"This normal deck of cards contains 52 different photos with 52 different reasons as to why we should re-elect President Bush."
Posted on 03/20/2004 4:50:31 AM PST by Chairman_December_19th_Society
America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country!
Good morning!!
Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of our Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!
60 Minutes is set to air a hit piece tomorrow night. They will have Richard Clarke on the air who sill say the Administration was so bent on attacking Iraq that for the first two days after September 11, that was all that was discussed. He will say that Rumsfeld remarked: "'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq." Stand by...
USA Today is acknoledging that the work of journalist Jack Kelly contained significant fabrications in at least eight major news stories. These fabrications included an interview with a boat person coming out of Cuba, that he spent the night with Egyptian terrorists in 1997, that he met a vigilante Jewish settler hamed Avi Shapiro in 2001, that he watched a Pakistani student unfold a picture of the Sears Tower and say "this one is mine" in 2001, that he interviewed the daughter of an Iraqi general in 2003, or that he went on a high-speed hunt for Osama bin Laden in 2003. Explanations of how stories were reported from Egypt, Russia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Cuba, and Pakistan--all fabricated. Indeed the story that won him a Pulitzer in 2001, where he wrote he was an eyewitness to a suicide bombing in Israel--fake. [Sourced to My Way News.] (But if he wrote anything flattering about UOx42, must have been true.) That a journalist on a left-wing newspaper would lie. Shocking. Just shocking I tell you.
The College Republicans at Roger Williams University have sparked controversy by offering a "whites only scholarship" of $250. Everyone went apolpletic. Minority groups, school officials, even the head of the RNC. One must submit a paper--"why you are proud of your white heritage"--to be considered for the prize. The effort was a parody of minority scholarships. The person undertaking the effort? He is of hispanic background.
For AMERICA - The Right Way, I remain yours in the Cause, the Chairman.
In one evening I have traced my maternal great-grandmother's family back as far as 1784 ... well, part of the family anyway.
I have some questions for those of you who have done some family research.
... I figured out very quickly that this stuff mushrooms in a hurry (e.g., my maternal great-grandmother had 9 brothers and sisters!). And that's just one branch. How do you decide who to follow? Or do you just start gathering info and inputting it as you get it and figure that you'll eventually fill in all (or, hopefully, a great deal) of the info? I'm not sure I'm asking the question in the right way to convey what I mean. Maybe those of you who have done this will know what I'm asking.
... There are several genealogy sites on the web. Are any of them worth paying for? Which ones?
Btw, most of my great-grandmother's family was from a place near Pilot Mountain, NC, which is the inspiration for Andy Griffith's Mt. Pilot. I don't know if many people realize that there really is a mountain by that name.
Here's the story Clarke may be helping the Commission Dems fly: Even though the Cole bombing happened on Clinton's watch (Oct 2000), it was really too late in his term to have reasonably expected him to do anything about it; therefore the failure to retaliate against bin Laden (and, as the story goes, to neutralize him so that 9/11 could have been prevented) is Bush's fault. I think Clarke will be there to say this, and to tell the Commission -- as [he'll be telling the world on CBS Sunday night]-- that he was Cassandra screaming for something to be done about bin Laden prior to 9/11 but he couldn't get the Bush people to listen.
The story is total BS. First, even if there had not been an unprecedented delay in resolving the 2000 presidential election, the Cole attack happened almost a month before the ELECTION, not a month before THE END OF CLINTON's TERM; he was going to be president for nearly 3 more months, and if Gore had won it would have essentially been a continuation of the same administration. If a military response was called for, it was incumbent on Clinton to respond . . . immediately. If, as happened, Bush had emerged as the winner, it would have been entirely appropriate for Clinton to coordinate what he was doing with Bush and his transition team (just as Bush 41 coordinated what he was doing in Somalia before Clinton assumed the office in 1993); but that is not an excuse for not responding. Clinton didn't do anything -- and not because he was deferring to a new admin, but because he NEVER wanted to do anything if it meant meaningful military action, and because he was too busy pardoning Mark Rich and the Weather Underground to be bothered with bin Laden.
By the time the Bush got in, it was 3 mos after the Cole, and it took another 1 to 8 mos to get the major players of his admin confirmed and in place. Further, it makes no sense to look at the Cole attack in isolation -- it was part of a pattern of attacks by a growing entity; that situation did not call for a specific retaliation for Cole but for an entire rethinking about al Qaeda. Regardless of what Clarke says, that precisely is what was done: a new counterterrorism policy was developed -- shifting from containment to eradication of al Qaeda and its sanctuaries -- and drafts were circulated at the cabinet level in June and the first week of September 2001 (the latter is virtually the same as the directive GWB signed after the 9/11 attacks). Of course 9/11 happened despite all this, but that hardly means intense rethinking and planning was not underway beforehand -- rethinking and planning that had lots to do with the spectacularly swift and decisive military campaigns post-9/11. And Clarke is certifiably insane if he thinks Bush could have garnered public support or put together a coalition BEFORE the 9/11 attacks. To do what we did required key help from countries (like Pakistan) who would not have given us that help absent the 9/11 attacks. (Think about this: We've seen the various objections to the military operation against Iraq -- and that was AFTER 9/11 and involved a country in open defiance of UN resolutions satisfaction of which were the condition for ending the first Gulf War; what do you figure the Dems, the NYT, CBS, etc. have said if Bush had decided to invade Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11?)
"This normal deck of cards contains 52 different photos with 52 different reasons as to why we should re-elect President Bush."
….. 
….. 
….. 
you still here???
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.