Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Bush is eating in my undisclosed location (UPDATE: Undisclosed location is IRAQ!)
Eyes on ^ | 271830(C)NOV03 | ChiefKujo

Posted on 11/27/2003 7:37:26 AM PST by ChiefKujo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,901-1,9201,921-1,9401,941-1,960 ... 1,981-1,992 next last
To: billbears
I guess you guys must just be venting. can't find anything so negative about dole to cause your posts. You guys must have access to info I'm not privy to.
1,921 posted on 11/29/2003 7:44:34 PM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1919 | View Replies]

To: temijin; billbears
"You guys must have access to info I'm not privy to."

Give you a hint; the very first legislation introduced by Ms. Dole was a government special interest spending bill.

1,922 posted on 11/29/2003 8:10:37 PM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1921 | View Replies]

To: temijin
Things I thank Elizabeth Dole for each and every day

As Secretary of the DOT she:

Forced the states to push through mandatory seat belt laws
Forced the automobile industry to institute air bags and third brake lights
Forced the states to raise the drinking age
Forced the states against the advice of the Reagan administration to maintain a 55 speed limit

This woman has nothing better to do than to make sure we're all tied into our cars the way she sees fit. She's a control freak. Other than that, she's ambivalent on abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, etc. Should fit right in to the 'new' Republican party

1,923 posted on 11/29/2003 8:11:58 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1921 | View Replies]

To: billbears
she should be hung for these attrocties, I had no idea, "sestbelts" really mien gott.
1,924 posted on 11/29/2003 8:17:18 PM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1923 | View Replies]

To: temijin
sounds like transportation issues to me must have been doing her job.
1,925 posted on 11/29/2003 8:19:08 PM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1924 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"...she's ambivalent on abortion,.."

If there's one issue Elizabeth Dole is expert at ducking, it's abortion. So when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked her what her position was, during a January interview to hype her presidential hopes a day after her resignation as Red Cross chief, she had an evasive sound bite ready. "It's an important issue. There are many other important issues. But I do feel that's for another day, Wolf," she said.

1,926 posted on 11/29/2003 8:29:16 PM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1923 | View Replies]

To: temijin
By requiring the states to enforce laws within their border that don't have a thing to do with the national government? You and I have a serious difference in the way we see the powers of the national government

The seat belt laws have been nothing more than tax gathering opportunities. As for the air bags and third brake light issue, do you really believe it is the right of the national government to tell private industry how to run its business? Especially when such 'essentials' push up the price of vehicles. That's our Giddy, passing the savings right onto you....

1,927 posted on 11/29/2003 8:54:01 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1925 | View Replies]

To: billbears
As far as transportation safety is concerned we lost that battle along time ago and she had nothing to do with it. When the feds cut federal funds for states that didn't enforce helmet laws, signed by nixon. I see her as someone who picks her fights and wins the fight she picks. If she's going to be fighting I want her on my side.
1,928 posted on 11/29/2003 9:28:00 PM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1927 | View Replies]

To: billbears
She didn't start the trend of legislating risk. It's prevalant in every aspect of our society. I personaly hate to be told when I can or can not take a calculated risk. But there are more important battles to fight. She has chosen not to make public her views on abortion, may or may not be a smart move. I think I have a pretty good idea which way she leans
1,929 posted on 11/30/2003 2:52:28 AM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1927 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
[Cheney's] prognosis in 2000 was ok for four years, but as he approaches 8 years, I wonder...) Condi would make a great vp, don'tcha think?

1. I didn't know about Cheney's prognosis, but the thing about those life-expectancy tables is that they roll forward. The green-eyeshade guys will give a 77-year-old smoker about two years, maybe three. If they come back and check him in three years and he's still ambulatory and still smoking, they'll give him 18 months to two and a half years, something like that. They've always got a line on everything, like stockbrokers, but they roll with the punches and give you a second story every time -- like stockbrokers.

But I take your point. Looking to Beastproof the succession in 2008, Bush might put someone else on the ticket in 2004. But there are still a couple of problems with that.

a. Do you just dismiss Cheney? He has his own power base and his own constituency among what conservative political scientist James Q. Wilson once called the "audience", in order to distinguish the people that a politician really performs for, from the mooks who merely elect him. Cheney has a following in the upper reaches of the Wall Street Wing, and those guys, who made Bush, would have a lot to say about replacing Cheney. So would Cheney -- and his wife Lynne, who's a major player in her own right. The Cheneys are one of the heaviest-hitting couples in the country, along with the Doles, the Clintons, the Greenspans, the Schwarzeneggers, and (formerly) the Gramms and the Guilianis (when he was married to Donna Hanover) -- and I'm sure you could think of others.

b. I've seen evidences that Cheney has more real power than any VP in history, and that he may be a de facto prime minister, an unacknowledged head of government who shares Bush's responsibilities -- and authority. E.g., when the Niger-and-uranium story was under consideration for inclusion in the 2003 State of the Union address, it was Cheney's office that was vetting the story, and his office that called in the CIA. Why Cheney's people? Were they staffing the President? It was Bush's speech. Or did Bush just give it, like the Queen opening Parliament? Does enough power and functionality flow through Cheney's office, that it would be impracticable to replace him? b. Where do you go for Cheney's replacement? You have to keep Wall Street and the senior gray eminences happy. But at the same time, you have to have someone electable, someone (preferably) with a track record in campaigning. You wouldn't want another Dan Quayle. (Notwithstanding his good qualities, he was easy meat for the Left journopolemicists -- too easy.)

I think what Bush would do instead would be to campaign for reelection with Cheney again, and then let Cheney retire and Colin Powell be sworn in as VP. Putting Colin Powell in the Naval Observatory digs would be a direct attack on the shuck-and-jive crowd's stranglehold on the black vote.

And I wonder if they will spring it on us during the convention without any hints before hand.

I hope not. That would inculcate the idea that GOP conventions are just coronations and PR events -- and the networks would continue to drop coverage. That would be bad for a number of reasons: scandalization of the electorate, demoralization of the Party base (who might get to thinking that it might have been nice if they had at least been consulted), and so on.

1,930 posted on 11/30/2003 4:28:11 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1910 | View Replies]

To: billbears
She sounds like a RINO from the Olympia Snowe-Susan Collins
part of the Republican party.
1,931 posted on 11/30/2003 5:26:16 AM PST by jragan2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1923 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Cheyney can do most of his jobs as a National Security adviser...

But the job of the VP is not advising the president etc etc..it is beoming president in case the president dies...and THIS is where the VP's bad heart comes into the discussion...Would he be able to take over the presidency with a bad heart? Would he live out the term?

No body is talking about it, since Bush is in good health, but I think it needs to be discussed...

My solution: Make Cheyney a National Security advisor, and make Condi VP...
1,932 posted on 11/30/2003 5:32:42 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1930 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Speaking of Colin Powell and the Black Vote, President Bush
has done much more do promote Blacks (well-qualified I must
say) to key positions in his cabinet than his predecessor
did while he was in the White House.
1,933 posted on 11/30/2003 5:33:39 AM PST by jragan2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1930 | View Replies]

To: ChiefKujo
The President landed in a Gulfstream at BIAP, not in the 747.

Did the 747 also land?

1,934 posted on 11/30/2003 7:51:31 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1903 | View Replies]

To: patriciamary
DITTO!
1,935 posted on 11/30/2003 8:54:37 AM PST by PROTESTBYPROXY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1902 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
No need for the 747, a G-5 can carry the number of people on the trip.

My comment was in relation to fuel. A G-5 has the fuel capacity to make the trip but I question if it can carry a full fuel load with that number of passengers, just a question, I don't know and haven't gone to their web site to check stats.
1,936 posted on 11/30/2003 9:17:02 AM PST by dalereed (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1934 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Something is strange here. One of the pool reporters wrote a detailed account, which can be found here on FreeRepublic (search "pool"). He states that they disembarked one Air Force one at Andrews and got on the second 747 used as AF1, and says that he saw the Prez get on as well. However, upon takeoff in Texas and landing at Andrews, the compartment door was closed so that the press could not see the Prez's arrival and departure.

He doesn't state whether the door was also closed when the flight was about to leave Andrews for Baghdad, but if it was closed, perhaps the Prez boarded in view of the press, and then got back off and boarded a Gulfstream? Otherwise we'd have to believe the entire pool of reporters agreed to not report the fact that they switched planes somewhere along the journey.

Also in the account, the pool reporter describes a question of the Communications Director regarding what designator the plane was flying under (Air Force 1 or something else). The Comm. Dir. responded to the effect that this plane was not flying as AF1. Perhaps the conspiracy theorist in me is reading to much into his use of this...or am I missing something else?

1,937 posted on 11/30/2003 9:28:03 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1936 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Possibly there was 2 aircraft involved. That would account for the British pilots communication regarding AF-1 and a response of no, G-5 which would be a fib since if Bush was aboard the G-5 it would be AF-1. If the reporters were on the 747 it wouldn't be AF-1. With only Bush and maybe a couple others on board the G-5 there is no question that it could make the trip non stop.

Guess we'll have to wait to see if ChiefKujo will give us a more detailed report, if he's allowed to!
1,938 posted on 11/30/2003 9:43:45 AM PST by dalereed (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1937 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I doubt that we are going to get any correct answers from the media!
1,939 posted on 11/30/2003 9:45:26 AM PST by dalereed (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1937 | View Replies]

To: temijin
I see her as someone who picks her fights and wins the fight she picks

Whatever. If that fight takes the power out of the hands of the states and puts it in the hands of the national government, then she's the person you want at the front of the battle. However, if you love freedom and respect the rights of the states to maintain their internal affairs as they see fit then she's probably not the best person to pick as a leader

personaly hate to be told when I can or can not take a calculated risk. But there are more important battles to fight

Not many there aren't. Because if you allow Washington DC to tell you what is and what isn't a risk, it's not so far down the road for them to tell you what you can and cannot say or do, for fear of 'risk'

Re: abortion. I think I have a pretty good idea which way she leans

I do as well, which is another mark against her ever being a conservative

1,940 posted on 11/30/2003 10:10:15 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1928 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,901-1,9201,921-1,9401,941-1,960 ... 1,981-1,992 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson