she was currently undecided but felt that a recent Obama ad showing Palin at the end and winking was sexist. So....hopefully he ticked more feminists off who thought that was sexist. LOL!
not what to want to read....tough!
xxx
Tough times
Notice what affilitation the top 6 are! - N wonder they don't care if we're in a recession.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/54838.html
That's tough to decide.
I like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Hate snow, afraid of volcanoes, and can't take heat anymore. Hubby has been wanting to move to Canada for years. He likes snow and mountains.
I also like Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia. They're cold but I like the sea.
Maybe I can find an nice island halfway between the extremes I posted? Any suggestions? LOL
I know this is tough to understand, but...
these are military prisoners who will not be undergoing a civil trial, it will be a military tribunal. They are not United States citizens and, therefore, are not guaranteed any rights by the United States Constitution. Honestly, they should be (and probably are) ecstatic that we area not cutting off their heads.
He already has answered tough questions and without a
teleprompter. Now it is about time they let Palin answer a few.
Tough. Still a free country. sm
I think people like Bill O'Lielly and Hannity, Limbaugh and Colter should be banned - but atlas - it is still a free country. Ha ha.
NO to torture. YES to tough interrogations!
nm
Cheney Fields Tough Questions
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005
Hmmm, so I guess now we've progressed to the *FINAL* last throes ???
Associated Press
Update 1: Cheney Fields Tough Questions From Troops
12.18.2005, 03:18 PM
Facing tough questions from battle-weary troops, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday cited signs of progress in Iraq and signaled that force changes could come in 2006.
Cheney rode the wave of last week's parliamentary elections during a 10-hour surprise visit to Iraq that aimed to highlight progress at a time when Americans question the mission. Military commanders and top government officials offered glowing reports, but the rank-and-file troops Cheney met did not seem to share their enthusiasm.
From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains, said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain - how Iraq's looking.
Cheney replied that remarkable progress has been made in the last year and a half.
I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq, the vice president said. We're getting the job done. It's hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don't pay that much attention to the news.
Another Marine, Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?
Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. We believe all that's possible, he said.
Although he said that any decision about troop levels will be made by military commanders, Cheney told the troops, I think you will see changes in our deployment patterns probably within this next year.
About 160,000 troops are in Iraq. The administration has said that troop levels are expected to return to a baseline of 138,000 after the elections, but critics of the war have called for a significant drawdown.
More than 2,100 troops have died in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, I'm not Jessica Simpson.
Shouts of hooah! from the audience interrupted Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently. When he delivered the applause line, We're in this fight to win. These colors don't run, the only sound was a lone whistle.
The skepticism that Cheney faced reflects opinions back home, where most Americans say they do not approve of President Bush's handling of the war. It was unique coming from a military audience, which typically receives administration officials more enthusiastically.
Cheney became the highest-ranking administration official to visit the country since Bush's trip on Thanksgiving Day 2003. It was his first visit to Iraq since March 1991, when he was defense secretary for President George H.W. Bush.
The tour came on the same day that President Bush was giving a prime-time Oval Office address on Iraq. Cheney's aides said the timing was a coincidence, yet the two events combined in a public-relations blitz aimed at capitalizing on the elections to rebuild support for the unpopular war.
The daylong tour of Iraq was so shrouded in secrecy that even Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and President Jalal Talabani were kept in the dark. The prime minister said he was surprised when he showed up for what he thought was a meeting with the U.S. ambassador and saw Cheney.
Talabani, his finger still stained purple as proof that he had voted three days earlier, was clearly delighted. He thanked Cheney profusely for coming and called him one of the heroes of liberating Iraq.
Cheney had an hourlong briefing on the election from Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, top U.S. commander Gen. George Casey and Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. He emerged saying he was encouraged by preliminary results showing high turnout about Sunni Muslims, who make up the backbone of the insurgency.
His next visit was to Taji Air Base, where he saw tanks that Iraqis had rebuilt and watched while they practiced a vehicle sweep at a security checkpoint.
U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns.
The Syrian border is back under Iraq control now, U.S. Lt. Gen. Marty Dempsey told the vice president, pointing to a map of Iraqi troop locations. When people say, 'When will Iraq take control of its own security?' the answer truly is it already has.
Cheney lunched on lamb kebobs, hummus and rice with raisins along with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers who helped secure polling sites. Then he headed to his third and final stop in Iraq at al-Asad.
Cheney flew over Baghdad in a pack of eight fast-moving Blackhawk helicopters, following the airport road that has been the site of so many insurgent attacks and passing the courthouse where Saddam Hussein is being tried.
The unannounced stops in Iraq came at the beginning of a five-day tour aimed at strengthening support for the war on terror. Stops include Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Cheney's staff kept the Iraq portion secret from reporters, waiting to reveal the plans when Air Force Two was preparing to refuel in the United Kingdom. Once on the ground, the entourage transferred from his conspicuous white and blue 757 to an unmarked C-17 cargo plane that would fly overnight to Baghdad International Airport.
I'm a tough cookie and don't get offended easily
Well I guess you could call it a conflict with myself. On one hand I'd like to believe what they say (that they want a better America and to do good things for Americans and that their plans would be good for the country), but Bill's whole presidency really put a bad taste in my mouth and I was so relieved to have him out of the office. Mind you I'm no fan of Bush, but I was terrified to get Gore in there to continue on with more of the same. Anyway....Gore is a whole nother issue I won't go into.
I was against Hillary's campaign from the beginning. I never have liked her. I did like her while he was campaigning and for about the first two years of him being president, then started reading and learning things about her (her position at Rose Law firm, what she did to get where she's at, her literally having to be pulled off of Bill by the secret service, the foul language she used towards people, the way she would talk to the secret service, the mysterious deaths, her trying to socialize the health care system, the way she represented the US when she would go over to another country and was presented with a gift and she would turn to Chelsea and make a comment that she thought nobody heard but was picked up on the cameras as her telling Chelsea it was a piece of s@@t and she was not going to wear it, etc, etc. She also said another time to Chelsea that she was tired of doing stuff and having to talk to people (other leaders wives) her were below her "class". This was caught on camera so it's not made up.
I was turned off by her campaign tactics from the beginning. The lies, her little crying episode when she felt it served it's purpose. The "shame on you Barack" speech she gave all the while she had been putting out lies about him and his plans. It was the kettle calling the otherside black (or whatever that saying is). The real cincher was when she said she was staying in because we have to remember that "Kennedy was assissinated in June, right?" She never once apologized for anything and she blamed it all on the other side. She doesn't and has never taken responsibility for anything she says. She will say something and blame the other side. But it doesn't surprise me because Bill is the same exact way. A lot of what she did I believe was probably at the direction of the campaign advisers (Terry McAuliffe and others), but she is a grown woman and knows better and she could have said no. She inflated herself like when talking about how she is experienced in dangerous situations because she flew into Bosnia when it was under fire and she has answered the "red phone". Those were outright lies and she knew it. Then everyone says, oh she just couldn't remember. Well I was in the Army - believe me you know when your being fired at. Also claiming what Bill accomplished in the white house as if they were her accomplishments. When caught in her lies she laughs it off and says it was a "minor" mistake.
I do think she could unite the party, but she is choosing to divide it. She says in public she wants a party that is united, but yet she's not telling her supporters that they need to back the nominee. She's telling them that if they march to the convention they have another chance that she could be put on the ticket. She should be telling them that she is not the candidate and she is proud of how far she got but she'll just have to try another time. She is the person who could calm them but she is deciding not too.
I think I do have a lot of fear with McCain. I do not see much of a difference between Hillary and McCain. They have voted the same way in the senate. So the thought of those two are quite frightening for me. I just hope Obama picks the right VP choice. I do hope Clintons supporters do not march to the convention like they say they are going to. I need to read up on history but believe the last time that happened it was horrible and the party lost. Which brings me to the next point which is I have heard that that is Hillary's plan. She wants McCain to win so that way in four years she can run again and therefore she will do everything she can to make sure Obama loses.
I read that she is co-chair of the Senate India Caucus and that she and Bill accepted over 360K (she 60K from them and B 300K) and this is a group that is responsible for taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to other countries (India for one) - this means jobs like yours and mine.
B&H are pushing for a one-world government. They have been trying to get Canada, America & Mexico to become one country with one currency (similar to the Euro), and Hillary wants to be the world leader over it all. This is nothing I heard from any right-wing conspiracy group. This is some document I read somewhere but I can't quote it at this time (would take some research).
What I don't like about B&H ... Vince Foster (suicide?) and removal of documents from his office, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinski (lies and cover ups), Travelgate, Castle Grande (sham transactions), Cattle futures, Waco, Elian Gonzales, mysterious deaths of James McDougal, Mary Mahoney, Ron Brown, Ed & Kathleen Willey, Jerry Parks, James Bunch, James Wilson, Kathy Ferguson. There at least 35 others but won't list them all. Them accepting illegal funds, destroying the white house before they left and air force one, Hillary saying that she was going to think of the cleaning lady in her office building as a human being. I did get sick of when there was a tragedy and he would be there in front of the camera he had his "sad pouty face" on, but as soon as he thought the camera was off of him he'd go into a laughing state and be quite jovial, then he'd see a camera and back was that sad face again. His lies that he belonged to all these black churches throughout his life. There are other things I can't remember right now.
When Bill was campaigning for president I heard about all the promises he made, lower the budget, cut in taxes, beter health care for Americans, this, that, and other promises. He never once held good on his promises (but in all fairness the same has happened with other politicians). During Clinton presidency jobs were lost to overseas, and about 3 weeks after he became president our military was cut back so much that America was not safe from it's enemies. Mind you at this time I still thought he was okay, but little by little that was being eroded away.
One thing about your statement that got me thinking about my opinions about his policies. I may be in the wrong about some of my feelings and its' been so long that I really need to read up about what he did in there. I just disliked him so much that I usually turned him off. I'd hear things here and there (and now I do have to admit I listened to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News a lot at that time) and I do realize that its not fair to judge them on things I heard from them.
Anyway...you have some very good issues you brought up and to tell the truth I do have to do a bit more research. I think overall is my basic disgust of the lies they have told throughout their careers. The way their "fan base" will not listen to truth and claim that Bill and Hillary are so innocent and never did anything wrong, it was all a conspiracy against them.
I never did have anything against Bill's affairs. It is not my busness whether he sleeps with other people and I don't find that as disgusting as a lot of people do. Nobody knows what was going on in their lives that brought him to that position and if I had a wife like Hillary I'd probably sleep with someone else too, but all I say is tell the truth. It was the lies and coverup that I had a problem with. I didn't care that he couldn't keep his boys behind closed doors, but be a man and admit it.
So to sum it up my biggest problem with them is they lie, they manipulate, when caught they say they never said it and when told its on film he comes out and says I'm not going to play that game instead of something like well if its on tape I must have said that and lets talk about that further at another time. I just really lost respect with them. In all fairness for them though I do have to say they are not the only politicians like that.
One more note is I liked your post. It was long but had some very good points and really is making me think twice about some things. I don't think I've answered all your questions, but you have given me a lot to think about. It hasn't changed my opinion since I first posted but is getting me to think and do some research. Tx.
you substitute the "f" in if with an "s" and make it "is". I know, it's tough,
x
Cool. Sounds like he's gonna be tough.
Hope he doesn't put more goofballs in though. When a party turns on it's own candidates, there's definitely something wrong with it.
FYI, not everybody sits on the internet all day.
x
Need new insult. Yours getting old. Look up on internet. Do better.
People watching.
You obviously have access to the internet...
What you should do is research for yourself instead of listening to the news readers. Their superiors very often have an agenda for their candidate, whoever that may be.
There's a lot of info out there, and a lot you have to sift through. But if you're truly looking for the truth, you'll figure it out if you do enough research.
I say this because we live in a unique time. We do have access to information like never before. It scares me to think that our media does not generally do what they are supposed to do and make clear distinctions so we can make clear decisions. They are supposed to be watchdogs, not report on nonsense tabloid issues.
I pray that we never have a government like they did under Stalin, and others. There was propaganda back then also, but there was no way for the people to know other than what they were told because the government controlled the media. And believe it or not, there are pols who want that kind of control today.
Sometimes the media does their job, but what we're told about a particular person/politician seems too incredible to be believed, but if we dig around, we can find out a lot and make a more informed decision regarding our country. The average person, years ago, didn't believe there were men who craved power so badly that they would destroy their own, but they did, and history bears that out. Current events in other countries also bears that out.
You know what they say, those who forget [or simply ignore] the past are destined/doomed to repeat it. I want our politicians, whether dem, rep, or indy, to learn from what has been done against this country, and I want them to put our interests first. Our interests being to do the job they are constitutionally required to do, and that is to provide defense, protect this country from those who would do us, or our allies, harm.
Yes, we need to come to the aid of those in this country who cannot provide for themselves, but it has gotten out of hand and mired down in wasteful bureaucracy and is not getting to those who actually need it.
My pet peeve, I don't want to hear how the world is against us. We've been there for everyone, and when we are for them, they certainly accept it, and then turn against us like a relative that only comes around when they want something. When we don't do for them, we're lambasted, but we cannot be everything to the world. We can only do so much. But we are blessed and we bless others, and rightly so.
But it seems to me that some want us to be puppets and/or sitting ducks. If I hear a politician say anything that remotely looks like they want us to be liked by the world, I look for someone else, because that should not be on the agenda. If they believe otherwise, I look until I know in whom to place my trust and my hard-earned vote. I really don't put much stake in whether or not we're liked. It's proof enough to me that they all want to come here, and most are willing to stand in line for that honor.
Note: I do believe we need good relations with other countries, but we need to do what's in the best interests for our own first. That should always be our top priority.
Internet poll...
Firstly of all, it is the result of an Internet poll.
Secondly TAKE IT EASY.
Cut out the RAGE.
sorry - internet is forever - if it was there, it is still there somewhere -
nm
Joe Biden-Hunter Biden..so much for change
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/08/hunter-biden-joe-biden-anthony-lotito.php
I Invented the Internet (Ep. 1 - Audacity) see msg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE
This is all internet talk. On one has said this in public where...sm
he would need to address it. It is all just speculative talk by people trying to scare you into voting for McCain. None of it is true. Beware of the sources you get your information from. In other words, believe none of what you read and only half of what you see. When you are sure your sources are credible, then make your decision.
you do know internet petitions are worthless, right? nm
x
There's some interesting reading on the internet
regarding the 14th Amendment and anchor babies (as one website refers to them as "jackpot babies.") I agree jackpot is more appropriate then anchor. The numbers of them being born is staggering. One thing I didn't realize that the 14th amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves.
We did...turn off the TV, that is. Still splattered over the Internet, tho...
Took this site off my favorites, too, because you libbies are just too much lately.
Came back to see if there's anything nice going on, and just the same old rapture from you.
Unbelievable.
I read his transcript on the Internet
It was good (not surprised). Rush has a way of hitting the nail on the head.
Yes, but it was not going to be discussed and your pictures posted on the internet...
for the entire country to see and discuss. Her privacy, which she is entitled to as a 16-year-old, has been invaded in a very nasty way. Sorry, that is the way I feel about it. I think it was terribly wrong for dailykrap to post it and terribly wrong for someone to spread it even further here. But that is just me.
CNN, Fx, MSNBC 1, 2 days behind internet news.
nm
Can't be too bad...you can afford a good Internet connection. sm
I have my doubts as to whether all your meals are hot dogs and mac and cheese, but I could be wrong....
....and there is work out there. You don't have to just sit there and let it dry up. And don't blame the 8 yrs of republicans. The last two years of democratic ruled Congress has been worse than the previous six before that.
You think you have it bad now.
Just wait till dems are in control of everything.
You'll have less than nothing, and have to give it away to others less unfortunate than yourself. However are you going to be able to afford that?
Saw this as an open letter on internet, and boy did she hit the nail...
on the head! And I agree with her, 110%!
I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.
Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. But* out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idio* you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.
Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're moro*s.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole da** congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
Icons work in Internet Explorer not Firefox
:)
Please describe the actual physical threat that you allege was made on this internet chat board.
Thank you.
I know it is not the same interview.
What I was saying is that he outlines in this interview what he feels is the big problem with the White House.
Did you see the interview......
with those three men who were recently released after being hostages in Columbia? I was about in tears when that one guy was talking about being locked in boxes at night and how he would think about his daughter. When he talked about them having no indication of being released and then him and two guys looked out and saw a rainbow......he knew they would get out and go home but he just didn't know when. That rainbow was a sign to him that God was going to get them through. To be able to have such faith in a time like that. Makes my problems seem so small compared to what they went through. I can't even imagine. The one man said that he finally got to meet his 5 y/o twin boys for the first time as they had not been born when he was taken hostage.
No, I did not see that particular interview...
but have read a lot and it is indeed inspiring. And personally I believe trials are when faith is the strongest, you dig deep and find strength you never thought you had. And you are the most open to God communicating to you...like the rainbow communicating to the man and the Holy Spirit confirming that they would be rescued. And yes, when you hear of something like this, certainly does put one's own problems in perspective, doesn't it?
Then why not do an interview for someone who...
doesn't get a tingle up their leg when you speak? Who is going to ask you the hard questions? He avoided that for over a year. If he is so confident, so ready to lead, why let little old Fox News scare him? Your argument rings very hollow...and it is the koolaid you should be reaching for, not chocolate...lol.
I saw that interview
What I didn't see was the reporter questioning McCain/Palin. Did that happen? What kind of questions did she ask THEM? With her attitude, I certainly do not blame Obama/Biden. She admitted on Larry King, I think it was, that she is a Republican. Another conclusion I've come to. Rabid Republicans have poor eyesight!
yup, that was an interview by someone from
man I can't think of his name right now. He has a side kick lady, but you were listening to the same one. The guy with long hair and sunglasses....Stern. That's him. While it was amusing, it was also an eye opener. Even Stern who is very liberal was shocked at the stupidity.
Yesterday's interview on
Matt Cooper pretty much spelled it out. You might not like it, though, because it still holds your boys accountable for their actions. So by all means, read at your own risk.
MSNBC.com
Transcript for July 17
Matt Cooper, John Podesta, Ken Mehlman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein
NBC News
Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET July 17, 2005
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
GUESTS: Matt Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine; John Podesta, President and CEO, "Center for American Progress" and Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; Bob Woodward, Washington Post and author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat" and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post Watergate Reporter
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the investigation into the leak which identified Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This Time magazine reporter says his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, allowing him to avoid jail by testifying on Wednesday. What did he say to the grand jury? He'll discuss it for the first here this morning. Our guest: Matt Cooper.
Then Newsweek magazine quotes Karl Rove as saying it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, who authorized the trip." What now for President Bush's deputy chief of staff? With us, Rove's former deputy, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.
And 33 years ago, another famous source, Deep Throat, provided information which brought about the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. His identity has now been revealed and his story now chronicled in a new book: "The Secret Man." With us, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
But, first, joining us now is Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Welcome.
MR. MATT COOPER: Morning, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.
"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?
MR. COOPER: That's correct.
MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.
MR. RUSSERT: When you were told that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, did you have any sense then that this is important or "I better be careful about identifying someone who works for the CIA"?
MR. COOPER: Well, I certainly thought it was important. I wrote it in the e-mail to my bosses moments later that has since leaked out after this long court battle I've been in. You know, I certainly thought it was important. But I didn't know her name at the time until, you know, after Bob Novak's column came out.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any reluctance writing something so important?
MR. COOPER: Well, I wrote it after Bob Novak's column had come out and identified her, so I was not in, you know, danger of outing her the way he did.
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."
"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?
MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?
MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: The big discussion, Matt Cooper, has been about your willingness to testify...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...before the grand jury. And let's go through that. This was Wednesday, July 6, Matt Cooper talking to the assembled press corps.
(Videotape, July 6, 2005):
MR. COOPER: This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that source agreed to give me a specific, personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Karl Rove's attorney has spoken to The Washington Post. "[Karl Rove's attorney, Robert] Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove ...and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that [Matt] Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics `does not look so good' and that `it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source.'"
MR. COOPER: Well, can I back up a little bit, Tim? For two years, you know, I have protected the identity of my sources. As you know, I was in a rather infamous court battle that went through all the courts in Washington, right up to the Supreme Court, and we lost there with a special prosecutor trying to get me to disclose my source. My principle the whole time was that no court and no corporation can release me from a pledge of confidentiality with my source. And so even after Time magazine, over my objections, handed over my notes and e-mails, which included, really, everything I had and identified all my sources, I still believed that I needed some kind of personal release from the source himself.
And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove." And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?" And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003." So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury. And once I testified before the grand jury, then I felt I should share that with the readers of Time.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Luskin, Rove's attorney, is suggesting that you had the same waiver throughout the last two years, and only when you were confronted with going to jail did you, in effect, decide to compromise your source or not protect your source.
MR. COOPER: Well, I protected my source all along. I don't maintain that I haven't. I have all the way along, and that's why we went to the Supreme Court. That's why I stood by the source even after Time had disclosed my documents. We went to Rove only after seeing his lawyer, in some sense, invite us to, in that quote in The Wall Street Journal. My lawyers and the editors at the time did not feel it was appropriate for me to go and approach Rove about some kind of waiver before then.
MR. RUSSERT: In your piece, as I mentioned, you said "some government officials," and you said it may be more than just Rove and Libby. Did you get waivers from those additional sources when you testified before the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into anything else, but I don't--anything I discuss before the grand jury, I have a waiver for.
MR. RUSSERT: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...of Time magazine, authorized the release of your e-mails and notes to the prosecutor. Pearlstine said this: "I found myself really coming to the conclusion that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." Do you agree?
MR. COOPER: In part. I mean, I think Norman Pearlstine made a very tough decision. I spent a lot of time with him and I admired the way he made it. I disagreed. I thought we should have at least, you know, gone forward, gone into civil contempt. I would have been willing to go to jail. I think we should have, you know, held on a little longer, but that's a reasonable, you know, disagreement between people.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, he came to Washington, Pearlstine, and some other editors from New Work and met with the Washington bureau of Time magazine.
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: At least two correspondents produced e-mails saying, "Our sources are now telling us they will no longer confide in Time magazine. They will no longer trust us to protect our sources." Is that going to be a long-term problem for your magazine?
MR. COOPER: Well, I think, you know, Time will have to, you know, reassure confidential sources that we're going to continue to rely on them and continue to protect them. You know, this--Tim, I think the important thing is here that one aberration in this case was it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was then--you know, Time did decide in this case to turn over the notes. Now, Pearlstine has said that in other cases he might not. I think the important thing to remember here is that, you know, the reporters of Time will keep their word. I kept my word for two years. I didn't feel like any court or corporation could release me from that confidence, and I kept my word and so only spoke with the grand jury after I received that written personal waiver from my source.
MR. RUSSERT: You are going to testify this week before Congress for a shield law. Explain that.
MR. COOPER: Sure . Well, Tim, you know, this is the 12th day, I believe, of my colleague Judith Miller from The New York Times being in jail in this investigation because she did not get a waiver that she feels comfortable with and she's protecting her sources. There's incredible aberration, Tim. Forty- nine states have some kind of protection for journalists and their confidential sources, but there is no protection at the federal level. And so in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation in Congress to create some kind of protection for whistle-blowers and confidential sources and other people who want to come forward to the press so there'd be some kind of federal law, too.
MR. RUSSERT: What's your biggest regret in this whole matter?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure I have that many. I mean, I believe the story I wrote was entirely accurate and fair, and I stand by it. And I think it was important because it was about an important thing that was going on. It was called A War on Wilson, and I believe there was something like a war on Wilson going on. I guess I'd be a little more discreet about my e-mails, I think. I'm an object lesson in that, you know, e-mails have a way of getting out.
MR. RUSSERT: Will this affect your career as a journalist?
MR. COOPER: I don't think it should, Tim. I kept my word to my source. I only spoke after I got a waiver from that source. That's what other journalists have done in this case. I don't think it should.
MR. RUSSERT: How did you find the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I was surprised, Tim. You know, I'd heard this old line that grand jurors are very passive, that they'll indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them. I thought this grand jury was very interested in the case. They--a lot of the questions I answered were posed by them as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you think it's heading?
MR. COOPER: You know, I really don't know, Tim. I've been, you know, involved in this case as anyone, I guess, for a couple of years now, and at times I think it's a very big case, at times I think it's, you know, politics as usual and not going to be that big a case at all. I just don't know.
MR. RUSSERT: And we'll find out. Matt Cooper, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.
MR. COOPER: Thank you, Tim.
Saw this interview, and I would surmise the man
knows what he is talking about...apparently things are NOT hunky-dory with the freedom-thing in Iraq, and so much as says let's get out now! and I agree!
I saw this interview on Countdown.
Twice. (I taped it.) Jonathan Turley is a very well respected expert in Constitutional law, and I was actually very pleasantly surprised at the courage he showed by saying what he said. I just hope he isn't the next victim to be crushed by the Bush career-demolition machine.
POWERFUL INTERVIEW....sm
Double wowzers!!!
I am impressed and concur with Pat and the interviewers view points.
Thanks for sharing.
In the interview I saw, no one made the...
Republican party look ignorant. So I would say...are you deaf?
Can watch the interview at
cnn.com/2008/politics/09/05/palintrooper./index.htm. Better to see it for yourself.
someone wanted to see SP interview?
well sunday night on fox, greta vansusteren will interview her. greta is a v. good interviewer too, (with good questions, listens to the answers, etc, if you are not familiar with her).
watched the SP interview
I felt very uncomfortable for her. She was clearly out of her depth and Charlie really give her general questions, not detailed-oriented questions he could have asked. The blank look she had at "Bush Doctrine" was the worst; the way she tried to get a hint from Charlie about what he was talking about was squirm-inducing. A commentator noted she agreed with Obama's policy on Afghanistan rather than McCain's. I am hoping that voters will view her sympathetically as an uniformed foreign policy neophyte who simply cannot cram the vast knowledge required to deal with potentially explosive affairs in a few weeks time. I am hoping voters are willing to give her a few more years to grow into a national position. I am hoping voters will not put our children at risk by electing someone they "like" to be understudy to a man who is clearly being worn down physically by this campaign. We need well-informed, knowledgable leaders. If voters want to reward people for service and likeability, they can do so with the numerous reality shows where viewers vote for candidates.
Obama Interview.........sm
Hey sam, are up for a complete dissection on every single answer or non-answer that Obama gave on the O'Reilly interview?
Personally, what I came away with is this:
1. Obama is very charming, likable, charismatic. He looks good and acts presidential, most of the time.
2. Even though the interview was scripted, and Obama knew what the questions were going to be, I think he answered things pretty well. He did sound thoughtful, and knowledgeable.
3. I thought he was going to be given a free ride, but O'Reilly really was kind of tough on him a few times.
4. But really, the single most interesting thing I came away with was......I had no idea what he said a couple of times. He danced around a couple of questions, talking both sides, I really didn't know what his answer was. I guess he was trying to please everyone, but I have no idea what he was really thought or said. It was weird.
Anyway, I see why they all follow blindly. He looks good and sounds good, and says exactly what they want to hear. But I just still don't see anything of real substance there behind the man.
|
