Posted on 06/15/2004 5:32:12 AM PDT by Mia T
winning recipe for Bush: add a dollop of New York street fighter...
he Bush camp could use a dollop of New York street fighter... that is to say, Giuliani, with McCain -- geography notwithstanding -- the backup....
Bush must drop Cheney. (Notice how the Left, these days, is uncharacteristically mute on the matter of Cheney. That should tell you something about The Cheney Effect.)
Bush is asking the wrong questions about Cheney... and about winning....
The overriding issue is not about matters personal. Bush's personal ambition (or lack thereof)... or personally loyalty... must not cloud the calculus.
The overriding issue is this: Will President George W. Bush remain loyal to the Constitution?
Preserving, protecting and defending America is the president's only charge.
We are facing annihilation now because, frankly, Dubya's dad, similarly indisposed to the notions of the street fight and a larger collective loyalty, allowed the election of clinton, profoundly, dysfunctionally, self-servingly dangerous in much the same way Kerry is profoundly, dysfunctionally, self-servingly dangerous.
George W. Bush must put aside the personal... and all conservatives must put aside the provincial. Winning this apocalyptic war is all that matters now. |
Achieving a low soldier mortality rate with a policy of artful battlefield-and-responsibility-avoidance is hardly the measure of commander-in-chief success.
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief |
|
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE) |
||
|
||
|
ohn Kerry says the war on terror is less about military might than about law enforcement.
Even if we allow for his characteristic flatulence and opportunism, John Kerry's demagogically tortured parsing of President George W. Bush's war-as-the-last-resort pledge and the fact that Kerry's list of the "real issues facing Americans" does not include the one issue, namely terrorism, that renders all other issues moot -- (health care, education and money have very limited utility to the dead)-- reveal a fundamental--and fatal--misunderstanding of America's situation.
When terrorists declare war on you and then proceed to kill you you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists or do you surrender?
Contrary to clinton/leftist-media spin, this war waged against America by the terrorists did not begin on September 11, 2001. The terrorists--bin Laden--had declared war on America repeatedly, had killed Americans repeatedly, throughout the clinton years.
Remarkably, the same terrorists hit the same WTC building in 1993, and clinton, 15 minutes away from the devastation, didn't even bother to visit the site, preferring instead to add his old bromides on the economy to the pollution along the Jersey Turnpike. (Ironically, the legacy clinton would desperately, futilely seek throughout his life was right under his nose on that day in 1993; but he was too self-absorbed--too stupid, some would say--to see it.)
And as for the September 11 attacks, they were planned in May 1998, on the clintons' watch, in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan.
The terrorists declared war on America on the clintons watch and the clintons surrendered.
Democrats, from the clintons to Kerry, reflexively choose "surrender."
President Bush chooses '"fight."
Andrew Cuomo didn't call the Democrats "clueless" for no reason. |
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004
When was the first?! We need RudyG to whup the HildaBeast's arse in the 2006 Senatorial tilt...if he wins that, he'll improve his Presidential aspirations immensely.
FReegards...MUD
That's a trick question, as yer asking me to say it's alright to sacrifice four years to get a "clean, unannointed candidate" in 2008. I honestly do not believe that winning and having Cheney on the ticket are mutually-exclusive. Come November, I realisticly expect Bush/Cheney to bring in AT LEAST 75% of the Electoral Votes...to say we've only got a 1 in 4 chance of winning with Cheney on the ticket is ludicrous to me.
FReegards...MUD
After all this time,we finally have reached a complete parting of the ways,Mia.Cheney can NOT be cut loose from the ticket! And Rudy as V.P.,though I like a lot of what he did for N.Y.C.,would make a Kerry win a certitude.He's just the wrong man for V.P. and I highly doubt that he'd even take it.He wants to be Governor of N.Y. or president.
I like Cheney very much, but I maintain that his presence on the ticket is a net loss... The reasons why Cheney on the ticket weakens the Republican position, both in 04 and 08, are obvious.
One possible compromise: The Bush 2000 veep headhunter removing himself if he determines that he is a drag on the ticket would have a certain symmetry.
While Rudy made a name as THE COUNTRY'S MAYOR, for his bravery and calm and steady hand on 9/11 and beyond,he has far too much baggage otherwise.His "broken windows" policies were fantastic,but his sidewalk gates and NO CROSS streets,STINK! And then there are his moderate stances,which either flummox or infuriate some Conservatives all over the nation.He wants to be governor and N.Y. stated needs him in that position.Maybe he will be able to reign in Albany;GOD knows that place needs someone to do it.:-)
And I certainly wouldn't put Rudy G. on the ticket. He is unqualified to lead the Party of Reagan.
One of the failures of Bush--and it may prove to be his fatal failure--is his failure to communicate. The Bush Doctrine is correct, courageous, even brilliant, but Bush never sold it to America. The Bush economic strategy is successful, but Bush doesn't adequately inform America of its success. Bush's rhetorical inadequacy leaves an informational vacuum in the electorate that the Left solicitously fills with its lies.
Cheney could have been the voice of the administration. He speaks lucidly and convincingly, but is rarely allowed to speak. Why is that? The fear, I suppose, is that if Cheney took on that role, it would confirm the Left's claim, which is that he is the one actually running the place.
And so we have one man who cannot communicate his brilliant, courageous policy, and another, who dares not communicate it. This is not a good team. It is a recipe for electoral disaster.
And by the way, the Bush ad, "pessimism never created a job" exemplifies this rhetorical lameness. The message is much too oblique, too soft. What they mean to say, I think, is that Kerry is talking down the economy (and the war) and imperiling us all.
It's time to stop pulling the punches and start telling it like it is. Giuliani would do that.
Yes, President Bush and his team haven't done and really don't do a good job of " selling". WHERE IS LEE ATWATER WHEN ONE REALLY NEEDS HIM?
The left demonize ALL GOPers,so their tarring Cheney with Halliburton is really no biggie.Why? Because they do it so heavy handedly, that the majority of the great unwashed haven't a clue as to what they're talking about.And as far as Cheney's being the "real" power behind the throne,that too only resonates with the kooks;both on the left and the right.
Sooooooooooo,what would Rudy bring to the ticket? A voice for the administration? No,he'd be labeled as the "new puppet master" and worse.Many people would see the change as something sinister,not to mention the fact that a lot of FREEPERS hate Rudy,because he isn't a Conservative and some here are such regionalists,that a Northerner,any Northerner,is viewed as the anti-Christ.
Cheney will do superlatively well in the debates;so will the president and most people won't even begin to pay attention,until after Labor Day.
Giulliani should replace Tennet.
Bush-Cheney 2004Jeb Bush-?? 2008
Jeb is tops, but many FReepers
just say oh, no, not another Bush.
Thanks the ping, Mia. Interesting post, hehe!
Rush discussed this in the little bit I caught today -- a caller also wanted Bush meet the naysayers head on, not ignore or avoid challenges and misstatements by the left. We've certainly been burned by "nice" Republican candidates. That's why we loved Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, who was not afraid to call evil and wrong when he saw it.
Observation: when the Bush/Cheney train came through liberal NE Ohio a few years back, the crowd was as excited to see, hoot, and holler for Cheney as it was for Bush; this was confirmed in conversations.
Thank God for Quinn and Rose out of Pittsburgh.
Check this out, ask for it to air in your area. It's a lifeline to sanity and common sense for those in liberal strongholds.
That is great news about Quinn.
So what does this--Reverse Gorelick-- have to do with Kerry, anyway? John Kerry has made it clear that he is picking up the clinton torch. Unlike Gore, (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
|
CLINTON TREASON + THE GORELICK WALL
This story merits its own book, but what deserves immediate comment is the willingness of the Clintons to risk everything to keep the cash pipeline open. Schwartz kept it open and full. Before he was through, Schwartz and Loral would donate roughly $2 million to the Clinton cause. Whether Schwartz gave additional money or favors off the books is a question that deserves asking. A second question that deserves asking is just how much damage Schwartz, Berger and the Clintons did to America's national security. A third question worth asking is whether Ron Brown's very real threats to expose these machinations led to his death. Some dare call it treason: |
e would have it backwards and miss the point entirely if we were to attribute The Gorelick Wall and the attendant metastasis of al Qaeda during the clintons' watch, (which, incidentally, was then in its incipient stage and stoppable), to the '60s liberal mindset. Rampant '60s liberalism was not the underlying rationale for The Gorelick Wall. Rather, The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism. While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding). The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style. Further confirmation of the Wall-as-cover-for-clinton-corruption thesis: Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect. The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant. Filegate and the clinton Putsch, The Common Man Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support The-Wall-as-cover-for-international-clinton-crimes thesis. Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder. Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism. As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.
"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. "Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote. The documents -- released yesterday by the Justice Department at the request of two Senate Republicans -- drew renewed calls for Ms. Gorelick to testify publicly before the September 11 commission about the so-called "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that many have blamed for allowing the 2001 terrorist attacks to occur. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said yesterday that Ms. Gorelick's policies regarding the wall contributed to "blinding America to this terrible threat." Also, he said, the newly released memos raised apparent conflicts with statements Ms. Gorelick has made recently defending herself and her role in the Clinton Justice Department. "These documents show what we've said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of 'that wall' that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies," Mr. Cornyn said. In a June 19, 1995, memo, Ms. White recommended a series of changes to a Gorelick policy that went beyond legal requirements in separating law- enforcement and intelligence agencies. Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall'
QUINN IN THE MORNING (("Reverse Gorelick" ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.
Mia T
February, 1998
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualhillary.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com
Charles Hurt and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 29, 2004
The Mary Jo White Memo:
ary Jo White's memo is documentation of the clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance. The memo explicitly warned that the protective wall the clintons and Gorelick were busy erecting (doubtless to blind domestic law enforcement to the clintons' illegal foreign schemes) would (also) blind domestic law enforcement to terrorist plots foreign and domestic. From this it follows that Gorelick's Wall was not the clintons' and Gorelick's simple (albeit monumental) blunder. Rather, Gorelick's Wall was no less than the clintons' and Gorelick's malfeasance--willful, self-serving and seditious--with the metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 the sorry endpoint. NOTE: Bin Laden declared war on America throughout the clintons' watch. Had the clintons understood that this was war, not crime, that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player, Gorelick's Wall would be just another clintoncorruption footnote. "The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden]. bill clinton It is critical to understand that this same terrorism-is-crime-not-war flawed, dangerous thinking animates John Kerry, and the left, generally. A post-9/11 America must never again put these dangerous pre-9/11 dinosaurs in any positions of leadership. To do so would be to place at grave risk no less than our very existence.
copyright Mia T 2004
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance
White's 1995 memo effectively put the clinton-Gorelick cabal on contemporaneous notice that Gorelick's Wall was placing America at grave risk from terrorism.
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
NEW virtual john kerry can bore + snowboard at the same time series
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
..... many FReepers just say oh, no, not anotherBushDemocRAT.
Bush and Cheney must take the offensive, and take it soon. They must start COMMUNICATING.
If they cannot, or will not, do so, they had better get someone who will.
As for the Christian Right, I refuse to believe they don't see the bigger picture. This election transcends any one group. For heaven's sake, it's about our survival.
FReepers engage reality BUMP!
Bush's speeches are almost always eloquent, beautiful and forceful. And I don't minimize this. They reflect a president with a certain seriousness, taste and intelligence. (clinton's speeches, by contrast, were real snoozers, cloyingly self-reflective, rambling and banal.)
OTOH, because the informal, extemporaneous venue is not Bush's strong suit, Bush loses at least half of his bully pulpit before he even starts.
But my comments about the Bush failure to communicate goes beyond Bush, himself.
As far as I can tell, Bush has no 'rapid response team.' Rather than instantly refuting the Left's demagoguery, the Bush camp allows The Big Lie to take root, (a speedy process in this shallow sound-bite culture), to acquire a certain measure of credibility.
I sense that the Bushies naively believe because the truth is on their side, a robust, rapid response is unnecessary. One would have expected their current PR and electoral problems to have disabused them of this silly notion by now.
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.