Kung Fu Baby

It feels like an Asian version of Funniest Videos from the soundtrack.

h/t Fox Online

And I’ve had it fresh at the Brewery at St. James Gate in Dublin! (h/t: Leslie’s Omnibus)

You Are Guinness

You know beer well, and you’ll only drink the best beers in the world. Watered down beers disgust you, as do the people who drink them. When you drink, you tend to become a bit of a know it all – especially about subjects you don’t know well. But your friends tolerate your drunken ways, because you introduce them to the best beers around.

Earlier today on Fox News new program Fox Online, Bill Hemmer was talking to a couple of people about whether the Bush Administration is focused on the “wrong war” as Democrats are now saying.

Hemmer: Michelle, does Hamid Karzai have a way of crystalizing this argument that most politicians just can not?

Michelle Laxalt: Yes he does. I thought President Karzai’s press conference was absolutely extraordinary. As you put it, he crystalized in very brief terms what the stakes are, what the historical perspective is, even telling Americans that we should well know that we were not hit and attacked by these folks on 9/11 alone. We had suffered these attacks elsewhere in the world for years and years beforehand. There is no way to distinguish one terrorist from another. We all must fight together for the democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq and not let our guards down and not back out. I thought he was extraordinary.

Hemmer: Jay Footlik, what did you think when you heard that comment?

Jay Footlik: Listen, it points to, it underscores the importance of fighting the war on terror and not forgetting that the central focal point of this war on terror started with Afghanistan. We hear all the critics of the Democratic policy saying that we shouldn’t cut and run in Iraq and it seems as if we have cut and run in Afghanistan. The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, just asked for more help and more assistance. Perhaps he doesn’t want more troops, but there’s so much more that can be done to secure the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, more in terms of providing assistance for economic rebuilding and reconstruction of the country. There is a lot that can be done and should be done and as the National Intelligence Assesment from this own administration pointed out, the war in Afghanistan is sort of taking a secondary backburner approach to the war in Iraq.

Hemmer: You know, Jay, you’re taking us right into the next topic. This declassified document, the President announcing it last hour, live in front of the whole country for that matter, he will declassify that document allow the American people to make their own decisions, make up their own minds on this. Michelle, what did you think of that move?

Michelle Laxalt: I thought it was wise for the President to go ahead and declassify, but I thought it was more…

Hemmer: Think it ends the argument?

Michelle Laxalt: It had better end the argument. I think it opens a different argument. And that is why on earth are Americans who are within our government continuing to leak – for whatever reason; political or otherwise – classified information who could well put our people at risk. Do they believe that leaking intelligence material is going to encourage young men and women, like my daughters and sons to join our military or our intelligence community when people within our own goverment are leaking classified documents like its some sort of funny money for an election day lay-up?

Jay Footlik: But more importantly, to the substance of the National Intelligience report it directly contradicts many of the assertions that President Bush has made.

Hemmer: Have you seen it Jay?

Michelle Laxalt: Have you read the entire document?

Jay Footlik: Uh. I certainly have not. It’s obviously not been declassified yet. But everything that I have read in the press reports so far, it seems to indicate that staying the course in Iraq, the way we’re doing right now, is only emboldening the insurgency. It is not going to break their back and it goes across everything that this administration is saying about why we’re in Iraq right now.

Hemmer: We’ve got to run right now, but we’re going to all be able to see that thing real soon and make up our own minds on that. The President clearly saying that this is politics. We’re 42 days away from the mid-term election and I’m not quite sure if anyone in Washington can keep much of a secret these days. Jay thank you. Michelle, thanks to you as well.

Have you seen or read the report Jay?

No I haven’t obviously, but the press reports I’ve read….

Jay, the press that reported didn’t see it either.

The other little bit is Terry McAuliffe on The Big Story with John Gibson this afternoon.

Gibson: Did the Clinton administration do more than the Bush administration to fight terror? Let’s ask former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, he served as head of the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. Now Terry, I’ve got a $20 bet here with the floor director that you’re not going to be on the Democratic talking points and start this by attacking Fox News or Fox reporters. Do I win?

McAuliffe: Oh you know I love Fox News. Fair and Balanced. I can’t get on it enough.

Gibson: Alright. Good. So is this a reasonable argument to be having? George Bush didn’t do what he didn’t do and Bill Clinton didn’t do what he did. Is that a reasonable thing for us to be talking about now?

McAuliffe: Well you got to put it in context John. When this first came up, when Chris asked the question, he asked it, as you know, as an accusation. President Clinton rightfully – and I’m glad he did – defended himself. He defended himself vigorously. I hope…

Gibson: What was the accusation?

McAuliffe: The way he had asked the question. Why haven’t you done more to get Bin Ladin. And my point is that Bill Clinton had done many things over the course of his term in office, George Bush didn’t and that’s just a matter of…

Gibson: But Terry, it wasn’t that long ago that David Letterman asked Bill Clinton the same question and Bill Clinton responded in a calm and reasonable way. Why this fulmination for what was the same question – you would think after that ‘Path to 9/11’ controversy a couple of weeks ago that he’d want to address the question.

McAuliffe: Well, he first of all, I would remind you this is in the middle of his Clinton Global Initiative where he just finished raising $7.5 billion to do good works throughout the world and he was told that this interview would be about the Clinton Global Initiative and he sat down and right out of the box Chris asked him the question and he defended himself and defended his administration. Many people worked very hard in that administration. And he wasn’t going to let an accusation specifically around 9/11 and Osama Bin Ladin to go unchecked and so I’m glad he reacted the way he did. I just unfortunate that the former President has to defend himself. We need more people out there fighting and getting the truth out.

Gibson: Does this help or hurt Hillary Clinton?

McAuliffe: I think anytime we’re out there fighting and telling the truth it helps. I think that it helps Hillary Clinton. Condi Rice, as you know, was out today and made statements to the New York Post. I find it very ironic that immediately her office called President Clinton’s office today to say oh, I was taken out of context. I didn’t mean what they had said. I mean, come on, she’s the Secretary of State. A word out of place here or there can start a war. Why are her people calling Bill Clinton’s office? They whack you then they call and say oh we didn’t mean to say it. I mean, come on, enough’s enough.

Gibson: Bill Clinton. What I saw was point by point. Bill Clinton said why did the Bush Administration demote Richard Clarke? She said, quite correctly, that Richard Clarke was a counterterrorism chief on 9/11. Fair point or not?

McAuliffe: Then he was demoted thereafter. I think the main point is what did Bill Clinton do versus George Bush.

Gibson: No he didn’t get a promotion. And he wanted to leave if he didn’t get the promotion. I think that’s a matter of fact. Why is not a fair point for Condi Rice to say, wait a minute, he was in charge of counterterrorism the day of the attack?

McAuliffe: I’m the one telling you today that Condi Rice’s office called Bill Clinton’s basically to apologize and didn’t mean to escalate anything so obviously she felt uncomfortable with what was reported in the newspaper today. And the issue is what did they do in eight months. Did Condi Rice have any meetings on terrorism? They wanted to build a very expensive missile defense system. They did nothing about terrorism. Whatever Bill Clinton did they wanted to go the other way. They did nothing and when George Bush on August 6th was given a brief that said Osama Bin Ladin/Al Qaeda to attack U.S. George Bush went golfing. They didn’t do anything. That’s just a fact. We’ve got to go on forward from there.

Gibson: But Terry, you’re talking about that Presidential Daily Brief of October, August 6th, 2001? I’m holding the Presidential Daily Brief of December 4th, 1998 directed to Bill Clinton.

McAuliffe: Yes sir.

Gibson: Bin Ladin and his allies preparing for attacks in the U.S. including aircraft hijacking. What’s the difference? Both got the same warning.

McAuliffe: Okay. Great point. Thank you John for raising that and let me tell you what they did. They immediately, the CIA was instructed to brief the FBI. They immediately contacted New York, the JFK, the international airports in New York where they had heard an idea that this would be happening. They went on high alert at the airports in New York. All FBI agents in the East coast of the United States of America were immediately put on high alert and the FAA was alerted that Al Qaeda may try to highjack an airplane. What did George Bush do? He went golfing. He did nothing.

Gibson: Terry, Steve Call [ph] of the Washington Post, no friend of the Bush administration, wrote in February of 2004 and I quote the lead graph: “Between 1998 and 2000 the CIA and President Bill Clinton’s National Security team were caught up in a paralyzing policy dispute as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama Bin Ladin in Afghanistan.” That is essentially what Chris Wallace was asking. Why were you caught up in paralyzing debates instead of doing more.

McAuliffe: I don’t think they were caught up in paralyzing debates nor did Bill Clinton and that’s why he reacted because the Washington Post – and I disagree sometimes you write them you think they might be in with Fox News too – but just because some reporter or journalist writes that doesn’t mean it. But the 9/11 report after the ’98 Presidential brief they convened their counterterrrorism group for a meeting. My point is, and when George Bush got it he was in Texas, he took more vacation than any president ever in the first year in office, did absolutely nothing and when they had him in Tora Bora they let him walk out of Tora Bora.

Gibson: Terry, you’re telling me that the Washington Post former high placed editor, Steve Call, is the same as Fox News? You’d say he’s in league with Fox News in some kind of plot against Bill Clinton?

McAuliffe: I’d not say a plot against Bill Clinton but I’ll tell you this, I’ll hold the Washington Post, the New York Times and many other newspapers in this country liable for not doing a better job of exposing the weapons of mass destruction and allowing us to go into a wrong war in Iraq.

Gibson: Terry, he wrote that there was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill Bin Ladin and his top aides. And yet the Clinton Administration at this time was stuck in what he called “paralyzing debates”.

McAuliffe: John, I ask you to go to the 9/11 Commission Report. Bipartisan. It talks about what Bill Clinton did after the December 1998 versus George Bush’s report in September and August and he did nothing about it. I mean that’s the basic fact and George Bush had Osama Bin Ladin. He had him in Tora Bora. They called, asked for more troops, they weren’t given the troops. We allowed him to walk out of Tora Bora. Then they disband the operation that’s in charge of getting Osama Bin Ladin out of the CIA. Gibson: Facts are facts Terry. If that’s a fact, then it’s also a fact that President Clinton was paralyzed in debate. Terry McAuliffe, as always, thank you.

All emphasis in the McAuliffe interview mine.

Welcome Gateway Pundit readers. Please have a look around.

One point my husband made was that Clinton seemed like he was well prepared to answer the questions. He knew he would be asked about it and had the answers ready and at hand.

I agree with my husband and also think that Clinton would have answered the question whether or not he was asked it.

I think Clinton came on the Fox program with Chris Wallace in order to say what he said.

Round up:

Ann Althouse notes that the Left thinks Clinton ruled! Her critique is here.
Betsy points us to Rich Lowry’s discussion of what Richard Clarke really said about Clinton and Bin Laden.
Don Surber explains why Bill Clinton is so angry.
Jim Hoft – the Gateway Pundit has a great round-up.
Jonathan at GOP Bloggers has links to ABC’s Jack Tapper’s examining the record.
As usual, Hot Air has lots.
Lorie Byrd has a great round-up as well. Also posted at Wizbang!
Plenty at Michelle Malkin, Newsbusters, and Stop the ACLU

All those links will give you even more to contemplate.

Check the Anchoress today. She’s good. She’s really good.

Off to Church and then Brunch. The TiVo is set. More later after we’ve had a chance to watch.

Please scroll down for more of the transcription. It's coming along in sections.

Hot Air has video 

I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. (crosses himself) Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today. This table that I am now standing in front of, yesterday ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the President of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as 'the devil' came here talking as if he owned the world. Truly as the owner of the world. I think we can call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the President of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism he came to share his nostrums. To try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title, 'The Devil's Recipe'.

As Chomsky says here clearly and in depth, the American Empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination and we can not allow them to do that. We can not allow a world dictatorship to be consolidated.

And that's as much as I can stand to transcribe from the translation as shown on Fox News…

(I will be transcribing more of this since the interest level is high – Give me a little time please). 

Totally amazing. 

Here's some more transcription of Chavez' speech:

The world tyrant's statement, cynical, hypocritical, full of his imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything. They say they want to impose a democratic model? But that's their [emphasis translator's] democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites and I would say a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotlese [name used by translator] might not recognize it. Or others who are at the root of democracy. What type of democracy do you impose with Marines and bombs and…

The President of the United States yesterday said to us right here in this room and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look you hear extremists telling you you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror, and martyrdom." Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother, he looks at your color and he says, 'oh, there's an extremist.' Evo Morales, the worthy President of  Bolivia looks like an extremist to him. The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists, it's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over and people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear World Dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare. Because the rest of us are standing up. All of us are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

Break time, more later. 

The President then – and this he said himself – I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East to tell them that my country wants peace. That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city – San Antonio – San Francisco, and we ask individuals  – citizens of the United States – 'What does this country want? Does it want peace?', they'll say yes. But the government doesn't want peace, the government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war. It wants peace but what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last hundred years in Latin America and in the world? And its now threatening Venezuela, new threats against Venezuela. Against Iran.  

Another break. Little Guy needs an escort to the bus stop for kindergarden. Will be back shortly with more. (12:30 CDT)  

Back …

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen  how your homes and communities have been caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie. Shamefacedly. The bomb in Beriut? With milimetric [translator's word] precision? This is crossfire? He's thinking of a Western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire. This is imperialist fire, fascist, assasin, genocidal. The empire and Israel fire on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened and now we hear we're suffering because we see the homes destroyed.

More coming.

Continue reading →

James Taranto at Opinion Journal missed something today I think and he doesn't often miss anything.

He noted two stories in different papers speaking about arresting, detaining, or otherwise holding a head of state when said head of state arrives in a particular country:

 Arrested Developments

"Those who recognize the Iranian threat are left with the law-enforcement option. Police Commissioner Kelly, District Attorney Morgenthau, or any enterprising federal prosecutor or G-Man has a perfect opportunity at hand to seize Mr. Ahmadinejad and to hold him as a material witness or even as a suspect."–editorial, New York Sun, Sept. 19

"Employees of Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs, or Diyanet, presented a petition to the [Turkish] Justice Ministry asking it to launch a probe into the pope's remarks and to detain him when he arrives, the Anatolian news agency said. They said the pontiff had violated Turkish laws upholding freedom of belief and thought by 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed."–Reuters, Sept. 19

I think what he missed was the last sentence of the second quote above:

They said the pontiff had violated Turkish laws upholding freedom of belief and thought by 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. (emphasis mine)

How free is the freedom of belief and thought if 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed are not covered by such freedom? How is it that the Head of State of the Vatican, Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, speaking in Germany can violate the laws of Turkey?

Granted, the emperor he was quoting was from Constantiople which is modern day Istanbul, but still…

If your laws uphold freedom of belief and thought then those laws should cover all belief and thought, not only belief and thought that you agree with.

Dontcha be forgettin' now that it be [tag]Talk Like a Pirate Day[/tag]!

So don't be a land lubber and get out there with yer mug of grog and Talk Like a Pirate!

On September 17, 1787 the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. The National Archives and Records Administration celebrates this important day in our nation's history by presenting the following activities, lesson plans, and information. We encourage teachers and students at all levels to learn more about our Constitution and government.

The First Amendent reads as follows: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Let's break this down into it's constituent parts shall we?

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's also remember that the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Restrictions can – and in a place that follows the rule of law, must – be placed. For example, your right of free speech is restricted in that you may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Your right to peaceably assemble ends when you try to assemble on my private property. 

And a final point: Congress herein means federal House and Senate (and bills signed by the President into law). States can make all sorts of laws regarding each of these six issues as long as making such laws is not contrary to that state's own constitution.

The Vermont Constitution states:

Article 3rd. Freedom in religion; right and duty of religious worship (notes)

That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

So, you can be whatever religion you want, but if you are Christian, you should go to Church on Sundays.

1. Congress (federal) can not make a law to establish the Church of the United States. (In my mind that would include the first church of atheism). This clause was added so that United States would not follow England's example and have a Church of England situation with a King or Queen as titular head of said church.

2. Congress (federal) can not make a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion. (Legal restrictions can, again, be placed on this. For example human sacrifice is against the law. You may not practice that even if your religion calls for it. Polygamy is against the law. You may not practice it even if your religion calls for it.)

3. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the freedom of speech. (There are legal restrictions. As noted above, one can not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The safety of the patrons outweighs your free speech rights).

Alaska's Constitution says this best I think:

SECTION 5. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

So, say or write what you will, but be prepared to take responsibility and the consequences should you abuse that right. 

4. Congress can not make a law abridging the freedom of the press. The press have the right to print what they want. This is restricted by laws regarding libel and slander. The press do not have the right to get in your face and ask questions. If they are on your property (or other private property) you can tell them to go away. If they won't, you can have the police remove them. They can ask questions but do not have the right to an answer. There is no special privilege for journalists to keep secrets. Doctors/Patient and Attorney/Client relationships are covered by privilege. Journalist/informant relationships are not.

5. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Once again, the federal government can not make a law. A municipality has the right to require a permit if they so desire. A municipality may want to know when and where an assembly may be held in order to schedule police presence and perhaps even close off streets to accomodate crowds.

6. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. One is able to petition the Government without fear of reprisals.  

These are all my own thoughts on the First Amendment, memories of High School civics courses (lo these many years ago), and recent readings all over the Web… 

*made up number – lost count long ago… (partial transcript)

Gregory: As you well know, this is not a campaign season about whether America is a great place or not, right? I mean it's a lot more substantive than that and it has to do with the path that this president took the country after 9/11. Now when a Republican leader of Congress says 'I wonder if democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American people.' [ed note: actual quote is 'I wonder if they're more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American People.' This was said by John Boehner in response to what Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday that Bush was “more consumed by staying the course in Iraq and playing election-year politics.” source] As a spokesman for the President, do you think that it's your duty to say that's out of bounds, or not?

Snow: Frankly again, this is one of these things. I haven't even seen the Boehner statement. But let me make a larger point. When people call the President a liar or a loser – that happens -there have been all sorts of names and smears aimed at the President and he understands and is a big enough boy to deal with that. The other thing is that in this present political season unfortunately there will be a lot of it. There will be some name calling. You know what? I think you and I agree. Let's figure out what the substantive issues are, let's get past the name calling, and let's get down to it and let's talk about it.

Gregory: But this is important because as a matter of fact the Vice President said over the weekend to Tim Russert that the sort of debate we're having in this country about withdrawing troops from Iraq emboldens the terrorists. Now you have a Republican leader of Congress saying the Democrats may be more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people. Does the President agree with that? 

Snow: The President, What you've done is you've taken two things. Let's focus on what the Vice President said which is that withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists. And it's true. Osama Bin Ladin has made it clear. And one of things he says is that if the United States is pushed from Iraq it will be to the eternal humiliation of the United States. So it is clear that from the standpoint of Bin Ladin, who in the past – you've quite kindly corrected me on a misstatement back in August when I got it wrong – Bin Ladin drew the conclusion when we left Somalia that the Americans didn't have what it took to stick it out. See, that's the way that the enemy is looking at this. So as an objective statement about the way in which Bin Ladin views the United States, that is a true statement. I'm not going to get into trying to characterize what John Boehner said.

Gregory: You certainly would get into if somebody accused the President of being a liar. You want to let a statement like this stand from a Republican leader of Congress?

Snow: You're presenting me with a statement that I haven't seen. I'll tell you what. I'll get back to you on it.

Gregory: It's been out for a couple of hours. I think you've had ample time to see it. Let me ask you this final point. Can you describe how it's possible to oppose the President on the war in Iraq without emboldening the terrorists? 

Snow: There are probably… Yes, absolutely. There are ways to do it but also if you say we need to leave, right now, without preconditions, and I'm not sure anybody says that but I give you a hypothetical, that would embolden the terrorists. If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself that would embolden the terrorists. If the terrorists have the ability, if the terrorists draw the conclusion that they can use political means – because they defeat us militarily, so it has to be a political battle – if they can use political means to drive us from Iraq and make Iraq a place from which – like Afghanistan before – they can mount terrorist attacks and set up their own headquarters and this time have in addition, oil as a weapon, then that, in fact, is the kind of situation that we can't let stand. But there are ways of disagreeing. You can disagree over a lot of things. If you share the objective, of having an Iraq – this is what's kind of interesting about the debate last night because if you look at the President's speech, he talks about an Iraq that's going to be able to be democratic. I don't know that that's controversial with anybody. An Iraq where Iraqi forces are going to be able to defend Iraqi ground. I don't that that's controversial. I think those are the things. So to answer your question – I want to get back to this – to answer your question, it is possible to disagree, but on the other hand, if you are proposing a position that says to Bin Ladin in effect 'Iraq is yours' then that is not the kind of thing that I think is going to lead to victory.

Gregory: Do Democrats want to protect terrorists more than the American people? What do you think?

Snow:  Again, you know I know you think that in the last hour – I had an hour to prepare because we had long meetings – 

Gregory: Forget about what Boehner said.  I'm putting the proposition to you. Do you have an opinion on that topic?

Snow: Do I think, no I think…

Gregory:  Democrats are more interested in protecting the terrorists than the American people. What do you think?

Snow: No.  

Welcome Gateway Pundit readers! Have a look around…