Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

In the interview I saw, no one made the...

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-02
In Reply to: He made the republican party look ignorant. - That's why JM cancelled. Are you blind?

Republican party look ignorant. So I would say...are you deaf?


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

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.
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.
Tell me, who would you choose to interview him? nm


Must have been watching a different interview than the...

watch 60 min interview

There is a big black hole under his left ear behind that chipmunk type cheek.  I kept thinking it was a trick of light, but there is a deep crevice there or something.


 


don't remember which interview

watched so many with all the political shows.  Can't even visualize the reporter.


 


Did you see the short interview she did with ...sm
reporters where she was asked to comment on her censure by the Alaska legislature? She totally ignores the fact that she was censored for unethical behavior in the interference she allowed to occur trying to get the trooper fired. She just said she was grateful to the Alaska legislature for absolving her of unethical or criminal behavior in the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, no mention of what she was actually censored for. Unbelievable!


"Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday".

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD93O25DG0


I saw the McCain interview.
She basically asked McCain the identical questions about Obama so McCain could trash him.  I'll see if I can find the link.
Have you seen where they interview people on the
nm
Update on Job Interview
First to katy - haha about community organizer! We were discussing that earlier. Careful, my hubby might be president one day! LOL

Anyways he went to the interview today. He thinks it went well. They were pretty laid back. Basically from what he was able to gather between the job description, what we found online, and what they told him, he will be working with the community, schools, and churches to implement programs that will better the welfare of children in the community. It is part of the Family Connection Partnership in Georgia (I think it might also be national). It's a relatively new effort in reply to the fact that Georgia is ranked around 45th for child welfare/raising.

We should know soon if he got it or not. He loves working with high risk teens and children (like most of our youth group!) and helping them to see that they can do better and succeed and be self sufficient!

Thanks to everyone who prayed or gave well wishes! I read some of your replies to him and he said thank you as well!


Interview Video
This was a good interview.
What interview are you talking about?....(sm)

I looked around and found this:


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=6251086&page=1


I'm getting about the exact opposite impression here.


I saw this interview. As usual, . . . sm
all weasel, whiny and blustering, and no answers.  SOS, and losing more credibility with each passing day!! And he's the best they got?!
I agree the entire interview was not there.

And I truly don't understand why.  I tried to quickly find the transcript of the entire interview, but I was unable to find it.


I wish they would have posted the entire interview because Sean and Newt argued and probably for the first time did not agree.  If I remember correctly, there was even a jovial comment at the end about Newt being closer to Alan than Sean (or something to that effect).  I don't remember the exact words.  I did watch the entire interview, and I can tell you that Sean challenged Newt on points, but Newt still disagreed with him.  The gist of what Newt said was that the President just needs to start being honest with the American people about things he does. 


If I have more time later, I will search some more and see if I can find the entire interview in case you don't believe what I have told you after watching the entire interview.


I do agree, however, that the entire interview should have been there because I think his disagreement with Sean was much more interesting than his agreement with Alan.


I thought the interview was chilling.

I actually watched the interview on TV and was going to wait a day or two until the transcript was available and post the transcript, but I was able to find a clip of the interview, which is much better than the transcript.


Unfortunately, there is still a lot that can go wrong in the year and a half Bush has left because there are growing numbers of *bogeymen,* in my opinion, partly because USA is seen as an arrogant bully by a significant portion of the world.  We have to worry about North Korea and Iran.  (Ironically, Valerie Plame had been working on Iran's nuclear program when she was outted by Rove and Libby, which makes me wonder whether we're being told the truth about them by the Bush administration.)


I'm very glad I saw this because I've increasingly wondered how two different sides of the political spectrum could see things so very differently, with one of them having such venom towards the other side.  I remember the good old days when Democrats and Republicans could discuss and debate issues.  Even if the debate became heated, they walked away from it still friends and still respecting each other.  The Republicans would debate, not personally attack.  I haven't seen that in a long time.


Now I understand why. 


Here is a synopsis of the Dean interview.

 http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm


 


Recent Russo interview ...sm
With Conscious Media Network. Of course, it wasn't on CNN, etc. I have seen the trailers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198&q=aaron+russo
Ron Paul radio interview
For those of you in the listening area, Ron Paul is being interviewed on NPR. I am in New England and it is on now. But if you miss it, you can log onto NPR on the web and play it back at your leisure. :o)
For those itching for that Focks interview sm
After commanding an audience of 84,000 at Mile High, and another 38,000,000 or so in the TV viewing audience (more than the Oscars, the opening ceremonies of the Olympics or the American Idol finale), he probably can go without appearing in front of that that so-called "largest viewing audience" of Focks News you accuse him of fearing, and their golden boys, Bill O'Reilly and/or Sean Hannity...and come out of it just fine. Still, if you insist, let's strike a deal.

Tell you what. Obama will submit to an interview on Focks News just as soon as McCain agrees to an unscripted Q&A with any of the following:
Michael Moore
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Ariana Huffington.
Bill Mahar.
Bill Moyers.
Indymedia.
Independent Press Association (IPA)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Richard Dreyfuss
Helen Thomas
Jim Hightower
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Naomi Klein
Al-Jazeera English
Jeremy Scahill
Robert Scheer
Nir Rosen
Allan Nairn
James Steele
John Ghazvinian
Seymour Hersh
Scotter Ritter
The Nation
Rolling Stone
Mother Jones
The American Prospect
Greg Palast

Could go on, but you get my drift, yes or no?
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!
Finally - a decent interview
I caught the interview with Sarah Palin tonight.  Part 2 is on tomorrow.  I thought finally!  Someone treating her with respect.  The interview with Gibson last week was definitely a set up (been in the military and I know about investigations and such, and how to make people "uneasy").  As much as I cannot stand Hannity I have to say the interview was very respecful and not condescending.  He asked her decent questions and asked her to explain herself on some issues which she did.  When it comes to economics, energy and other issues she shows the wisdom and intelligence to understand what is happening and what needs to be done to get the problems fixed.  There was no doubt in my mind by the end of the interview she will be one of the best VPs and I have confidence enough that if something happens to JM she will do just fine.  However, JM's family lives to be quite a ripe old age so am sure he will be around for many more years to come.  I'm just glad there was finally a fair interview.  Asked her tough questions, had her explain her viewpoints and treated her with the respect she deserved.  Can't wait to see the rest of it tomorrow.  She'll be talking about how she has been treated by the media among other things.
I heard Kissinger myself in an interview....
this morning saying that he never suggested that the President of the United States sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. He said negotiations should start at lower levels and when conditions hadbeen worked out and certain agreements arrived at, THEN the President would sit down. He cited an instance where it took 3 years of lower negotiations before the President sat down. Couric knows that, or would if she had actually asked Kissinger himself instead of "confirming his opinion." What better way to confirm his opinion than to ask him??
Michael Savage interview

When you have time and want to listen it's an excellent interview.  His interview is with Berg - a lifetime democrat/lifetime liberal


http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/43-phil-j-berg-on-michael-savage-audio


Once on that page there is a link to click to hear the show (the direct link was too long to post here)


P.S. - I just heard this on the show and it does bring up a question.  Why isn't Obama bringing his wife and kids to visit his ailing grandmother.  The one who raised him.  Wouldn't he want his ailing grandmother to see his wife and kids?  It does not make sense that these could be her last days why didn't he bring his wife and daughters. 


It's from an interview last January not today
nm
If he was in a Fox interview, I wouldn't expect him to be.
Panthers don't scare me. Hannity, on the other hand....
She should be giving interview and she is most certainly is not "whining"
I don't agree with you on this one. I just watched different news stations and all say pretty much the same thing. They are saying at least she is not playing the victim like HC did with her phony crying episodes and the poor me they're picking on me because blah, blah, blah.

Gov. Palin should be giving interviews (just like Kerry and Edwards did after the last election). The public also deserves the right to know how she was treated. Whether you like her or not the truth is she was treated most unfairly and disrespectfully. She's not whining about it. In fact time and time again she has said she has a tough skin and you don't make it in politics by having a thin skin. You take the rolls with the punches and you just keep going. She said it takes a lot more than what has been dealt to her to make her want to quit. You can't let yourself get beaten down. Did she do well during the Couric interview? No she did not. I heard a news reporter on MSNBC say afterward that to be totally fair you could see she was quite nervous. Were there questions she should have known the answer to, you bet there was, but in all fairness she should have never agreed to be interviewed by Katie Couric, who was most definitely one out to destroy her. There are plenty of reporters who are fair that could have treated her respectfully. Katie Couric did not and Katie Couric even admitted to meeting with someone to "bone up" on how to make an interviewee look bad. Did the news media treat her unfairly through the election. Most certainly. And they are still doing it. Did they treat the democrat woman (HC) differently than the republican woman (SP) you bet. I watched it every day. Is Caroline Kennedy being treated differently, My gosh do you even have to ask that question? Caroline Kennedy (whom the media is calling Princess Caroline) is being treated like royalty by the media. I don't know why because the Kennedy's are not royalty. But the media has always treated them that way. We all know that if Gov. Palin was running on the democrat ticket she would have been treated with grace and dignity. The media is in love with the democratic party and have wanted to destroy the republicans for a long time (Olberman, Maddow, Matthews, CNN, etc). They had their hay-day and had a blast doing it, while at the same time poo-pooing the poor me, everyone is picking on us routine. I think it's time America deserved the truth. I'm not saying the media lost the election for the republicans because they didn't. John McCain/GOP did that all by themselves himself (and without the help of Sarah Palin). But the media's love affair with Barack and the democrats were so blatanly obvious it was sickening. I watched the interviews. Never did I see Barack or Hillary get the kind of questions they gave to McCain and Palin and it was so obvious after awhile I just lost interest. Which by the way it was interesting to see the media never interviewed Biden or covered him the way they did Palin. The news media knew not to interview the next VP because he would certainly say something that would screw up their chances, but yet they went after the republican VP candidate. So once again another display of how unfairly the media treated certain people.

I will most definitely watch the interview. I think Sarah Palin is a fine person and I hope to see more of her, but in honesty after what the political rape of Sarah Palin and what the media and public has done to her and her family I wouldn't blame her not going through the witch hunt/inquisition again.
Bristol Palin interview...(sm)
Looks like Bristol is going to be the complete opposite of her mother.  In the interview she said that abstinence is "not realistic."  Good for her!  Another thing that got my attention was the use of the word "choice" when speaking about her decision to have the child.   Hmmm....
did you miss the part in an interview sm
where he stumbled over himself and talked about his Muslim religion? Kind of takling out both sides of his mouth isn't he?

Only thing Obama does it tell lies to suit whatever situation he is in. He definitely is no Christian.
Interview with Clinton RE: Bush's deficit
Tax cuts are always popular, Clinton said. But about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.

Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts, Clinton added. We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.


Clinton also discussed bringing world leaders together to combat the world's chronic problems — including extreme poverty, global warming and religious conflicts — as well as the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort and Hillary Clinton's political future.


The interview follows:


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, good to see you again.


FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you, George.


STEPHANOPOULOS: We're here on your initiative, and I want to talk about that, but let's begin with Katrina. President Bush has brought you into the recovery effort, but he's not taking all of your advice. You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He says no tax increase of any kind. We're spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something's got to give.


CLINTON: Well, that's what I think. I think this idea — I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.


They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.


STEPHANOPOULOS: The president is not going to move. What do Democrats do?


CLINTON: They should continue to oppose it, and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election. And they should hope, to goodness, for the sake of our country, that the cows don't come home before we have time to rectify it.


I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese — We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.


So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?


We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there anything coming out of this initiative here that you can apply directly to Katrina and the poverty we saw revealed there?


CLINTON: Oh, yes, we have raised quite a bit of money for Katrina here. And former President Bush and I, you know, we were asked to raise money. We already have $90 million to $100 million. And what we're trying to do is make sure that our money goes directly to the poorest people who have been dislodged by working with church groups and others. We're working on some mechanisms now to do that, and we'll have some announcements in the next week or so.


But I think there will be a lot of money coming forward from the federal government. A lot of it will be necessary, you know, to build the infrastructure, rebuild the fabric of life and not simply in New Orleans but along the Gulf Coast.


STEPHANOPOULOS: The Gulf Coast.


CLINTON: Yes; you know, keep in mind, Mississippi was devastated. Everything from a mile in Mississippi was blown down, and Alabama, but we've got to do that.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me; the problems of race that were tied to poverty here, and I know you don't think there's any conscious racism at play in the response, but we saw one more time blacks and whites looked at this event through very different eyes. What can President Bush do about that, and looking back, do you think there was anything more you could have done as president?


CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of disaster management.


STEPHANOPOULOS: But the racial divide.


CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of that. For example, we had the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest African-American poverty rate ever recorded. We had the highest homeownership, highest business ownership, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty in eight years as had been moved out in the previous 12 years.


This is a matter of public policy, and whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade.


Full unedited almost 2 hour interview -

of Mike Wallace with Iranian President will be on CSPAN Monday evening.


http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/fullschedule.csp?timeid=212022255651


Merv's Rolling Stone interview. sm

He loves Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condi.


Then we will agree to disagree. And a controlled interview...
is not like meeting with a hostile head of state. And I don't think an "understanding" of Islamic principles is going to help talk to the prime minister of Israel OR Ahmadinejad. That is just my opinion.

I beg to differ about Joe Biden's comfort zone...he is extremely comfortable in DC. He is an established member of DC politics. Unless you have not been paying attention in past years, you know this. He is a toe-the-line Democrat. When he actually said in public what he said about McCain, I thought well, maybe he isn't as partisan as I thought. Buzz, wrong thought. I was right. He is. He came from a blue collar background...so did Obama, so did his wife. But they are far, far removed from that now. And they trot it out when they feel they need to "connect" to the blue collar out here among us. Maybe some buy into that, and that is fine. But some do not, and that is also fine.

Personally, I feel Joe Biden wants to be Vice President and whoever he has to mow down in the process, fine, casualities of the political war. No blue collar people I know throw friends under the bus to promote themselves. But maybe the blue collar people I know are not like the blue collar people he comes from. Can't say.

Yes, he used to talk about partisan bickering, and he and McCain worked on a lot of issues, and if McCain felt he was right then he bucked his own party to support him. Which is why Biden said he viewed McCain as a friend and "I would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain." Notice how quickly that changed. Either you have integrity or you do not. Either you feel loyalty to a friend is more important than partisan politics or it is not. He showed me what was important to him. I was not impressed. That is my opinion of course, entitled to it, just like you are to yours. We just disagree.

All that being said, I do feel that he is much more qualified for the job than the man who is running for it. I would still be concerned, but I would not be as concerned if Biden were in the #1 seat instead of the #2 seat.

But that would not change my opinion of Joe Biden as a person. I think he lacks integrity, I know he lies, because he was either lying when he said Obama wasn't ready or he is lying now when he says he is. Either way...he lied. Same old Washington politics...sorry, I don't see much change or any hope thereof where Biden is concerned.
Gibson softballed this interview. Why shouldn't he
He didn' try to trip her up. He tried to get a straight answer...any answer, in fact. She tripped herself up on her own lack of knowledge and experience on isses of foreign policy. She cannot hold a candle to O on foreign policy. It doesn't matter whether or not you can see this. It was painfully obvious to anyone who was looking for leadership instead of fodder for the next round of chat room distractions.
Colin Powell interview on Obama
Beautifully stated. See link.
There was just an interview on CNBC with both McCain and Palin

They also want to rein in spending. They will be looking at all the government agencies and seeing where there can be cutbacks. Pork Barrel spending will be frozen.


There will be more on their plans throughout the evening on CNBC. I will be watching.


So, McC finally agreed to interview with Keith O?
In the final stretch, it would make sense to me that either candidate would want to surround himself with as much positive energy as possible. It's a campaign and I don't believe it says anything about fairness, being open-minded, a candidate's intent or ability to reach across the aisle or capacity for compromise where it counts...after the election.
Tito the Builder - great interview

Tito the Builder hits the nail on the head (no pun intended!)


George's Interview with her on this specific subject

I think she's on drugs...or else she's ready to run for president...or else she trying to undermine O before he even gets going. Watch and see. Good heavens, she's going off the deep end. She's a big mouth, as is Barney Fife, Harry Reid, and the others. They've been trying to run this country since before the bailout. If O is smart, he'll soon shut them all up.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html


Another post below mentioned Hardball. This is an interview with parents

of a Marine who was killed this week in Iraq.  Here is the transcript of the show.  I think it's very compelling.  These people certainly gave the ultimate sacrifice, and to me, their views are very important. 


The interview with Ken Allard is also very interesting. This can all be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8838904/


MATTHEWS: Tonight, we begin with the parents of Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder, who was among the 14 Marines who lost their lives in yesterday's attack in Iraq. His parents, Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder, join me now from their home outside Cleveland.

Well, it's a terrible thing to do, but I want to talk to you both about the war in Iraq and the loss of your son.

Ms. Palmer, did you sense that this war was very dangerous for your son, even before yesterday?


ROSEMARY PALMER, MOTHER OF KILLED U.S. MARINE: Well, war is always dangerous. And there were so many deaths that it was starting to mount to the point where I was actually thinking yesterday that if Auggie (ph) were not among the 14 killed, I was almost to the point of calling the Department of Defense and just saying, for mental health reasons, he had to come home, that I couldn't handle it anymore. It was just too much.


MATTHEWS: What made you feel that the danger was growing?


PALMER: Well, it's the old game of the fewer. And the 325 unit that he's in has been having more and more casualties. And if you have fewer guys and the same number of people, well, then, the other—the chances are growing that your person is going to be the one that's hit.


MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Mr. Schroeder, why do you think we're in this war? What do you think is the real reason for this war in Iraq?


PAUL SCHROEDER, FATHER OF KILLED U.S. MARINE: Well, I really don't know why. I could guess, which might be unfair. But I would guess it has to do with oil. It has to do with deposing a dictator that we used to love and came to hate.


MATTHEWS: Yes.


SCHROEDER: That goes on repeatedly.


MATTHEWS: What did your son say was his motivation for fighting? Was it just patriotism to our country or a belief in the mission?


SCHROEDER: He did not have a motivation to fight. He had a motivation to do his duty to the Marine Corps and to be part of the Marines. His entire life was devoted to doing what he promised he would do.


MATTHEWS: What did he tell you...


(CROSSTALK)


MATTHEWS: What did he say about how the war was going?


SCHROEDER: Well, early on, when his unit arrived there in March, he was talking about the friendly Iraqi people. After May and June, he stopped talking about the friendly people, not that they weren't friendly. But he stopped talking about it.
Two weeks ago, in the last conversation I had with him, he simply said, the closer we get to coming home, the less worth it this is.


MATTHEWS: How did you interpret that?


SCHROEDER: I took that to mean that his participation in Operation Matador, Operation New Market, Operation Sword, Operation Spear, and a couple others that I don't know the names of were failing. And that's, basically, the operations were intended to go into these towns, kick out the insurgents, take their weapons, arrest whoever they could, and then they would withdraw.

They only had to go back and find more insurgents in the same places. The fact that these 14 fellows were blown up indicates to me, logic would say, that this policy, this strategy, this tactic has failed.


MATTHEWS: Let me go to Rosemary...


SCHROEDER: If it was successful, if it was successful, then he would still be alive, as would all those other kids.


(CROSSTALK)


MATTHEWS: Rosemary, let me ask you about the—what is your feeling about this war and the goal of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? And do you think that was a smart thing for us to try to do?


PALMER: It was a very naive thing for us to do.

You don't go to another culture and try to impose yours and expect it to work. We're not Iraqis. We don't have the same culture. And while I understand that we're a multicultural nation, we don't act like it sometimes. We act like the whole world thinks exactly the way we do.


MATTHEWS: Do you think that the war is going to get any better now that your son—I mean, you have paid the ultimate price? And, by the way, thank you. I don't know what it means to say thank you for your service, except I mean it. The courage of these young guys and some women over there is unbelievable. And I guess everybody wonders about the conduct of the war, whether they're being—these lives are being wasted or these lives are being put to good purpose.
What is your feeling about that now?

PALMER: Well, I personally believe that, since it is not working, then we have to make a change, that it is not worth the sacrifice if it is just more bodies on to the heap.

Like President Bush said, he wanted to stay the course and honor the memory of the ones who died by continuing to fight. If it didn't work before, why does fighting more—you know, you do the same thing over and over, that's—expecting a different result is, I think, the explanation of insanity.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

Well, the way you describe it, it is like pouring water into a sand hole on the beach and having it drain right through and start over again. It seems like a repetitive process that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

PALMER: Exactly.

SCHROEDER: Well, the repetitive process has been going on for 27 months, since the active invasion phase ended, 27 months of doing the same thing over and over and over again, with no evidence that it is getting better.

If there were evidence it was getting better—and I have yet to see it—and I—frankly, if it was getting better, these fellows would still be alive after all of this strenuous effort. Then it is time to make a change. Either put the number of troops on the ground that you need to really do the job or get the heck out.

MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense...

SCHROEDER: We have a saying—we have a saying in the Midwest, piss or get off the pot.

MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense, because of your son's tremendous, permanent, total sacrifice of his life and his experience in these months fighting this war, that the middle-level officers, the majors, the captains, do they have a sense of a clear vision of what they're getting done over there?

SCHROEDER: I can't speak to those fellows. I have great respect for the Marine officers at that level and the sergeants who made these troops, great respect.
I would tell you that they probably are frustrated, just like a lot of the ground troops, the lance corporals and the privates are. I would say that one thing that we have to make crystal clear, which is why we agreed to talk today, is that there is a—you cannot equate. There is a clear difference between supporting the troops on the ground and supporting the policies that put them there.

The president likes to make those—to equate those two things. If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. And too many American people are buying into that. I don't buy into that. Rosemary doesn't buy into that. It is time that we say, look, we can support the troops all until the cows come home.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHROEDER: We don't support the policies that put them there.

MATTHEWS: You two have more right to answer this question than anybody else in the country today. After reading those headline—and to most of us, they're just headlines. They're American G.I.s, Marines in this case, giving their lives for their country, 20-some this week, in that one part of the country in Iraq.

What should be the reaction of the American people who pick up their newspapers, watch television, and learn of these horrors? What should they do as a result of seeing that news, Mr. Schroeder?

SCHROEDER: They should stand up and tell President Bush, enough is enough. You've had your chance. Now let somebody else come up with a different plan. If you can't come up with a different plan that is going to work, in my view, that is more troops, then get out.

MATTHEWS: Rosemary, is that your view? Is that how we, all of us, not in the news business, regular Americans from your part of the country, across the country, getting this horrible news, how should they react to it?

PALMER: Well, I think most people are just saying, you know, the latter, just get out, because it is clearly—well, it is obvious that the politicians are not going to institute a draft. And with the number of deaths and the dangers being what they are, they are not going to get the recruits.

So, therefore, if you can't—you can't get enough guys to do the fighting, well, then you have to get out. Do it or get out of the game.

MATTHEWS: I got you. I heard your views and they sound similar.
Thank you very much for this hour of—this time of anguish, to be giving this information. I think the public needs to hear from folks like you.
Thank you very much, Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder, who lost their son, Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder, just today, last 24 hours.
We'll be right back with HARDBALL.