View Story | 365 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
And is there a link for us TV-impaired types??
This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus
by emptywheel on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:28:03 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
http://charlierose.com/ has video up the next day of the previous show's guest(s).
You'd have to check w/ your local PBS station for the time.
"The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November." -- Rahm Emanuel
by Newsie8200 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:31:50 PM PDT
Sometimes there's a repeat at 12am (or later if it's pledge week--yech I hate those) if there's a second PBS station in the area.
I record his shows. Can't stand some of his guests and especially regulars (e.g. Halperin, Nagourney) (or guest hosts when he was sick, e.g. Kristol), and Rose is an ass-kissing star-fucking cocktail party insider of the worst kind who has a Tourette's-like tendency to step all over or complete his guests' answers.
But he does tend to have some high-powered and often interesting people on whom he interviews in a format more amenable to involved and serious discussion than the Sunday morning shows. So I'm a reluctant but often fascinated viewer.
Sic transit gloria mundi - ancient Roman proverb
by kovie on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:16:01 PM PDT
Rose is an ass-kissing star-fucking cocktail party insider of the worst kind who has a Tourette's-like tendency to step all over or complete his guests' answers. PBS phoned, wants to know if they can use this in his official bio.
Rose is an ass-kissing star-fucking cocktail party insider of the worst kind who has a Tourette's-like tendency to step all over or complete his guests' answers.
PBS phoned, wants to know if they can use this in his official bio.
Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.
by adios on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:36:24 AM PDT
The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.
by dj angst on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:11:00 AM PDT
Classic.
A lot of people say: "I'm no good in the morning until I've had my coffee." I'm no good in the morning even after I've had my coffee. ~R. Benchley
A lot of people say: "I'm no good in the morning until I've had my coffee." I'm no good in the morning even after I've had my coffee.
~R. Benchley
by adios on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:19:49 AM PDT
I think he is one of the worst interviewers ever; almost as bad as Larry King. Rose simply regurgitates whatever the interviewer tells him, and tries to make it sound like he actually had an original thought. He constantly has that self-important, I-Know-Everything-Anyway expression on his face that just drives me nuts.
I'm sorry that Waxman is going to be trivialized by his appearance on CR's show.
by pinkhighway on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:36:42 AM PDT
as it's effectively the outside-the-beltway equivalent of MTP, TW & FTN, with an appearance of it a sign of having arrived, and needing to be taken seriously.
It's not so much what you say or cover on the show, as merely having been on it. And Waxman will enter (or re-enter) the big time by appearing on it.
Sounds silly and superficial (and it basically is), but that's how things work in the existing establishment media.
Less Gingrich and Frist, more Waxman and Leahy. Even if it's on CR and the other establishment shows, I can live with that. For now, as ideally I'd love for these shows to simply go away and be replaced by and/or be transformed into genuinely interesting and reality-based talk shows.
I'm still waiting for Stewart to start his own weekly talk show. He's a smart guy who can easily shift into serious mode and I think he's do a great job.
by kovie on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:10:02 PM PDT
So long as I get the residuals...
by kovie on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:11:11 PM PDT
Two war crimes make 'the right', not 'a right'. Defeat the liar John McCain.
by Yellow Canary on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:06:31 AM PDT
no mandatory airing time for PBS affiliates.
"To be afraid is to behave as if the truth were not true." -- Bayard Ruskin
by Joelarama on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:32:11 PM PDT
Charlie Rose guests reschedule fairly often, so check the website after dinner tomorrow to make sure he's on tomorrow night.
by Newsie8200 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:33:12 PM PDT
The Swampland:
The House Judiciary committee and the DoJ are both saying there will be a second wave of docs released by CoB today. Warm up your printers. They said that Friday, too, but now they've said it more than once.
MMM, good.
"Mom, did you hurt yourself, or are you yelling at the TV again?
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:31:15 AM PDT
Did you see Cheney on Fox w/Brent Hume when he just popped up out of nowhere and said that he had that power and that Bush had given it to him? This was long before the trial and it was like a big HELLO! When I saw Cheney say that I knew tht he had done something illegal and that he was trying to cover his butt.
Do we have any records that the Prez gave him the authority to "instant declassify"... is it in the Ex Order? How are the dates on that? Is there anything that in writing that can document the date/time Bush gave it to him or is it Bush saying, "I'll lie for you Dick. Don't worry."
by victoria2dc on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:00:44 PM PDT
It was the time he casually went on with Brit Hume to explain how Harry forgot to duck. It was a real corker. An, "Oh, BTW...." peppered into the buckshot tale.
Exclusive Interview With V.P. Dick Cheney Thursday, February 16, 2006 ... HUME: On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors — unidentified — authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that? CHENEY: There's nothing I can talk about, Brit. It's an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviews done by a special prosecutor. All of it's now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is a great guy. I worked with him for a long time. I have tremendous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it is therefore inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case. HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information? CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect. HUME: There is. CHENEY: Yeah. HUME: Have you done it? CHENEY: Well, I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions. HUME: Have you — (CROSSTALK) CHENEY: I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.
Exclusive Interview With V.P. Dick Cheney Thursday, February 16, 2006 ...
HUME: On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors — unidentified — authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?
CHENEY: There's nothing I can talk about, Brit. It's an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviews done by a special prosecutor. All of it's now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is a great guy. I worked with him for a long time. I have tremendous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it is therefore inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.
HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?
CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect.
HUME: There is.
CHENEY: Yeah.
HUME: Have you done it?
CHENEY: Well, I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions.
HUME: Have you —
(CROSSTALK)
CHENEY: I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.
Executive Order 12958
And
Executive Order 13292 FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED, CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
At least LOOK at my fucking blog! ~ "At all costs, let's laugh!"
by Panda on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:33:02 PM PDT
where does it say that they can declassify without the reviews, so carefully described and tediously listed. It seems to me that the Orders go a long ways toward making declassification very reviewed and not something done for quick cover. Indeed, the classification standards go to specifically denounce classifying info for political or criminal cover...any reasonable person would think the de-classifying standards were at least as thorough.( Then again, I had a Secret clearance once...so much for standards, heh.) As Shooter said, 'the Exec. orders say who has classification authority,' not DE-classification authority, in the Hume interview you quote. All them big words and such, I missed it...heh. Thanks for the linkys.
by KenBee on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:10:05 AM PDT
And you don't even need "de-classifying" to hide criminal wrong-doing.
They also "classified" to hide criminal wrong-doing in this story. OVP stamped all their best evidence with the stamp, "Treated as Top Secret/SCI," which as David Addington helpfully pointed out, is not a real classification.
by emptywheel on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:43:01 AM PDT
On this thread while I'm on it. :)
Thank you for your coverage of the Libby Case, that was really worthwhile to get real coverage. I was glued to FDL, and here, as well. I hope you will be at Yearly Kos.
Am I right in this though? This administration issued an EO to basically make their revelation of Plame legal beforehand with Executive Orders, and retroactively at that? Am I insane, or does this make sense to you too?
I probably won't respond as I'm going to bed soon, but thanks for answering I'll look up the response.
Citizen Journalist
by Hummingbird on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:57:06 AM PDT
I don't understand how the executive orders support insta-declassification by anyone.
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:31:49 AM PDT
I quickly looked through the EO's and saw nothing here that gives either the President or the VP the authority to instantly declassify a document. In fact I saw no avenue for the VP to declassify a document even through regular avenues unless he was the one that classified the information originally. Can someone please help me on this. The only diary that I have ever entered on DKos was about this issue and it went no where. Actually if my memory is correct, Scooter was relaying classified information to Judith Miller and others prior to the beginning of the War which was March 19th, 2003. How was he doing this if Bush supposedly only granted him this authority on March 25th, 2003 with the second EO above. Anyone?
Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."
by NC Dem on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:44:16 AM PDT
...discussed this a year ago.
by adios on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:54:32 AM PDT
And more links: NC Dem's diary Did Cheney Break The Law? was on the same track.. Also following the links from the Steve Clemon story: Can Cheney be His Own Declassification Machine?, thanks adios, is this diary by leveymg:CHENEY HAD NO LEGAL POWER TO DECLASSIFY CIA DOCS is good as well. Obviously great minds have been onto Cheney's bullshit claims for over a year, and that's why I'm disappointed that Waxman's committee didn't get at this with Knodell.
by KenBee on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:52:04 AM PDT
According to the transcripts of the trial, when did the defense indicate that Cheney gave him the go ahead to leak? When did the formal declassification period take place?
Seems to me that Cheney gave him the go ahead on July 8th, right? Was the first leak to Judy via Cheney and Libby?
Seems like the final/first or whatever declassification didn't take place until July 18th. Is that correct?
So the question in my mind is HOW DID FITZ not get Cheney for the leak? If he leaked it and didn't declassify isn't that something Fitz could have looked into? Why didn't he indict?
by victoria2dc on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:56:27 PM PDT
That's the bible, so far. 1. Read it here just today, but he set Libby on the project after seeming to rein Cathy Martin in, as it seems she wasn't active enough for Libby or Cheney...I think that was late June, early July, but they had been cooking this up for a while it seems..There wasn't any formal period, but I think you are correct in the July 18 date. They took ten days to try to cook up a declassification procedure, after the fact. Maybe too lazy, busy, arrogant, and or incompetant to have already done it sooner before leaking.So, formal? Who knows? 2. The date is about right, but I think it was ongoing, so about July 8th.First leak: don't know, buy Marcy's book, heh. 3. Seems correct: ten days later 7/18/03 4. You mean yet? Well, as the lawyer spewed in the hearings, the obvious bullshit level is way up for the IIPA law she brags she helped write. The level of proof would drag in a lot of classified material, I think the FDL people were calling that the greymail defense...and the whole thing becomes impossible to practically enforce. In addition, Libby and others lied, stalled, and obstructed and made the truth too hard to get to yet. CWisdom is that Libby will stall and appeal and run the clock, and eventually get the pardon. Not too many people are betting he will roll on Cheney, which would be pretty key to indicting Cheney. It's pretty clear to all that the VP's office was doing all this, and this diary highlights the specious, arrogant, and hopefully indictable way they declassified documents(leaked) without following what seems to be the law. Will the grades be posted?
by KenBee on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 12:26:26 PM PDT
...Scooter was relaying classified information to Judith Miller and others prior to the beginning of the War which was March 19th, 2003. How was he doing this if Bush supposedly only granted him this authority on March 25th, 2003 with the second EO above. Anyone?
Um, Illegally?
Dump Steny Hoyer
by mataliandy on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:27:58 PM PDT
will be able to answer, at least to my satisfaction, how and why a portion of the NIE was declassified and passed to Judy Miller on July 8th, 2003. If there's an innocent explanation, there's no reason why Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney can't clear up what happened with the leak, and clear it all up now.
I was explaining the case to a (smart) eleven year old a while ago, who asked me "why Bush declared he had a right to remain silent." I told him the President didn't declare that. But I was struck by the language, by the idea of the President saying something like "my fellow Americans, I have a right to remain silent..." Wouldn't it have been interesting if Bush had said that?
Cheney is silent because his guy took the fall. But does the President's silence indicate guilt, too? Apparently, it's obvious to a child that it does.
by QuickSilver on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:14:08 PM PDT
Bush believes he has the absolute right to remain silent. Cheney's always been a surreptitious quiet deadly type. He'll never willingly give up a thing. Ever. You're right, if they're innocent all they have to do is say so, under oath. To clear their "good" names. Separately this time. Put Shrub in a soundproof booth while Dick testifies.
by Panda on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:10:26 PM PDT
Like a reptile.
"Your point. Their village." --Zhivago to Strelnikov
by ailanthus on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:47:46 AM PDT
These animal metaphors drive me crazy. The quiet, surreptitious reptiles in my backyard (bluebellies and alligator lizards) are deadly only to ants, sowbugs, and the like. And they are under constant threat from my neighbors' cats. And don't get me started on "fox guarding the henhouse."
"Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins
by dumpster on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 05:07:56 PM PDT
My 10 yo would burst out laughing at that. It's a favorite kind of "gas" in 10 yo circles these days...
by mataliandy on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:31:15 PM PDT
remain silent...he has the legal right. We all do. It's called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
However, having the 'political' right to remain silent is another thing if you want to be reelected...and Bush and Cheney don't, so they are home free politically, too. Making them talk would take waterboards and more....
Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.
by oldpro on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:27:25 PM PDT
Waterboarding, it works for Dick too.
"Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives? THE VICE PRESIDENT: "It's a no-brainer for me"
"Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: "It's a no-brainer for me"
From Interview of the Vice President by Scott Hennen WDAY at Radio Day at the White House October 24, 2006
by Panda on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:40:08 PM PDT
then he has to admit that he flat out lied when he talked about catching the leaker. He can't use this defense.
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle
by java4every1 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:32:40 PM PDT
... that the only person with "absolute" authority on classifying/declassifying is the president?
I watched the hearing and I noticed... that wasn't the only exchange Leonard participated in where he didn't explicitly say that the vice president has the same absolute authority as the president.
Where Davis kept saying "they," Leonard continuously referred only to the president as having the "absolute" authority to classify/declassify.
Save the Endangered Species Act
by markthshark on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:20:17 PM PDT
... that particular panel. Him not explicitly accrediting Cheney with the same "absolute" authority as he did Bush makes me wonder if Cheney indeed has that same authority.
Knodell was a putz who seemed like another "heck of a job, Brownie" kinda crony who really wasn't qualified for anything but being a Bushbot.
Leonard, on the other hand, was confident in his knowledge of procedure. He seemed like a career professional -- something we desperately need more of in Washington.
There are many lessons to be learned about political appointees in the past 6-years.
That's why Republicans have so much animosity for government. They don't ever appoint qualified people. Instead, they're too busy matching jobs with campaign donations.
by markthshark on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:07:49 AM PDT
get fired. Just watch.
It's the constitution, stupid
by CTMET on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:38:56 AM PDT
stinkin' professionals around here.
We have only just begun and none too soon.
by global citizen on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:37:22 AM PDT
procedure for extending executive authority to the VP, it seems reasonable to argue that, unless that procedure was followed, he doesn't have it. There is no mention of the VP in the October 2001 Executive order curtailing the distribution of national security information to just eight members of the House and Senate. And yet, Cheney is reported to have done the briefing.
How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.
by hannah on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:08:02 AM PDT
Try this on for size. Cheney is running the most secret programs the U.S. has to hide. I bet he is running the all the illegal programs with funds provided to FEMA for Katrina victims.
Top Secret "National Program Office (NPO) and Continuity of Government (COG)" by EasyRider [Subscribe] [Edit Diary] Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:37:18 AM PDT
This the story that CNN did in 1991 as an Investigative Report. CNN no longer does these types of reporting now since they were bought by the GOP supporters. This CNN no longer exists.
This is how the GOP has destroyed American and empowered Bush and Cheney.
Intro You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long. This the story that CNN did in 1991 as an Investigative Report. CNN no longer does these types of reporting now since they were bought by the GOP supporters. This CNN no longer exists.
This is how the GOP has destroyed America and empowered Bush and Cheney.
Demand the Truth in America
by EasyRider on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:16:27 AM PDT
Good info & we don't see reporting like that anymore on commercial TV. CNN content has definitely been toned down by its corporate masters.
Most people assume the fights are going to be the left versus the right, but it always is the reasonable versus the jerks. Jimmy Wales
by 4Freedom on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:00:05 AM PDT
on that exchange, ew. I was watching, and was struck by it just as you are in this post.
Poor Tom Davis. His career path looked so smooth - county executive in Fairfax, Congressman, successor to Senator Hollywood John Warner. He wanted so much to appear the moderate Publican. Now he's stuck defending Cheney and will have to run against G. Felix Macaca for a shot at the Senate.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.
by semiot on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:07:17 AM PDT
about our defacto Congressman, Davis would have been history years and years ago. He is a piece of work. What he did Friday was completely unsurprising.
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:57:59 AM PDT
was trying another tack during the Plame hearing to excuse the leaking of information about Plame by members of the administration.
Davis asked her repeatedly if she considered it a crime that her CIA cover was blown by members of the administration leaking her name and CIA connection to members of the press if those in the administration DIDN'T KNOW that she was a "covert" agent or that her position in the CIA was classified.
That's rich - let's just have all 20 people involved in the leak plead ignorance.
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken
by SueDe on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:01:02 AM PDT
Davis and Toensing in their own words.
by EasyRider on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:20:44 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 365 comments