Posted on 12/06/2006 2:06:31 PM PST by Sabramerican
JOHN Bolton's resignation as the American ambassador to the United Nations makes it official: The Bush administration is now drifting idly toward a mixture of centrism and impotence.
In less than a month, two of President Bush's stronger and more independent aides - Donald Rumsfeld and Bolton - have been dispatched. Rumsfeld's designated successor, former CIA head Robert Gates, is a leading member of the Beltway's permanent bureaucracy.
The administration seems to be waiting for the Baker-Hamilton commission of old Washington hands to dictate U.S. policy on Iraq. Leaks from the commission suggest it will recommend a gradual U.S. withdrawal camouflaged by negotiations with Iran and Syria over a new Mideast grand bargain.
All of this feeds an exaggerated defeatism in the United States over Iraq.
.....
Rumsfeld's abrupt firing was an act of flagrant disloyalty to a loyal subordinate. The defense secretary had made his share of mistakes - notably, his failure to crush looting immediately after the fall of Baghdad - but he had followed the president's policy faithfully.
.......
We don't know for certain the reasons for Bolton's departure: Either the White House wasn't prepared to fight for him, or he was no longer prepared to lend his voice to the diplomatic charade over Iran and North Korea. Either way, his departure demonstrates timidity on the administration's part. The net result will be that Bush has one less loyal subordinate in the shrinking ranks of his own administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
That 60% is a large number.
The final numbers for Arizona were just released in this mornings paper, we hit exactly 60% this election. I think our propositions had a lot to do with the turnout.
We should never forget it was the eagle eye of Freepers that caught Dan Rathers deception.
Ya know, it just doesn't have to be this way. This man could still do so much. I know he has a good heart, but he just isn't seeing the world for the way it really is. He could still do so much. President Bush is such a good man. As much as I hate some of his positions on things like the border, it really breaks my heart how he has been so attacked. The Dems are wuss's (wussis? wusses?).
They have had everything given to them. They have not had to really fight for what they have won. They, in some ways, are winning the same way the terrorists are. They have faced opponents that have laid down and rolled over, that have not fought the good fight. Have not been unified. The Bush family are really good people, though I don't agree with them in a lot of ways. They are not conservatives. But President Bush could still have a productive two years. Everything depends on attitude. So, we just keep "prayin!"
Term limits would be the way to go. Two terms, house and senate. And it should be a federal law, all states. If it's good enough for the president, it should be good enough for the others. Oh, and their pay should be reflected. 165K per year isn't what we send them there for.
Abraham Lincoln was prescient when he wrote:
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger?... All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years...At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - (Abraham Lincoln - Lyceum Address, 1838)
btw, I don't want to give the impression that he was a complete loss. He was consistently pro-life, and never EVER let the troops down.
Now we've got a communist in his place. Sigh......
I just think he sold himself out because he was in D.C. too long. He lost his soul along the way.
I can't remember who, but I rememeber scanning the post like "he wasn't so bad and now we're stuck with (can't remember the name). It was in a rant, like that.
DC has a way of stealing most men's souls the longer they are there, which is why I agree with you on term limits.
Because people are jaded when it comes to politics, and logic dictates that they be made unjaded.......if Nancy Pelosi want to solidify her San Fran base, let her; she gains nothing essentially.
If we capture our core voters, and find a way to capture what I call the middle masses, good things are going to happen; bet on it.
It's like hearding ants.
There is a solution to every problem or challenge.
Now I am depressed. How true those words.
Heartfelt Amen!
Unfortunately it won't happen because Congress will never limit its own power.
Can you imagine the likes of Byrd and Kennedy supporting a Constitutional amendment to limit their power? Not a chance.
"Are you just playing dumb or are you really that stupid?
We all saw your remark about me to Sawdring. When you post about me behind my back and it's called to my attention, you can bet your sorry A$$ I'm going to have something to say about it.
It's considered common courtsey on FR to PING the person you're trashing, not that common courtesy would matter to you.
You have a real attitude problem and evidently a real "Johnson" on about the women on this forum. Are you posting from a tiny den in your basement to get away from your wife???"
"To: Sawdring; uncbob
He needs to give China an ultimatum that they either back the U.S. politically or the U.S. breaks the global economy and cuts the Chinese off at the knees economically by signing an across the board trade embargo of Chinese goods and services.
Brilliant! Demand that the Chief Executive of the U.S.A. singlehandedly destabilize the US, China, EU, Korea(s), and Japan. Not to mention the middle east, specifically KSA that got summoned to China over an energy agreement. And thank you for pinging the Desperate Housewives Club from their echo-chamber.
195 posted on 12/06/2006 8:53:21 PM CST by ARealMothersSonForever"
Absolutely no mention of ANYBODY by name.
Sometimes getting rid of the "RINO" gives you the devil.
There's no way in heck the Congress would go for term limits. And the U.S. Supreme Court has told individual states that it cannot impose term limits on their congressmen, so you couldn't do a state-by-state method of making all states have congressional term limits.
Basically, the only option left is a convention called by the states themselves. That's pretty much as impossible as all of the other options.
Too bad we can't all vote on term limits and line item vetos. We'd be a better country for it.
I fear you are correct. But, we need it now more than ever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.