As NewsBusters reported, the Senate voted Thursday to condemn MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad, even though most Democrat presidential candidates including Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) opposed the resolution.
With this in mind, it seemed logical that when Clinton was Tim Russert's guest on Sunday's "Meet the Press," and MoveOn's ad came up, the host would have asked the junior senator from New York about this vote, and why she opposed the amendment.
Amazingly, Russert never did.
In fact, as the following partial transcript of this part of the interview demonstrates, Russert not only let Clinton off the hook on this issue, but appeared to assist her in clarifying her point (video available here):
TIM RUSSERT, HOST: Let me show you an ad that has caused a lot of controversy in this debate about Iraq. MoveOn.org took this ad out, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?: Cooking the Books for the White House." Do you believe that General David Petraeus has betrayed the American people?
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): Absolutely not. He is a man of great honor and distinction who has served admirably. I don't condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don't believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that. I didn't think it should've been said about Senator Cleland or Senator Kerry. I think it's important that we end this kind of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country.
But let's be clear about this: This is not a debate about an ad.
[...]MR. RUSSERT: Is it fair to--(clears throat) excuse me-is it fair to say, then, that this ad was an unhelpful distraction to the real debate about the war, and you wish that MoveOn.org had not taken it?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, when I voted for Senator Boxer's resolution, that was certainly clear. I do not condone, and I do condemn any effort to impugn the patriotism and the service of anyone who's worn the uniform of our country. I think it should be across the board because, as you certainly know well, many people who have served with distinction, like Senator Kerry or Senator Cleland, have been the subject of extraordinary attacks. Let's end this, and let's focus on what we do to support our troops. I believe the best way to support our troops is to begin to bring them home.
With Clinton having mentioned the Boxer resolution, wouldn't this have been a perfect time to question Hillary about Sen. Cornyn's (R-TX) amendment that ended up passing 72 - 25? Apparently not:
MR. RUSSERT: And MoveOn.org should refrain from similar ads in the future?
SEN. CLINTON: Everyone should, Tim. Everyone should.
MR. RUSSERT: Yeah.
Yes, everyone should, Tim. So, why didn't you bring up the actual amendment that 72 senators, including many Democrats, voted for on Thursday? And, more importantly, why didn't you ask Sen. Clinton why she voted against it?
Would that have been too much like journalism for your taste?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So, why didn't you bring
September 23, 2007 - 13:05 ET by motherbeltSo, why didn't you bring up the actual amendment that 72 senators,
including many Democrats, voted for on Thursday? And, more importantly,
why didn't you ask Sen. Clinton why she voted against it? Would that have been too much like journalism for your taste?
This just makes me want to scream!!! And there are still people who think that Tim Russert is fair and unbiased!!!
AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!
just earning the "Mr
September 23, 2007 - 13:11 ET byjust earning the "Mr Potato-head" name
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I was trying to edit my
September 23, 2007 - 13:21 ET by motherbeltI was trying to edit my post, but was not allowed, apparently because you were replying to it.
What was in the Boxer amendment? I'll bet she thought if she brought that up, saying she voted for it, people would think she voted for the actual amendment that condemned the ad. (which she didn't)
This witch is so conniving and deceitful and sly that it just infuriates me!
And when she said "Well, when I voted for Senator Boxer's resolution, that was certainly clear.
I do not condone, and I do condemn any effort to impugn the patriotism
and the service of anyone who's worn the uniform of our country"
there was a perfect opportunity for Russert to ask her why she didn't vote for the Cornyn resolution. But he didn't. He acted as her "willing accomplice[s] in the media" (Rush Limbaugh).
exactly aiding and
September 23, 2007 - 13:27 ET byexactly aiding and abetting
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
FNS had the comment
September 23, 2007 - 21:06 ET by pbthinkerThe Boxer amendment wanted to include all political ads, including those against Max Cleland and John Kerry. I believe it was Brit Hume that brought up the fact that this was completely different. This was an ad against a commanding General, while the others were against politicians, so there should be no equating the 2, to which the retort was the Democrats believe everything is politics.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Email Russert
September 23, 2007 - 13:16 ET by Parker1227MTP@NBCUNI.com
Something like:
Tim,
Why didn't you ask Hillary about her voting against the amendment (which passed by 75%) condemning the moveon.org General "Betray us" propaganda?
Could it be you are a democrat first and a reporter second?
Regards,
Parker
Why Bother?
September 23, 2007 - 13:28 ET by BourbeauTim Russert is one of the most overrated talking heads in Washington, DC. People applaud his tenacity when interviewing guests, except it's selective tenacity, as shown with Hillary Clinton. He showed his stuff when his "good friend" Imus was dragged into the hole, and he and his cohorts Gregory and Mitchell, couldn't get far enough away from him.
Sunday's Hillary
September 24, 2007 - 06:35 ET by kiwikitI'd say that Chris Wallace on FNS was just as easy as Timmy letting Hillary skate and answer no questions. But he did get that, what is it, a laugh, cackle or what? Having to listen to that and her high, squeaky voice is enough for me to vote for ANY man rather than her. . . and I'm female.
"MR. RUSSERT: Is it fair
September 23, 2007 - 13:26 ET by stratman"MR. RUSSERT: Is it fair to--(clears throat) excuse me-is it fair to say, then, that this ad was an unhelpful distraction to the real debate about the war, and you wish that MoveOn.org had not taken it?"
What kind of spoonfed Liberal mollifying crap was this? I actually screamed at the TV when he said this disgusting apologist propaganda. Is vetriloquist Russert so worried that Clinton cannot spin well enough on her own that he has to put the words into the dummy's mouth?
Besides what has already been mentioned above, why no question from Russert about Clinton's "suspension of disbelief" comment, especially as it is diametrically opposed to what she dribbled out on his show today?
Could there have been a bigger lovefest masquerading as an interview on a supposedly "hard-hitting and unbiased" political discussion show? Not if the interviewer keeps giving embellished detour and exit ramp cover for his party favorites.
Pathetic and nauseating.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Was their any talk of Hsu
September 23, 2007 - 15:13 ET by general companyWas their any talk of Hsu and the other campain finacing problems she has had? I couldnt watch, although I was thinking of giving the Wallace interview a try later today?
Hi gc.... There was
September 23, 2007 - 15:22 ET by bigtimerHi gc....
There was questions about Hsu....I do think Russert did a half arse good job with that.
She answered typically.
Yes But Not Worthwhile
September 23, 2007 - 16:25 ET by stratmanFrom MSNBC's website:
Synopsis:
I'm going to deflect and evade these questions as much as possible, Tim. I knew you were going to ask me this, because you had to clear all questions ahead of time with me, but shame on you nonetheless. You have redeemed yourself somewhat by not asking any real followup questions based on my non-answers. Still, you owe me big time.
The real answer will be when I am president and either deconstruct or amend the Constitution to suit my and my party's needs. The rest can pound salt. The obvious solution is to tax the public, expressly evil rich white people, mostly because it will drive the enemy, opps, I mean Republicans, crazy. Benign, wealth, multicultural and progresive donors, typically fellow Democrats, can continue to subvert the system as long as it serves my needs and the Party too, of course.
Because illegal campaign contributions were missed by other Democrat candidates makes anything connected to my campaign inviolate. Any resemblence to what happened in the past with what is happening today is inconsequential because you and your MSM flunkies will do my bidding ridiculing the oppposition and burying the story as necessary. Also, never, EVER discuss how all that dirty money given back to the Hsu "donors" can now be legally and cleanly given back to me by those "donors" as part of the natural extension of the Hsugate Money Laundering (AKA Money For Nothing And The Presidency's For Free) Scheme hubby and I cooked up. Of course, you will say nothing of this. Got it? Good.
Now, dance for me my little monkeys. Dance! Ahahahahaha!
(/parody off)
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Exactly, what I was thinking
September 23, 2007 - 21:03 ET by general companyAlso, never, EVER discuss how all that dirty money given back to the Hsu "donors" can now be legally and cleanly given back to me by those "donors"
Unbelievable, give it back to the same folks that did not donate it, or give it back to Hsu and his cronies? Where the h3ll are the feds? Where are the investigations?
Amazing isn't it? Hsu may
September 24, 2007 - 00:06 ET by stratmanAmazing isn't it? Hsu may be guilty but the money is pristine.
This stinks to low hell of corruption and vote buying. Noone is even wondering where all the money originated from, and it isn't from three-card-monty Hsu or all those who got "their" money returned. Can anyone say "Foreign Investors"?
Why does this seem to happen with alarming frequency when a Clinton is involved?
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
"MR. RUSSERT: Is it fair
September 23, 2007 - 15:34 ET by motherbelt"MR. RUSSERT: Is it fair to--(clears throat) excuse me-is
it fair to say, then, that this ad was an unhelpful distraction to the
real debate about the war, and you wish that MoveOn.org had not taken it?"
You only screamed at the TV??? Consider yourself a master of self-control. I would have thrown somthing!!
Holy Cow! Talk about "leading the witness"!!!!
What the hell did he expect her to say:
Actually, I think it was a helpful (to us) stick-in-the-eye of President Bush and his sock-puppet General, and I'm glad they ran it, and the timing was perfect (Thumbs up to the NYT!!)???
Jackass Leading The Horse's Patoot
September 23, 2007 - 16:32 ET by stratmanThe only things that saved the TV from the junk heap was that this was not the first time the DNC's MSM operatives have carried water for the Party, and, that I am "frugal".
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Well, what else are we to
September 23, 2007 - 13:37 ET by fitzfongWell, what else are we to expect from Tim Russert? Like Hillary's husband, he's a perjurer. They're simpatico. He's going to run cover for her from beginning to end.
fitz, are you referring
September 23, 2007 - 16:47 ET by Jerfitz, are you referring to the same Tim Russert who your buddy, Rush, has praised for his objectivity? [And who conducted an interview of Bill O'Reilly which was so embarrassingly fawning, I was surprised he didn't ask him for a date at its conclusion.]
Jer
BTW, thanks for listening to the Limbaugh audio and your comments...I'll respond soon.
Jer, I know Hannity has
September 23, 2007 - 22:09 ET by fitzfongJer, I know Hannity has occasionally praised Tim Russert, but I've never heard Rush praise Russert (whether for objectivity or otherwise). As for O'Reilly, he's such a self-important blowhard that I'd almost consider turning liberal just to be on the opposite side of him.
Looking forward to your comments on the other thread.
-fitz
fitz, I have personally
September 23, 2007 - 23:50 ET by Jerfitz, I have personally heard Rush praise Russert's objectivity. Maybe he's changed his opinion in recent times. The broadcast I recall was probably 4 or 5 years ago.
But the link below should provide a snapshot of the "Rush and Tim" mutual admiration society:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406140006
[I wonder if an alarm sounds at NewsBusters headquarters if a MediaMatters link is posted]
Jer
Jer, Against my better
September 24, 2007 - 13:22 ET by fitzfongJer,
Against my better judgment, I went on the Media Matters site to take a look at your link ;-) I didn't hear the interview from where this excerpt was plucked, but I don't imagine this interview got into any substantive political matters. It seems to me that this exchange was similar to the one Limbaugh had with Clinton at that steakhouse in New York a few weeks ago...very polite, very cordial, yet rooted in small talk. Hannity had Russert on a couple of years ago so that Russert could promote his book on the relationship between himself and his father. Limbaugh once had Chris Matthews sit in for him when he was on vacation. Light exchanges on "how ya' doin'" subjects do not suggest light or even fair treatment once the bell has rung. How often have you heard those "he's a great Senator/Governor/President, and even though we differ on approach, we both want what's best for America...let's work together" statements? How long does the "join together" attitude last before politicians revert to partisan form? This exchange doesn't suggest anything but polite small talk between two media figures.
Perhaps so, fitz...but now
September 24, 2007 - 22:35 ET by JerPerhaps so, fitz...but now that I've given you time to shower following your visit to MM, let me remind you that my point concerned Russert's "objectivity", and it is that which I heard Limbaugh specifically affirm.
Jer
Well, Jer, I don't know
September 25, 2007 - 00:27 ET by fitzfongWell, Jer, I don't know where you heard Limbaugh laud Russert's objectivity. But it sure didn't appear in that Media Matters excerpt.
I know it didn't, fitz.
September 25, 2007 - 00:38 ET by JerI know it didn't, fitz. Limbaugh wasn't interviewing Russert when he made the comment. The link was simply to illustrate the warm feelings they seemed to have for each other...thus lending credibility to the claim.
Jer
Fair enough. I can't say
September 25, 2007 - 01:21 ET by fitzfongFair enough. I can't say that I've ever heard Limbaugh praise Russert's objectivity. Although Rush has never called him Mr. Potato Head like Mark "the Great One" Levin has been known to do, he has occasionally pointed out Russert's often covert bias. He did work for Moynihan, after all. I've always thought Russert's gotten away with the iron fist in a velvet glove technique...because he appears so polite and reasonable, he gets away with subtle injections of partisan commentary disguised as straight reporting. And Russert certainly hasn't gone up in my estimation since his dubious participation in the Scooter Libby trial.
Well aware he worked for
September 25, 2007 - 01:39 ET by JerWell aware he worked for Moynihan, and that he most likely votes for Democrats. But if you go on the progressive/liberal sites, you'll note that Russert is attacked as vehemently there as here.
He does seem to have that goofy smile, slightly wry, but not altogether unpleasant, permanently glued to his face.
BTW, it's bad enough that I am forced to see Mark Levin mentioned in a post. But is it really necessary to insert "the Great One" within his name. There's only so much I can take.
Jer
Scooter Libby
September 23, 2007 - 20:09 ET by americandudePerjurer = Scooter Libby
No,
September 23, 2007 - 22:05 ET by fitzfongNo, americandouche...perjurer = Tim Russert. Not to mention Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger...
Russerts agenda is to aid
September 23, 2007 - 13:51 ET by bigtimerRusserts agenda is to aid and abet the leftist witch.
Simple as that.
I saw this.
I also saw Wallace which was good too....I loved his first question about her and her husbands conspiracy theories...it was a Rich question too...especially since he said it was the anniversary of when her husband was on.
That screeching wicked phony laugh of the Shrillsters is enough to make anyone with a brain cell vote for anybody but her.
Pure evil.
Btw...If anyone thinks Hillary was going to be honest and answer anything that way...I have beach front property here in Mt. for sale.
The woman and her partner in crime do not know what the word means...let alone spell it.
Btw...her trying to rationalize Max Clelland and Kerry with Petraeus adn move.on is and was outrageous, she did it on all the shows, she had this answer down pat before she got on all the shows and assaulted all of us with a brain that works.
she had this answer down
September 23, 2007 - 16:05 ET by motherbeltshe had
this answer down pat before she got on all the shows -bigtimer
Of course she did; she had ALL her answers down pat. She is the most practiced, scripted, controlled, candidate. EVER.
Max Cleland
September 23, 2007 - 20:11 ET by americandudeSmart of her to bring up Max Cleland. Centrist voters are hopefully going to learn more about what was done to him by the Republicans in the Senate election.
matbe she can get Joe
September 23, 2007 - 20:16 ET bymatbe she can get Joe Libermanns endorsement
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
She probably will get Liberman's endorsement
September 23, 2007 - 20:24 ET by americandudeShe probably will get Liberman's endorsement
or maybe Vince Foster? no
September 23, 2007 - 20:18 ET byor maybe Vince Foster? no wait he's dead. along with about 50 others
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
deaths
September 23, 2007 - 20:25 ET by americandudeNearly 7,000 Americans dead (911 plus Iraq War on Bush's watch).
More than 30,000 wounded on Bush's watch.
well dude don't tase me
September 23, 2007 - 21:02 ET bywe all well know the 911 tragedy was planned over the course of the Clinton administration and is due to their policies. As for the aftermath, can you say there would have been no further attacks without Ws intervention? Consequences, why is it you have no concept of consequences? Was your mother a Spockette?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Caused by Clinton's ineptness
September 23, 2007 - 20:51 ET by PawpawNAll these deaths fall on the Clinton administration because of their ineptness to capture or kill OBL when they had so many chances. BC's BJ was more important!!
Has Russert been nuetered or what?
September 23, 2007 - 14:33 ET by rx4musicEven with the softball questions from Timmie, Shrillary looked as if she was chewing razor blades and was trying to pass a ton of nails. I'll bet he was glad that they were not in the same studio at the same time. The glare/smirk/forced-smile on her face while he read the history of her failed attempts at health-care reform was enough to scare the pants off of anybody. To borrow from Monty Python, "I've seen grown men pull their own 'eads off rather than face her...". That cackle of hers is grating, her condescending, arrogant demeanor is insulting, and it's easy to understand why people don't like her. I think that is the one thing that will keep her from the White House. People genuinely DON'T LIKE HER! Hopefully there are ENOUGH people who don't like her.
"I used to be disgusted, but now, I try to be amused..."- E. Costello
People genuinely DON'T LIKE
September 23, 2007 - 15:58 ET by motherbeltPeople genuinely DON'T LIKE HER!
That's because no one likes a phony, and she is a phony from the word go. Every single word, move, hand gesture, nod, and reaction is practiced. You can tell if you watch her over and over, because she uses the same practiced moves: the serious nodding, the head-thrown-back laugh, the cupped hands in front of her, like she's holding a basketball. Watch her when she's reading a speech...she looks down at the paper, up to the left side of the audience, down at the paper, up to the right side. She's a multi-programmed machine. But a programmed machine with a lust for power.
motherbelt
September 23, 2007 - 16:08 ET byyou got, but don't tell, it is BOT-H, i, BOT-G, am sent to moniter this site for breeches in security
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Keep up with the gutter language
September 23, 2007 - 20:13 ET by americandudeRead your post - it is very sharp language. Voters in the political center will be pushed more towards Hillary if you keep making her into a victim. This is part of the Clinton strategy to take the political center.
sheep's clothing
September 23, 2007 - 14:37 ET by CatherwoodRussert tried to play the objective journalist. That's what makes him more dangerous than most of them. He tries to act fair but he just can't hide his liberal skin. During the ''04 election, for example, he could not hide his disappointment when he and his liberal friends discussed Ohio. He implied malfeasance.
Setting
September 23, 2007 - 14:56 ET by capavI realize that she couldn't be in person at every one of those interviews, but why do all 5 in one day? My guess is she had a teleprompter in front of her cued with prepared responses to all of the questions her campaign figured would be asked. That's probably why she started off the Fox interview with that laugh. She was buying time so someone could feed her an answer. One interesting thing I noticed was that you could only see her left ear. It seemed she was purposely not turning in any way so that you could see her right ear. I don't know if an earpiece is required for television remote interviews like that, but if not, I'm guessing she had someone like t.v. anchors do, helping her through an earpiece. She also spoke without much hesitation or pause when she answered the questions that were "sure things". That's why I think she was reading it.
I don't think she was reading from a prompter
September 23, 2007 - 20:15 ET by americandudeDo you really think the Clintons need to read from teleprompters? Look at how many elections they have won. The Clintons know how to campaign and win. I would guess Hillary went through intensive preparation for these interviews such that she had answers ready in her head for just about any possible question.
practiced liars
September 23, 2007 - 20:21 ET by Conservative_in_mass.When you know the tough question will not be asked, there's not much to worry about. If it is asked, you execute a Clinton maneuver...you lie.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Russert interview had some tough questions.
September 23, 2007 - 20:27 ET by americandudeI thought Russert asked tough questions about:
1. Iraq - badgered her over and over again about 2002 vote
2. Health care - Talked about 1993-1994 failled legislation
3. Fundraising - Hsu and 1996 controversies.
P.S. I am sure her preparation was for "tough" questions.
1. no follow up. He
September 23, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Conservative_in_mass.1. no follow up. He swallowed her new tactic. Lets talk about today, not 2002.
2. no follow up: What is different about your new proposal? What obstacles / benefits do you see?
3. no follow up: lets her get away with the "we were thorough" B.S.
He restated his original question / point in all three instances. There was no follow up. Asking the same thing over and over is not badgering....its pandering.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
No answers, just move to another subject, or state, "well all h
September 23, 2007 - 20:56 ET by PawpawNNo answers, just move to another subject, or state, "well all have received", etc. You never get a direct answer, and no one ever asks her to explain her votes, what she previously said, etc. We are feed the MSM/Clintonisa template as the only food from them. When will someone, maybe Rudy, have enough guts to just ask the question till they get an answer or refute her saying as hse keeps changing everything to whomever the audience is!
Paw:
September 23, 2007 - 21:08 ET by Conservative_in_mass.So true. The Clintonistas behaive the same way as their idols. Bob & weave, then when confronted; poof.
As for you wish to see someone challenge this woman, I'm afraid the debate formats may get in the way of that. Hils operatives will no doubt make sure the debate format is conducive to their candidate...that is allow her to lie and hide.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Running Scared
September 23, 2007 - 15:09 ET by Captain RepusRussert has been, since the Libby trial, living in fear that one of his co-conspirators, er I mean colleagues, Mitchell, Gregory or Matthews will spill the beans about total group knowledge of the Plame CIA identity, and open them all up to perjury and conspiracy charges.
Methinks Madam Klinton's secret police force has the goods and is holding it over Russert. Nothing else could explain his disgraceful interview performance today.
Matthews?
September 23, 2007 - 20:20 ET by americandudeChris Matthews - do you mean the guy who hates the Clintons, has gone on record as a Bush voter, and who has said many times that Bush has a "sunny nobility" and that Guiliani is a hero?
Regarding your not-so-subtle way of linking Hillary with the Communist Soviet Union, are you one of those people who cries foul when the liberals link the conservatives with fascism? Remember that the more you make Hillary into a victim, the more you will energize the women's sympathy vote and ensure that she gets back to the White House for 8 years.
after all
September 23, 2007 - 20:23 ET bywe know the Clintons are associated with the Chinese communists
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Extreme language
September 23, 2007 - 20:30 ET by americandudeExtreme types of insults only help to bring the political center closer to the Clintons. They are really good at playing the victimization game and getting sympathy.
While we are on the subject of links between politicians and extreme elements of the world, ask yourself honestly why Bush has not caught Bin Laden, why he won't stand up to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
what extreme insults?
September 23, 2007 - 20:39 ET bythe links between the Clintons and China are well documented and you are attempting to flat out deceive people.
try the Panama Canal, campaign funds etc.
and your attempts to hide behind the 'don't enable the Clintons' lie is so transparent dude
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Clintons caught in lies =
September 23, 2007 - 20:43 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Clintons caught in lies = extreme insults....
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Dude
September 23, 2007 - 20:47 ET byask yourself honestly why Bush has not caught Bin Laden, why he won't stand up to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
just how simplistic is your conception of geo-political science? What are you some kind of Obama supporter? (yeah, lets attack our allies)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
When will people realize,
September 23, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Free StinkerWhen will people realize, we put troops in Pakistan, then Musharif falls, the new idiots use nukes on our troops there, then we have to Nuke Pakistan.
How many people here want 50 million dead Pakistanis (at least) on their conscience?
about the same time time
September 23, 2007 - 20:59 ET byabout the same time time they realize Mikie Moore KNEW Dick Clark got the Bin Ladens out of the country but hid the info in his movie-farce in an attempt to deceive. About the same time the NYT admits Dick Armitage outted Val and the rest was a witch-hunt.
Free, they already know but they would rather attempt to get political power than keep the country safe
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I guess we could
September 23, 2007 - 20:56 ET by Conservative_in_mass.I guess we could apply Dudes logic back during WWII also. On the way to bombing Dresden, we could have let a few bomb payloads loose over London.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Botg: we conservatives just don't understand..
September 23, 2007 - 20:35 ET by Conservative_in_mass.That whole Hsu thing...just an oversight. Sale of nuclear secrets to the Red Chinese in the 90's? Uhhh, diplomacy.Getting snookered by the N. Koreans? More creative diplomacy. Pushing socialized medicine funded by punitive taxes? Thats another interpretation of Adam Smith. Globalization of our economy (i.e.NAFTA)? That's promoted for Americas' own good. Allow rampant illegal immigration? An enlightened approach to secure borders and our national integrity.
The Clinton hands are filthy with Marxist beliefs.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
In the old days Russert
September 23, 2007 - 16:34 ET by jpm100In the old days Russert would have at least asked it. And the guest, if a liberal, would have been allowed to give a total BS answer without Russert calling them on it or following up on it.
Now he doesn't even bother to make that effort.
Russert
September 23, 2007 - 20:21 ET by americandudeWhat I heard was Russert hitting her over and over again about the Iraq resolution vote in 2002. He persisted with it, forcing her to give the same answer like 3 or 4 times.
"He persisted with it,
September 23, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Conservative_in_mass."He persisted with it, forcing her to give the same answer like 3 or 4 times."
Like, because he was like, asking the same question like, three or four times....that was my point in the thread above...
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
And her answer was?
September 23, 2007 - 21:45 ET by general companyIt's the answer that maters, not the question. Dude
Hillary: "I don't condone
September 23, 2007 - 20:13 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Hillary: "I don't condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country."
These words need to be included in a RNC ad juxtaposed with her vote NOT to condemn MOVE on...The woman is a not just a skilled liar, but a blatant one as well, indicative of a sociopath. She cares only about gathering power, nothing less will do.
Russert also did not follow up on the Hsu scandal or her Iraq war vote. He set the strawman up for her perfectly. This woman is dangerous, she fills me with fear like no other.
Perfectly comfortable in her lies, skilled at manipulation and unfazed by crushing anyone in her way. She will stab you in the back, twist the knife, smile in your face and tell you its your fault. She makes Bill look scrupulous.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Russert
September 24, 2007 - 05:22 ET by terryfrankI can't decide on Russert. When I watched the interview live, I laughed out loud when he tried to give her cover from her pro-MoveOn vote. But as I have some distance on it, is it at all possible he was trying to hang her out there--kind of taunting her to repudiate the moonbats?
Of course she didn't budge. She stradled the fence and said pretty much nothing...well, except a lot of "umm" and "uh" and such.
WHY is our Senate wasting
September 24, 2007 - 15:30 ET by katleeWHY is our Senate wasting time voting on a newspaper ad?
and WHY does Clinton has to denounce an ad she had nothing to do with?
You know, it's just those
September 24, 2007 - 15:45 ET by MightyMouthYou know, it's just those wild and crazy politicians we have! They're just so wacky and playful :-) besides what else have they got to do? </sarc>
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Mighty... You beat me to
September 24, 2007 - 16:29 ET by bigtimerMighty...
You beat me to it!
So many why oh why's from katlee.
You explained it perfectly/
Well bt it's not like
September 24, 2007 - 16:39 ET by MightyMouthWell bt it's not like congress is just "twittling their thumbs" or anything.... We still have to know why those little AG's got canned by their boss! In fact, I've been losing sleep wondering about it....NOT!
When's the "greatest congress in history" stuff gonna kick in? I'm beginin' to think we got lied to!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Why? Because...
September 24, 2007 - 16:18 ET by Conservative_in_mass.She claims to support the military. The ad was not an obscure placement in some classified section of a local newspaper. It was a blantant insult to a four star general in charge of an active theatre of war.
The job she's running for is "Commander in Chief." She voted not to condemn the ad. If she cannot take a definitive stand to support troops deployed on the field of battle, she is not qualified to be President.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Now who's being naive?
September 24, 2007 - 18:04 ET by fitzfongNow who's being naive? MoveOn is a Clinton front group. She has everything to do with the ad.
Triple Bingo Fitz. I have
September 24, 2007 - 18:11 ET by bigtimerTriple Bingo Fitz. I have posted as such before...so has Rog and JDW I think. It just gets old digging up the links to all of this and few pay attention...lol. I just get sick of the msm ignoring the connections...but nothing new there now is there?
Nope, BT. Nothing new at
September 24, 2007 - 18:14 ET by fitzfongNope, BT. Nothing new at all.