Posted on 11/04/2004 11:32:15 PM PST by john1525
I hope that President Bush doesn't try to "reach out" again this term by appointing people who appeal to leftist sensibilities. This time, he has a clear mandate, and as such should appoint true conservatives who will do what is best for our country and its allies (including Israel). I hope that he will rid his administration of at least the following cancers: Colin Powell, Norm Mineta, and Tom Ridge, for the following reasons:
1) Colin Powell, State. Where do we begin? Sometimes I wonder if this guy is the Secretary of State for the PLO, Saudi Arabia, or al-France. He definitely has a soft spot for the Religion of Peace, and seems to always favor "diplomacy" over action, even when action is required. And I will barf if I hear Powell say again that Isreal needs to use more "restraint" when it tries to track down serial terrorists. Sure, Powell is popular among the adoring press and so-called moderates, but the world's future shouldn't depend on someone's popularity. I wouldn't mind seeing Rice as his replacement; she seems more conservative and less egotistical.
2) Norm Mineta, Transportation. This liberal appointee was one of the many carrots that the prez threw at the Democrats after the 2000 election. After 9/11, Norm issued a directive that airlines would be fined by the government if they pre-screen and thereby "profile" more than two Muslims per flight. Of course, the jihad lobby has taken full advantage of this, and American Airlines has already been hit with heavy fines. Until they are reversed, Norm's PC policies might eventually cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, but at least he can live in peace knowing that he did not OFFEND anyone. If the prez doesn't get rid of this turd, he has lost my support.
3) Tom Ridge, Homeland Security. This guy is a rubber-stamping, mealy-mouthed, cocktail party bureaucrat at a time when we need an a**-kicker. I heard him recently during a radio interview, and the guy just doesn't get it. He obviously focuses on managing programs, budgets, and political favors, rather than protecting lives. But then again, that's what you get when you create a new bureaucracy such as Homeland Security: more bureaucrats.
Disagreements? Whom would you like to see go?
Welcome to Free Republic!
You posted this same s*** already tonight! I know DU sucks at the moment, but seriously, get a life.
Powell has done a fine job. I have no problem with him. I wouldn't mind if Armitage took his job, or Condi Rice.
I like the idea of John Brau for HHS. He's the one dem who after election day 2000 honestly tried to work with Bush. He's also smart.
Rumsfeld will go because he's getting up there and probably wants to take it easy.
John Snow should and will stay. He's said some dumb things but sure seems to like tax cuts!
Supposedly Spence Abraham wants to take Minetta's job.
I totally agree with you assessments regarding Powell & Mineta. Powell is not friendly to Israel, and Mineta has been a dope all along.
Disagreements? Doesn't appear the President much agreed otherwise they would have left long ago.
I agree totally on Powell...he needs to go. Rice would be great.
Don't know enough about Tom Ridge, but if what you said is true he needs to go too. And Norm also.
I hate to see Ashcroft and Rumsfield leave. But surely Bush will appoint strong conservatives to take their place.
The mandate Bush got was from conservatives, not moderates or liberals.
"Powell's role is SUPPOSED to be that of someone looking for a diplomatic solution; Bush's role is to decide whether to listen to him or to Rumsfeld.
Powell has done a fine job. I have no problem with him."
Agreed. Positions carry assigned roles. Powell has done his job well.
If something can be gained without war, it should be tried first.
Seeking a political solution for Israel/"palestinian issue" has been American policy through several administrations.
I think the problem at State is institutional. The mindset of too many career diplomats is to act as advocates of foreign governments within our government. The department needs a thorough reformation, the way Rumsfeld is transforming Defense. Powell is an admirable individual in many ways, but he is not the man for that job. Personally I would like to see Newt Gingrich appointed with a mandate to turn the State department into advocates for America instead of apologists for us.
Colin Powell, State. Where do we begin? Sometimes I wonder if this guy is the Secretary of State for the PLO, Saudi Arabia, or al-France.
Abu bin-Powell will shoot for Kofi "Death to Israel" Annan's spot in 2006.
That way he can work more effectively for the PLO, muslim terrorists, Saudi Arabia, and al-France.
We have the same "institutional problem" at the CIA. Both organizations seem to hate our country.
Ditto...and Bush should've kicked out all those judicial appointments that Clinton imposed on us. Remember the judges he fired and replaced with lackeys? They should've all been terminated because they have worked day and night to undermine the Constitution.
The president cannot fire judges. They are appointed for life. They can only be impeached by Congress.
Clinton fired all theFederal prosecutors, not judges.
"Clinton fired all theFederal prosecutors, not judges."
And Bush didn't.
Get rid of Mineta. We can get along with the others. I have heard that Powell is wanting to leave on his own.
Re your #10:
"... I would like to see Newt Gingrich appointed with a mandate to turn the State department into advocates for America instead of apologists for us."
Hear Here; I heartily concur!
Wouldn't that just drive Hildabeast and Komrades ballistic though!?
I really wish that our POTUS could grow the spine to try it - but realisticly I don't see his dropping a bomb like that even in a second term; we could forget about any "bipartisan coallition" after something like that; it would be all-out tooth and fang, no holds barred, take no prisoners, scorched earth, winner-take-all rape, plunder and pillage WAR, and I would not be surprised to see 3 or 4 RINOS jump the isle (pull a Jeffords) over it, possibly turning Senate majority around.
Needless to say, "Appoplectic" would be insufficient to describe the MSMs immediate reaction, and urban liberals may well be on the streets by the thousands breaking and burning things.
For many years I have sensed that the State Dept. has been chockablock full of political hacks who mean our Country more harm than good.
After the Arab-American woman who had been abducted from her American home to a life of slavery in Saudi Arabia (apparently not an uncommon phenomenon) escaped (must be over 10 years ago now) and fled to the US Embassy, only to be thrown back out into the hands of her "owners", I have strongly believed that the whole State Dept. needed a high, hot, and heavy enema from the top on down.
About all that Powell has done that I can tell is to maintain the status quo, at best.
When he recently told Taiwan to look out for themselves because he really likes the idea of a "Unified China" (Under Communist rule, of course) that really tore it for me.
I for one will be sorely disapointed if Powell stays on board. But no President seems to be willing to mess with that cesspool of corruption that the State Dept. seems to have been for about as long as I can remember.
How much of that UN "Oil for food" scam money was shared with or went through the USSD, I wonder?
They sure never seemed all that concerned about it, were they?
If you want to know my attitude regarding that stuffed shirt bag of flatulence total waste-of-space incompetent political hack bloviating clueless maroon RIDGE, (likewise for MINETTA, who has spent most of his time it seems enforcing the rule of PC over American Law and making it nearly impossible for Pilots to excersize their right to be armed against terrorists), then check my postings on the subject(s) over the past 4 years.
I've really been holding back here.
One of my biggest disapointments over BUSH (other than promising to support the AWB) was his patronage of liberal hack buffoons like those two.
If the POTUS wants to re-establish or rescusitate any sort of credibility with his "conservative base" who seem to have elected him again despite his frequent betrayals of us over the past term, then these toyboy tokens of capitulation to the leftside and the lingering malaise of political correctness have to go!
Because the next "Moderate" that the GOP puts up in '08 (and they will) just might have a "real" Conservative/ Constitutional 3rd Party to contend with by that time, if the "base" senses that we are going to need one.
Now I almost know that Gillespie and Rove, et al, are already planning to threaten us on no uncertain terms that we'd better support and vote for (Insert flaming RINO Candidate here)in '08 or wer'e going to have to live with the horror of helping to elect another KlINTON to the White Palace.
That's what this current oh-so-moderate GOP "Leadership" does, isn't it?
The precident is clear, and I'm planning on it.
And I think that my fellow American Christian / Conservatives had best start preparing for it, too.
The sooner the better.
UJ
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.