Category: FNS Panel
Today on O’Reilly, Brit Hume appeared to defend his weekend comments about Tiger Woods, suggesting he might want to convert from Buddhism to Christianity, if he’s truly seeking forgiveness for his infidelity and lying about his marriage. Brit’s intentions were not as malevolent as some would lead you to believe, and many attacked him today because of this.
Brit took his time to explain what he was saying, and I find no fault in what he was discussing. Good on ya, Brit.
Today on Fox News Sunday, panelists were Bill Kristol, Juan Williams, Laura Ingraham and Jennifer Loven of the AP. The question came about regarding the Christmas-day attempt at blowing up the Northwest Airlines flight as it descended to the Detroit, Michigan airport.
As the discussion proceeded, Jennifer Loven said she had spoken with the White House and that they were really concerned about the politics of it all, and getting ahead of the PR curve. Ingraham rightly mentions shortly thereafter that that is the problem; the current administration is more concerned about brand “Obama” than they are the safety and security of this country. Loven later says she doesn’t think that’s the main concern, but it’s certainly one of the primary concerns.
Then Juan dips his naieve toe in the water, stating that “we all know” this was a lone-wolf attack and not tied to Al Qaeda, to which Ingraham and Kristol both repeatedly and rightly state “we don’t know that!” and we don’t – we DON’T know that.
There’ll be more about this act of terror in the days to come. Too bad our government idiots appear to have allowed Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab the ability to “lawyer up” by reading his Miranda warning. But isn’t he a Nigerian citizen? If so, why is afforded Miranda warnings?
Never mind…and forget I said “terrorist attack;” it was obviously an attempt at an act of “man-caused disaster” in the “overseas contingency operation.”
What a bunch of wimps we are these days.
Wow! I thought I was watching WWE’s Raw today when I tuned in to Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. The panel’s second and last discussion was about the NYT’s article on McCain’s dealings with a certain lobbyist.
Here’s a partial transcript:
WILLIAMS: Well, I mean, I just — let me just stand up for the journalist here. I think you have serious journalists who did a serious story, and you have John Weaver, who was a top McCain aide, on the record as saying that he met with her at Union Station to say, “You know what? This is embarrassing for the senator,” saying that…
HUME: What’s embarrassing?
WILLIAMS: That her presence, her constant, regular…
WALLACE: That isn’t what he said.
HUME: That’s not what he said.
WILLIAMS: OK. What did he say?
WALLACE: Now, wait. What he said was he heard that she was shooting off her mouth around town saying that she had a lot of clout with McCain’s office and that — and she should knock it off.
He says he wasn’t saying to her, “You’re spending too much time with Senator McCain. It’s raising questions about a romantic relationship.”
WILLIAMS: And then the suggestion was that people cautioned Senator McCain about spending too much time with her and the appearance that it might create.
HUME: Nobody on the record has said…
WILLIAMS: OK.
HUME: Yes, but nobody on the record has said they did that.
WILLIAMS: You’re not going to get people on the record to say — but listen.
KRISTOL: Why not?
HUME: Why not?
WILLIAMS: The second part of it is…
HUME: Why not?
KRISTOL: Why not?
WILLIAMS: Because it’s sexual and people are — unless they saw them in the bedroom, you’re not going to make the claim.
KRISTOL: No, no, no, but…
WILLIAMS: And you must remember — hang on. Hang on a second. You’ve got to remember…
KRISTOL: If someone is going to caution Senator McCain, why is it unreasonable to say, eight years later, “If you think this is so important, if you had this conversation with Senator McCain, say it publicly?”
WILLIAMS: No, they don’t want to say it publicly. And you’ve got to remember the context here. There was an implosion in McCain’s campaign not long ago, and a lot of these people are, you know, soured on McCain, and they have a little bit of a grudge against McCain, because now he’s doing so well.
And those are the people who always talk to reporters. Guess what? That’s where reporters go to get sources, people with grudges.
The second thing to say is McCain has postured himself as a great reformer, and you’ve got to go back to the Keating Five, which is what the Times piece did, and say, “Wait a second. Don’t forget that this great reformer is now surrounded by lobbyists, including his own campaign manager, Rick Davis.”
WALLACE: Well, that brings me to a question.
Four of the five of us agree it was a lousy story, but is McCain vulnerable at all, Brit, to the larger story or the — not what the Times reported — that he does have a relationship with lobbyists, that this guy that portrays himself as Mr. Reformer, Mr. Clean, has flown around on corporate jets, has had relations with and done business with lobbyists, whether it’s proper or improper?
Isn’t that something that, for instance, Barack Obama could say, “Hey, you’re part of the problem in Washington?”
HUME: That is true. And that could be a vulnerability for the senator. What would be interesting to know is if you took a long look at Senator McCain’s record in dealing with lobbyists as chairman of the Commerce Committee, which he was for a long time, and in other ways, and could establish a pattern that he was easily lobbied — my sense is you wouldn’t be able to establish that pattern, that the truth about McCain — and many of his colleagues will say this — that he’s notoriously difficult to lobby, prickly, distant.
Now, look. You can’t be the chairman of a committee like the Commerce Committee and not have dealings with lobbyists. You simply do. But my guess is that those who flew Senator McCain somewhere in a corporate plane, or had him for dinner or whatever probably didn’t get much for their money.
WILLIAMS: You know, my sense is that Senator McCain is an honorable guy, from what I know. But let me just tell you. This is a vulnerability for the Republican Party going forward. Jack Abramoff — even this week you had a Republican congressman indicted.
KRISTOL: Who held the hearings…
WILLIAMS: And finally, let me just say this.
KRISTOL: Oh, come on. Who chaired the hearings on Jack Abramoff?
WILLIAMS: What he said — hang on. Hang on a second.
KRISTOL: Who chaired the hearings on Jack Abramoff? Just answer the question. Who chaired the hearings?WILLIAMS: He has now postured himself as the great reformer, a man with clean hands. If he doesn’t have clean hands, he’ll be a hypocrite.
You can watch the smackdown here.
On Fox News Sunday today, the second half of the Panel was a discussion started off by a video clip of Grandma Pelosi saying that Bush is only sending troops into harms way right now because he knows the dems won’t cut off the funding for them once they’re there (wanna bet? let’s wait and see on that one, Ms. Nancy).
Here’s a partial transcript:
KRISTOL: They’re (the Democrats) leapfrogging each other in the degrees of irresponsibility they’re willing to advocate, and I really think people are being too sort of complacent and forgiving almost of the Democrats. Oh, it’s politics, of course. One of them has a non-binding resolution and the other one has a cap. It’s all totally irresponsible. It’s just unbelievable.
The president’s sending over a new commander. He’s sending over troops. And the Democratic Congress, either in a pseudo-binding way or non-binding way, is saying it won’t work, forget it, you troops, you’re going over there on a pointless mission.
Iraqis who might side with us — forget it, we’re going to pull the plug. It’s so irresponsible that they can’t just be quiet for six months or nine months and say the president’s made a decision, we’re not going to change that decision, we’re not going to cut off funds and insist on the troops coming back, so let’s give it a chance to work.
You really wonder, do they want it to work or not? I really wonder that. I hate to say this about the Democrats. They’re people I know personally and I respect some of them. Do they want this to succeed or not?
WILLIAMS: I think everybody wants it to succeed who believes in the idea that we are over there and our people are at stake — I don’t think there’s any question.
I think that’s sort of a rhetorical tool on your part. But your analysis seems to me to be totally ahistorical. It’s as if mistakes haven’t been made repeatedly, as if people don’t feel as if they’ve been misled down this path, that there has been tremendous support for this president and for this war effort, and it come to naught. It’s come to a bad place.
Yesterday was the deadliest day, I think, in two years — 19 Americans killed, Bill.
HUME: Juan…
WILLIAMS: There’s something going on here you might pay attention to as opposed to just the pure politics of if you don’t support this president, you don’t really want us to win.
KRISTOL: What are the Democrats doing that would change the 19 Americans who were killed yesterday? Nothing. Zero, except no reinforcements, you guys are on your own. That’s what they’re saying.
Are you kidding me, Juan?WILLIAMS: Well, if you believe — you think reinforcements are going to make some radical change — no.
KRISTOL: Yes, I think they…
WILLIAMS: I think what Americans are saying…
KRISTOL: … I think they would help.
WILLIAMS: I think what people are saying is it’s time to re- deploy, look at new strategies, look at political compromise.
No, I’m not, BillHUME: Juan…
WILLIAMS: That’s what’s not being done by this administration.
HUME: Juan, serious people recognize one thing, and we are short of serious people nowadays, which is that wars get into bad places and even winning conflicts do.
Juan…have you not learned anything yet?And you talk about an ahistorical view. It strikes me that the view that you’re espousing is very much that. You look at any major war that’s been fought over a period of time, and the winning side has had terrible moments and stretches of time when it appears victory might not be possible.
And the question then becomes what do you do at times like that. The president at least has changed his approach, is bringing in more troops, and the plan at least on paper has some apparent potential to work.
What you have from the Democrats is the idea, as Nancy Pelosi put it, this isn’t a war to be won — now, you claim they want success. This isn’t a war to be won, she says.
WILLIAMS: I think they do.
HUME: She says it is a conflict to be resolved, and their answer is retreat. You call it redeployment. It’s a euphemism, Juan. It’s retreat.
WILLIAMS: You’ve run out the clock, but we’ll come back to it next week, I’m sure.
You can read the entire show’s transcript here.
I don’t have access to the transcript yet, and don’t have time to transcribe the whole thing myself, but as soon as I have it, it will be posted here.
Watch Juan get schooled yet again here (must be a glutton for punishment, as he seems to be asking “please sir may I have another next weekend”). HAHA
Welcome
