Showing posts with label ABC's This Week. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABC's This Week. Show all posts

Monday, July 27, 2015

[VIDEO] Planned Parenthood President: ‘Militant’ Group Using ‘Sensationalized Videos’ to Smear Us

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards appeared on This Week Sunday morning and defended the women’s health organization against undercover videos released in the past two weeks purporting to show officials attempting to sell fetal organs for profit, something group strongly denies.
“This has been a three-year, well-funded effort by the most militant wing of the anti-abortion movement of this country to entrap doctors,” Richards said. “They were completely unsuccessful [at entrapping doctors], so now they’re using very highly edited videos, sensationalized videos, to try to impugn and smear the name of Planned Parenthood. They have zero credibility.”
Planned Parenthood in rare cases arranges the transfer of fetal tissue for medical research purposes, but denied it sold body parts for profit or altered its procedures in any way to make the sales more viable.
“If there’s no financial benefit to the clinics, why are they haggling over the cost?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“They’re not,” Richards said. “The only people that are haggling in these videos are the undercover folks…It’s completely taken out of context.”
Richards repeatedly maintained that the clinics did not benefit financially from the sale of fetal tissue, stressing that Planned Parenthood was 100% non-profit and that any money that changed hands was merely to cover transport costs. “This entire effort is a complete political smear campaign to cut off funding for basic health care for women in America,” she said.
She also defended the decision of woman to allow fetal tissue to be sold, which she said was a rare transaction anyway. “This isn’t something that should be criticized, this is laudable, that woman and their families choose to make fetal tissue donations in order to potentially save lives of other folks,” Richards said.

Monday, November 25, 2013

Sunday Show Round Up - Kerry defends deal with Iran that eases sanctions

Secretary of State John Kerry took to the airwaves to defend the Iran-P5+1 diplomatic deal that was reached in Geneva early Sunday morning.
“This negotiation is not the art of fantasy or the art of the ideal, it’s the art of the possible, which is verifiable and clear in its capacity to be able to make Israel and the region safer,” Kerry said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“The fact is that Iran’s ability to break out will expand under this program. Therefore, Israel will be safer, the region will be safer, Iran’s 20 percent uranium will be destroyed, therefore they are safer. Iran’s 3.5 percent uranium stock will be frozen at its current level and the centrifuges will not be able to be installed in places that could otherwise be installed and advance the program.”
Despite Kerry’s assurances, many lawmakers and foreign leaders have already expressed frustration and concern at the deal.
A key issue for critics, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), concerns the dismantling of centrifuges. Last night Graham tweeted, “Unless the agreement requires dismantling of the Iranian centrifuges, we really haven’t gained anything.”
Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) echoed that worry this morning during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” arguing, that Iran had been given “a permission slip to continue enrichment.”
“That’s the one thing the whole world was trying to stop them from doing. … We made this mistake in Pakistan. We made this mistake in North Korea. History is a great judge here and a great teacher, why would you make the same mistake to a nation that will proliferate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East if they are successful at getting a nuclear weapon,” Rogers said.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

[VIDEO]Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: 'We All Knew' Obama's Health Care Pledge Wasn't Accurate

"YOU KNOW AND DID NOT SAY ANYTHING WHICH IS STILL A LIE OF OMISSION"
Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand wasn’t surprised when Americans began to get letters saying their health insurance policies had been canceled.
Mrs. Gillibrand, New York Democrat, said Sunday that President Obama simply should have been “more specific” when he declared that those people who liked their insurance could keep it, a pledge that clearly has been broken amid growing reports of Americans being booted from their plans because the insurance policies don’t comply with the standards in Obamacare.
“We all knew,” Mrs. Gillibrand said on ABC’s “This Week,” referencing the fact that she and many others were fully aware that Obamacare would result in cancellations.
Gillibrand: "No, we all knew. The whole point of the plan is to cover things people need, like preventive care, birth control, pregnancy. How many women, the minute they get pregnant, might have risked their coverage, how many women paid more because of their gender because they might get pregnant? Those are the reforms that we have to fix.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Guest lineups for the Sunday news shows

Guest lineups for the Sunday TV news shows:
ABC's "This Week" _ Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J.; Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas; Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.
___
NBC's "Meet the Press" _ Secretary of State John Kerry; Christie, Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn.; Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md.
___
CBS' "Face the Nation" _ Christie; Leon Panetta, former defense secretary and CIA director.
___
CNN's "State of the Union" _ Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan.; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.; Reince Priebus, Republican National Committee chairman.
___
"Fox News Sunday" _ Christie.

Monday, November 4, 2013

[VIDEO] Former Obama Administration Official: Obama Will ‘Pay Price’ For Healthcare Promise Reversal

This morning on “This Week,” Crossfire co-host Van Jones, a former Obama administration official, said the president would “pay a price,” for reversing course on his now famous promise that those Americans who like their plans could keep them if them if they wished under Obamacare.
“”And he overpromised.  And he will, listen, he will pay a price. ‘Mission accomplished,’ you pay a price. ‘No new taxes,’ you pay a price. ‘You keep your plan,’ you pay a price,” Jones said.
During his appearance on the “This Week,” roundtable Jones also tweaked the Obama administration for being too ambitious with Healthcare.gov, which has been plagued by problems since its launch last month.
“First of all, they tried to do too much on this website, you could just have the website where you allow people to shop and then they could just call in, I mean, they tried to do too much and I think part of it was because it was a central thing they did, they tried to do too much,” he said.
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, who appeared on “This Week,” defended the president.
“If the president didn’t intend to keep this promise, why would he have gone out of his way to put a provision in the law that specifically says that if you have a plan before Obamacare passed, you can keep that plan,” he asked.
Jones also took the Republicans to task for what he described as hypocritical behavior.
“It is amazing to me now to see the Republican party now become the party of Ralph Nader. They’re the biggest consumer protection operation in the world now but 6 months ago, we had people who were getting these same cancellation notices and the Republican party was silent,” Jones said.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

[VIDEO] Graham Calls on Ryan and Boehner to Pass Bill That Would Not Delay, Defund Obamacare

Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) today called on Representative Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) to take on a leadership roll in negotiations over the government shutdown.

Speaking on ABC’s This Week, Graham told host George Stephanopoulos that he believed Ryan should partner with Speaker John Boehner to pass something “that doesn’t delay or defund [Obamacare], but would be good government.”

“That’s the best thing for the Republican party and for the country,” Graham said. “But as between House and Senate Republicans, the sooner this is over, the better for us, guys.”

Ryan has come to the fore lately in negotiations; last week, Ryan published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that proposed a compromise that would trade relief from the sequester for entitlement reform.


Thursday, October 3, 2013

No Retreat, No Surrender

Republicans have partially planned and partially blundered into a government shutdown, and they appear to have no clear exit strategy. For now, many of them think it has become a test of their manhood. If they blink and pass a “clean” spending bill, they will lose face and enter talks over the looming mid-October debt-ceiling fight in a weakened position.

“We’re not going to be disrespected,” Representative Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican, told the Washington Examiner. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” That kind of thinking doesn’t inspire confidence.

Timing is everything. For now, Republicans are holding together, but in about a week the financial markets are likely to go down, putting immense pressure on Republicans to abandon the shutdown fight. In 2011, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than 15 percent over a three-week period during that fall’s budget and debt-ceiling fight.

Deeply ingrained in the psyche of every congressional Republican is the government shutdown of 1995, for which Republicans were blamed. While many Republicans now believe the shutdown was a mistake, more think the problem was that the party lost its nerve.

Former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos, now host of ABC’s This Week, has validated that view. In his memoir, he wrote that Democrats, until then holding out against the Republicans’ budget-limiting efforts, were close to blinking. “Clinton was grumpy, the rest of us were grim,” until suddenly news came that Senate majority leader Bob Dole and House speaker Newt Gingrich were blinking first. “Whether the cause was hubris, naïveté, or a failure of nerve,” Stephanopoulos explained, “the Republicans had blown their best chance to splinter our party; from that point on, everything started breaking our way.”


Monday, September 9, 2013

[VIDEO] TED CRUZ MAKES THE CASE AGAINST ATTACKING SYRIA

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) appeared on ABC’s “This Week” to make the case against military action in Syria.  He began by citing two major arguments against President Obama’s proposed intervention: “One, because I think the Administration is proceeding with the wrong objective; and two, because they have no viable plan for success.”
Cruz said the proposed attack would not have the objective of “defending U.S. national security,” protecting American lives, or defending our allies.  Instead, it has been explicitly framed as a military intervention to defend “amorphous international norms,” which Cruz does not see as a proper role for the U.S. military.
He suggested some other ways the United States could express disapproval of Assad’s gruesome tactics, such as threatening to cut U.S. aid to Iraq unless the Iraqis stop allowing Iranian supply flights to pass through their airspace en route to Syria.  Cruz also advised forcing a U.N. Security Council vote to condemn the Assad regime, in the full knowledge that Russia and China would veto the motion, and respond with various measures to punish and isolate those nations for standing with the Syrian dictator.  Itdoes seem foolish to allow Russia to effectively veto U.N. condemnation of Syria with the mere threat of a veto.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

SUNDAY SHOWS: Republicans Tee Off on Libya


On Sunday's political talk shows, several Republicans criticized the Obama administration's response to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Here's Senator John McCain of Arizona on CBS's Face the Nation:
You know, this administration is very good at touting and giving all the details like when they got Bin Laden. But now, we know that there were tapes, recordings inside the consulate during this fight, and they've gotten—they came—the F.B.I. finally got in and took those, and now they're classified as "top secret." Why would they be top secret? So the president went on various shows, despite what he said he said in the Rose Garden, about terrorist acts, he went on several programs, including "The View" including "Letterman" including before the U.N., where he continued to refer, days later, many days later, to this as a spontaneous demonstration because of a hateful video. We know that is patently false. What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?
McCain said for "literally days and days" the White House "told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever."
Newt Gingrich, on ABC's This Week:
But the bigger issue is, whether it’s unemployment or it is what happened in Benghazi, where we’ve had this strange situation over the weekend that the Secretary of Defense apparently refused to obey the President’s order, if the president is telling the truth and he actually instructed his assistants to get aid to Benghazi, we're now being told that the Secretary of Defense canceled that. And I think these kinds of things all drag down the Obama campaign.
Ohio senator Rob Portman talked on Fox News Sunday about a "shocking breakdown" with regard to the Obama administration's response:
This is not about politics.  This is about a huge national security issue that affects all of us and there was a shocking breakdown, operationally, not to have the security there in the first place.   And then not to respond to these guys, in their pleas for help for 7 hours, during a firefight.  It’s unbelievable and now, we are hearing that the president of the United States, based on his own words, issued a directive immediately after he found out about the firefight, saying that he wanted to be sure those people on the ground were safe and they were getting what they needed.  It didn't happen.  This means either that the president's order was not followed, which would be a breakdown in terms of the White House procedure, or, it means the order wasn’t issued.  We need to find out about this, it is not about politics, it is a very serious situation.  After the fact, of course, there’s also been a lot of confusion about what happened and why it happened.

Cutter: Des Moines Register endorsement not based 'in reality’


Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter on Sunday dismissed the Des Moines Register endorsement of GOP candidate Mitt Romney, saying it was not “based at all in reality.”
“They endorsed Mitt Romney in the primary, so this was not much of a surprise,” said Cutter on ABC’s “This Week” of the influential swing-state paper’s backing for President Obama’s challenger.
“It was a little surprising to read that editorial, because it didn't seem to be based at all in reality, not just in the president's record, but in Mitt Romney's record,” Cutter added. “It says that he'd reach across the aisle, which he'd do the exact opposite. It's the exact opposite of what he did in Massachusetts.”
Romney on late Saturday received the endorsement of the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest newspaper. 
The paper which had backed Obama in 2008 and not endorsed a Republican nominee in 40 years said Romney would be better at building bipartisan compromises in Washington. 


Sunday, September 16, 2012

Obama Administration: No Security Lapse In Libya


"The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place."


Susan Rice, the Obama administration's UN ambassador, said this morning on ABC's This Week that the Benghazi consulate, where four Americans were killed on September 11, had the level of security the State Department thought was needed.
"The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place," Rice told ABC's Jake Tapper. "We'll see when the investigation unfolds whether what transpired in Benghazi might have unfolded differently in different circumstances."
"We had substantial presence," Rice said, "with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans there killed were providing security. That was their function. And indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them. It obviously didn't prove sufficient to the nature of the attack and sufficient in that moment." 
Rice did not say how many U.S. security personnel were at the consulate in Benghazi.
Here's a transcript of the exchange between Rice and Tapper: 
TAPPER: Why was there such a security breakdown? Why was there not better security at the compound in Benghazi? Why were there not U.S. Marines at the embassy in Tripoli?
AMB. RICE: First of all, we had substantial presence with our --
TAPPER: Not substantial enough --

Via: The Weekly Standard

Continue Reading... 

Popular Posts