Posted on 06/03/2004 7:30:15 AM PDT by cyncooper
Breaking News on Fox
***Nothing new there***
Is this the "sandbox thread" of the day?
why did he resign? for personal and financial reasons?
Well, I'm sick of the people who are gleeful when anything bad happens; they are NOT "with us."
"Bush was a fool to trust any Democrat."
That is so sad. Not one single democrat who will put the country ahead of the desire for power.
Porter Goss would be good, my second choice after RUDY!
Abu Ghraib was NOT discussed yesterday....nothing new.
What WAS new was the revelation that Pres. Bush requires the services of a personal lawyer in the Valerie Pflame/Wilson/Niger affair.
That IS directly connected to the CIA.
If MI/DIA was doing the interrogation of Abu Ghraib prisoners, then the CIA would have plausible deniability on that one.
You and oceanview are simply wrong.
Tenet will either:
1)Say NOTHING at all.
2)Support President Bush.
Count on it. This is all good for the President.
.
Sounds like fun...barbeque, steaks, a little vodka, a little tonic...
Let's face facts ... If he picked his nose the wrong way the Dems would spin it to be Bush's fault
I'm wondering if he is the source of the Wilson leak.
Right.
LOL! He is running against John Kerry! Kerry is to most Americans, especially in the south, as long fingernails are to a black board.
I've been watching "W" for years. This ain't nothing. And neither is Kerry. Bush is going to wipe the floor with this weirdo.
It's not 'glee', it's shock and amazement at the horror train wreck the Bush campaign is becoming.
That's exactly correct and I don't understand the Freepers who don't get Tenet and his loyalty to the president.
If they don't know Tenet's job, how important is the job?
LOL! That made our place come alive, hehehe. I should have made a bet here about how long it would take you to get nasty with someone. LOL!
BTTT for an interesting analysis! I like it.
I videotaped Brit Hume's interview with Michael Ledeen on Fox last night and plan to transcribe it when I get time. Ledeen minced no words when it came to what the leftist Clinton-appointed hold-overs / career - (union-backed- 99.9% Democrats) - bureacrats in the State Dept. are up to in their efforts to undermine President Bush.
TWO THINGS:
[1] ### A year ago I said that President Bush needed to "drain the Foggy Bottom Swamp". I made that comment at the same time this June 2003 article [excerpted] was posted on FR.
Back-stabbing at Foggy Bottom
townhall ^ | June 23, 2003 | Joel Mowbray
“Many people at State want to embarrass the President,” explains a State Department officiala comment echoed by others at Foggy Bottom alarmed that some of their colleagues are so brazen as to openly plot against the commander-in-chief. Some of those wishing to politically harm President Bush are now in Iraq, where the President’s vision of a free Iraq is being fought by State officials on a regular basis.
Of course much of the rhetoric could be nothing more than boastful bravadoparticularly since such comments actually help in a building teeming with people who openly despise Bush and want him to lose in 2004but State’s actions have clearly undermined the President, and it is only a matter of time until it takes a political toll. In that vein, the White House would be wise to heed the advice of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who is renewing his calls for a “top-to-bottom transformation” of Foggy Bottom.
Although Mr. Gingrich’s latest critiquean article in Foreign Policy magazinewill no doubt be labeled a “broadside,” it is a relatively modest set of concrete proposals. Chief among them is increasing language proficiency of Foreign Service Officers (FSOs), in part by offering generous bonusesso that FSOs can better communicate with the locals in the countries where they are stationed. Two other “radical” suggestions are more comprehensive continuing education programs and one-year sabbaticals after the sixth year and two-year hiatuses after the 14th year. ...
Mr. Gingrich’s proposed structural fixes of State could have a substantial impact. But it’s hard to imagine that organizational reform alone will cure State’s corrosive culture. If anything, Mr. Gingrich’s modest proposals do not go far enough in reforming Foggy Bottom. There are many talented and dynamic FSOs, but they are outnumbered by those who adhere to State’s culture, as Mr. Ginrich puts it, “that props up dictators, coddles the corrupt, and ignores secret police forces.”
If the White House and Congress fail to act on Mr. Gingrich’s recommendations, President Bush’s policy goals could be jeopardized. If they fail to go even further by bringing in fresh blood and outside leadership, the President’s political goalsnamely re-election next yearcould be jeopardized as well. ~ end
[2] ### Here is a WSJ link that will show you why Douglas Feith is one of the main ones Foggy Bottom has always had in its sights. Note that this was also written in 2003.
Clear Ideas Versus Foggy Bottom
Opinion Journal ^ | 08/05/03 | MELANIE KIRKPATRICK
Posted on 08/05/2003 12:19:53 AM EDT by Pokey78
The State Department is jealous of all the sound thinking going on at the Pentagon.
The ripest political target in Washington these days is a man who rarely gets his picture in the paper.
Douglas Feith's sin is being Donald Rumsfeld's ideas man and one of the brains behind some of the most significant foreign policy and national security advances of the Bush administration. As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Mr. Feith has transformed a once relatively obscure corner of the Pentagon into the world's most effective think tank. The fact that the president has adopted many of the ideas brewed there infuriates those who see Defense usurping a role that rightly belongs to the State Department.
Excerpted - click for full article ^ Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003840
Bush Real Target of Chalabi Smear
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20040603.shtml
Joel Mowbray - June 3, 2004
With Tenet ... I don't think so
Oh Good Lord .. Nancy Botox is on FNC now
Are we going to get Giuliani?
I consider it fact. However, I am not passionate about it in such a way that I feel the need to argue about it. It was milder way of saying: I don't care one way or the other.
And if somebody hadn't been on this thread to correct you, it would have gone unchallenged as the truth.
Well, yes. That is accurate. Of course, the truth - whatever it may be - rarely goes unchallenged even when it's true..
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.