Commemorate Philadelphia's World Series VICTORY
with a Phillies Jersey and other Phillies Memorabilia at low prices.

Brit Hume & Juan Williams Smackdown (VIDEO)

March 19th, 2006 at 09:41 by MsUnderestimated

I see that Ian at Expose the Left got the first part of today’s FNS with Chris Wallace (the interview with Dick “The Turban” Durbin), but to me the most PRICELESS moment, was when The Panel convened to discuss the topic of Sen. Feingold’s proposal for censure of the President over the NSA surveillance program.

This is not the first time Brit has schooled NPR’s Juan Williams on something; but it may have been the finest! Brit seems genuinely ticked off, and as you will see by the faces of the rest of the panel, nobody would interrupt Brit. He was on a DEFINITE roll! The only thing I wish he would have corrected Juan on was Juan’s comment that Bill Clinton was impeached over “just a fling with an intern,” versus actual law-breaking *cough* by President Bush.

BritPissed2.jpg
JuanStunnedbyBrit.jpg

Partial transcript:

Juan: …We impeached President Clinton for what? Messing around with the intern, but we’re not going to impeach a president who’s actually violating the laws of the United States? There’s something out of kilter here!

(never mind the fact that he was not impeached for ‘messing around’ with Monica.. he was impeached for lying to Federal prosecutors….)

Later, after Brit describes the overwhelming support of the wiretapping program to listen to Al Qaeda conversations in our out of the United States….

Juan (to Brit): …but you’ve messed up two things: you’ve mixed up the idea of the popularity of the program with its legality.

Brit: Juan….

Juan: I don’t think I’ve met an American who says we shouldn’t be doing everything we can to prevent another terrorist attack against this country, including surveiling these conversations. But it’s not the question people say “oh, yeah, therefore we don’t need the judges, we don’t need the Congress, we don’t need anything but to put our trust in this President!”

Brit: Excuse me, Juan! If I’m not mistaken, the leaders of Congress were fully and completely and repeatedly briefed on this. And for Sen. Durbin to say, as he did, that those leaders really were powerless to do anything about it because it’s classified is utter nonsense! Any of them could very easily have objected in a letter to the President, in strong terms…

Juan: They DID object!

Brit: No, excuse me they did not! There was one weak little weird sort of slightly incomprehensible letter from Sen. Rockefeller…

Juan: …yes?

Brit: …which was followed up by him in NO WAY WHATEVER! They were in the room with the Vice President. The Vice President chaired the briefings. They could all have objected NOISILY to this if they had suspected it was illegal. They also could have done a great deal of constitutional research into the hypothetical question of whether such a thing could have been illegal or not. There is not one SCINTILLA of evidence that any of them DID that! The idea that this is illegal springs from the fact that it got in the New York Times, and politicians within the Democratic Party decided it was a good idea to chase that idea around. It is by NO means a settled matter that is WAS illegal. There is very good reason to believe, that the inherent constitutional powers of the President, and possibly even the grant of the use of force to repel Al Qaeda, would have authorized him to do this. So, it’s not a settled question on this.

Juan then goes on to say that New York Times, as well as the Democratic Party, was being benevolent by waiting a year to report on this story, and they did this out of concern for the respect of the President. (*cough*)

Brit: Juan, that is absurd! No politician among those that has been thoroughly briefed on this claims that the briefings have been insufficient and vague.

Juan: Rockefeller…

Brit: Rockefeller does not claim that.

Juan: Rockefeller…

Brit: Rockefeller has said many things about this program, but he has never said that he wasn’t fully debriefed.

Watch Brit school Juan once again Brit & Juan here

Also at Expose the Left, Stop the ACLU, Jo’s Cafe, Real Teen, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Amy Proctor’s place, and Vincent Aut Morire. Also, ETL posted an update later on.

Choose Options to Share This Post
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Fark] [Google] [MySpace] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

 

Posted in Telling It Like it Is, Video | | TrackBack | | | View blog reactions

Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Yes, Clinton was impeached for lying to prosecutors...about messing around with an intern. Why in Hell were prosecutors even asking Clinton about his sexual relationship with a consenting adult? It was none of their damn business whether or not he was getting blow jobs from an intern. Yeah, he lied about it. Yeah, he lied about it under oath. Big fucking deal!!

    George W. Bush is the figurehead of an out-of-control administration that doesn't seem to care about egregious violations of our constitution.

    If you truly honored our country, as your disingenuous image implies (God, Flag, Honor, Country, in that order? What the fuck is that?), you would be screaming at the top of your lungs about this violation of the very precepts upon which our country was founded.

    But you don't, really. That is clear. You just care about bashing your political opponents. You have even named your site after one of the many pieces of evidence of the cluelessness of our figurehead President-In-Name-Only. If your really loved the United States of America, you would not stand for the actions of this administration, no matter what party is named on your voter registration card.
    • ^
    • v
    I have a friend who is a liberal and we don't talk politics much; but this post reminded me of a statement she made once, that all clinton did was get a blow job "all men do, at least he didn't kill people." It just floored me.
    • ^
    • v
    Jim, I think you read too far into my comments. First, I fail to see how my comments constitute liberal ranting, since all I'm doing is dismissing ALL cable news networks regardless of their political leanings.

    Next, I didn't call you or anyone else a "poor cracker," nor did I suggest that I am smarter or more informed that you. What I did was allude to a couple of studies that demonstrated that NPR listeners and "Daily Show" viewers have fewer misperceptions regarding matters of politics and government than viewers of cable news. Personally, I don't listen to NPR any more than I watch FOX News. I said I like newspapers. While we're on the subject of NPR, you might find it interesting to know that last December, their ombudsman had to defend NPR against accusations that the network had a conservative bias. But in the same piece, he cited statistics that NPR actually draws more of its guests from conservative think tanks (61%) than liberal think tanks (38%)!

    It really is interesting that the working class overwhelmingly supports the GOP these days considering the economic policies of the two major parties. There's a wonderful book by Thomas Frank called "What's the Matter with Kansas" that discusses the topic in great depth.
    • ^
    • v
    Well we can some Liberal rantings just never change notice how this accurately portrayed liberl had to tell us poor crackers that he is both smarter and more informed then us cause he gets his info from NPR then he falls right into line with the rest of his bodies enlighning us with the party line. Sorry Mr Lib your responce in predictable and not new to us poor working stiffs, oh wait the GOP is the party of the rich and the DNC backs the champions of working people Like Billionair John Forbes Kerry.
    • ^
    • v
    Actually, I think Mr. AE has a point.

    In the transcript excerpt above, Mr. Hume denies that eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant is illegal. Actually, it *is* illegal, or at least it was before the PATRIOT act, much of which is unconstitutional. [Lest you wonder who told me this about the PATRIOT act, please be aware that I have read all 250 pages of it and reached this conclusion on my own.]

    But that is a side issue for now. Let us assume that Mr. Hume is correct in suggesting that the NSA program might be perfectly legal. He still argues without confidence. He is flippant and dismissive and clearly not interested in having a productive conversation. He only gets the last word because he argues like a bully (and because, let's face it, our friend Juan is not exactly rising to the challenge).

    Much of the language you've used in these comments (and, from what I have seen, throughout the blog) suggests a similar lack of confidence in what you say. For example, if you are confident that "Hardball" is a crappy program, its crappiness should speak for itself without you having to re-name it.

    Speaking this way does more to discredit your arguments than any "typical liberal" could do by presenting his side calmly.
    • ^
    • v
    Yes, FOX is the most egregious. Yes, I have watched the other hosts you mentioned, though I'm by no means a regular viewer, and I could care less about their ratings. Of course Matthews, Olbermann, et al. engage in this crap, too, but, considering the networks themselves, I'd say it happens much more on FOX. But the real point is that ALL cable news networks are pretty much worthless when it comes to political discourse. (Remember when Jon Stewart (I'll borrow your word here) schooled Paul and Tucker on "Crossfire"?. That pretty much sums it up.) Is it any wonder that the most educated and informed gravitate to NPR and "The Daily Show"?

    While I'm here, let me thank you for labeling and then dismissing me as "a VERY typical liberal" in one fell swoop. It'll save us both a lot of time as we engage in our debate if we just pigeonhole each other as "typical conservative" and "typical liberal".

    But I'm curious as to why you assume that I rely on people to form my opinions. If by that you mean that I rely on people (ya know, journalists) to provide me with information which I may then use to formulate opinions, then color me guilty. I personally like newspapers, even though they lack the flashy "War on Terror" logos, American flag graphics, and terror alert level tickers. I'm by no means offended by cable news networks. If anything they sadden me.
    • ^
    • v
    P.S. Mr. Accurately Estimated:

    Regarding what you said above "...but those who rely on them for their news and opinions are being robbed of their time and dignity."

    Huh?

    You are a VERY typical liberal! You actually "rely" on people to form your opinions? Who's being robbed of their time & dignity? There's a little button on the remote that says "off." I suggest those who are so offended should press this when they feel robbed.

    Ms. U
    • ^
    • v
    Icerigger:

    You made me laugh out loud on that one. You are right about Brit correcting Juan on a regular basis, but when he gets really passionate like he did yesterday, I LOVE it! And the look Juan gets on his face is like some kid whose mother just said "No you just WAIT until your father gets home!"

    LOLOLOL...

    Oh, and MAE? You think Fox is the most egregious at this? Have you not watched Chris Matthews on Slimeball or Olberman - both on MSNBC? Oh yeah you probably haven't. Their ratings bear that out.

    Ms. U
    • ^
    • v
    Oh gwad you offended a liberal. LOL!

    The point is that Brit often takes Juan to task after Juan lies about something. And it's fun to watch.
    • ^
    • v
    Now, see, what you've done here is demonstrate exactly why I loathe the cable news networks so much. The issue at hand on these "debate" shows is never of much importance; it's all about oneupsmanship and outpissing one's opponent. The fact that you use such language as "schooled" and "smackdown" only reinforces my point. And FOX News is definitely the most egregious offender, especially considering their poster boy invented/popularized such programming. Sure, as entertainment these shows are great, but those who rely on them for their news and opinions are being robbed of their time and dignity.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus