|
|
Buh-bye, Rick... |
Posted on 11/12/2005 5:16:19 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Santorum Critical Of Bush, War In Iraq
(AP) PHILADELPHIA Sen. Rick Santorum took a rare swing at President Bush, saying the war in Iraq has been less than optimal and that some blame for that lies with the White House.
Santorum, a conservative Republican and usually a strong Bush ally, said the unpopularity of the war should be shared between the White House and the media.
“Certainly, mistakes were made,” Santorum said of the war’s conduct. “But that’s a criticism you can make of every conflict.”
The comments, made after a Veterans Day speech at the Union League in Philadelphia on Friday, came at the same time the Pennsylvania senator stressed he wasn’t trying to distance himself from the president, who spoke moments earlier about 80 miles away at the Tobyhanna Army Depot.
Bush’s poll numbers are the lowest of any time during his presidency, in part due to the climbing death toll in Iraq. He is also blamed by some for the loss of the Virginia governor’s race, in which he appeared with Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore the day before the election. Kilgore lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at kyw.com ...
Read post #94, the media are the weasels. I'd even call it an axis of weasels, since they have a conspiracy to distort and defame the good Senator Santorum at every opportunity.
"How disgusting can a person get? "
You sound pretty disgusting right about now.
And speaking of being a backstabber, why are you backstabbing one of the best conservative Senators out there.
Got a woody for a Democrat victory in '06?
Unfortunately it looks like he will lose the next election.
to WOSG first off, don't call me a loon. Secondly, if you think you know trolls you don't because I have been here for a long, long time.
Thirdly, I will experss my opinions on this forum like everyone else and my opiniion is that Santorum didn't help our President at all. That is MY opinion. You dont have to like it if you don't want but...DO NOT call me a Loon. I am a Freeper and Proud of it.
"Santorum lost his re-election bid when he campaigned for that Rat in RINO clothing, Specter in '04. No principled conservative would have done that"
that's a very WRONG thing to say.
Principled conservatives like, say, Reagan, *often* supported moderate Republicans, and *also* supported incumbents against challengers.
You need to get some perspective here. I am a principled conservative, and as one, I sent money to Toomey to defeat specter. But I *never* expected any incumbent to support a challenger to an incumbent - it's just NOT DONE. It's not done for the simple reason that intraparty brawls lead to Democrat victories, and incumbents want to preserve 'party loyalty'. that was the excuse #1 that Specter used to get his sorry ass across the primary finish line in 2004, and reason #1 why the White House helped Specter in that primary.
Punishing Santorum for the political reality of his supporting a fellow republican incumbent and colleague is looney tunes. It's over. Move on. I've moved on. Anyone with more than room temp IQ and an ounce of common sense is over it. Also, TOOMEY SUPPORTS SANTORUM 100%!!!
Why not, Santorum is exactly the kind of conservative Toomey emulates. And Club for Growth, Toomey's new gig, knows that Santorum is their kind of candidate and a hugely better Senator than the Democrat Casey (tax-hiking class-warfare type liberal) would be.
"He [Specter] is an albatross around Bush's neck as chairman of the Judiciary Com."
I'm hardly a Specter fan, but you talk as if we didnt just score a major victory with getting Roberts on the Supreme Court. no wonder the Democrats have a shot at political victory, conservatives are SO ungrateful for the victories we get!
This applies to President Bush.
Perhaps not poll numbers, but Bush has tried to sing Kumbaya to Europe, make "friends" with the Middle East, smoke the peace pipe with Manslaughter Kennedy, and make love to the RATs in Congress. Bush even has tried to fight a politically correct war, at first showing anger and threats to "nations that harbor terrorists" then kissing and making up to them by allowing Iran to build IEDs and Syria to use its border as a conduit for terrorists.
Along the way, Bush either 1] sacrificed his conservative principles, or
2] proved he never was a conservative.
What we as conservatives have to do is to figure out what we do next. The RATs are gaining constituency by demographics, and the elected Republicans are becoming more and more liberal. The GOP is not the party for conservatives any more.
What are we to do? What we did with the Miers nomination is a great example of what we must do. We MUST fight liberal moves by the Republicans and show them we will not stand for it. We now have Alito up for nomination due to this conservative backlash. This was a victory we conservatives won and we had to beat both the RATs and Bush to do it!
The fact is, Bush has no conservative principles. We true conservatives need to find a way to bring back some semblance of limited government, fiscal sanity, and national sovereignty to this nation--the Republicans are not doing it for us and the RATs are anti-American.
Face reality. This is the way it is. Continued cheer leading for the GOP and Bush will harm us even greater. No more cheers. Start holding Bush and the GOP accountable, just like we did with the ludicrous Miers pick. We won that battle. We can win more battles, and our fight must be both against the RATs and are leftist moving GOP.
Yes Santorum is down in the polls but also 'yes' is the MSM wanting to keep him there.
The President, the VP, and a cast of thousands (ok, probably just dozens) will trapse thru PA to help Rick keep his seat.
Let's see, based on a biased and false article, you decided to completely write off a great conservative Senator with 12 years of service to causes that we Freepers all believe in, a Senator who has done more for us than the vast majority of Congresscritters and Senators up there. All his good works wiped away because a biased article sent you in the wrong direction.
Read post #94. The whole premise of your attack is FALSE.
"my opiniion is that Santorum didn't help our President at all."
Your opinion is WRONG. It's based on BAD INFORMATION. Santorum NEVER criticized the President. Again, see post #94. The Media LIED (gee, who'd a thunk). And your earlier over-reaction and hyperventilating attack on Santorum was looney tunes, don't embarrass yourself further by defending it. Yes, you are entitled to your wrong opinion and I'm entitled to correct you on it and tell you to get a grip.
Now, let's get back to defending conservatives and attacking liberals instead, shall we?
Polls change. We have a year to fix it.
First, we need to get the conservatives to realize what is at stake - A LOT. If Santorum falls, the conservative movement will be set back HUGELY. Why? Because Santorum is a last of the northeast conservatives. If he falls, the entire northeast becomes solely the domain of RINOs and Democrats in the Senate, which is dangerous to the balance of power in the Senate.
Having 1 Santorum is worth more than 2-3 RINOs in the Senate.
"Rick, my Senator, you need a bop on the head. It is a war between the antiwar military hating main stream media and the White House. The liberal media is the sworn enemy of the president and not hell or high water will change their tune."
Duh, that is what Rick has been saying, but the media twisted it around.
Please read post #94.... Geez, cleaning up this mess, all based on media bias, is depressing. If even Freepers get fooled, how much chance do we have to correct reality in the general populace?
I don't recall the idea ever arising durng the Clinton years. Lieberman was one of the initial proponents after 9/11. Bush gave into the political pressure in much the same way that he approved the 9/11 Commission.
"Bush initially resisted the idea of a new department, which had been championed primarily by Democrats in the wake of the attacks. But Bush embraced the concept in June and used the issue effectively on the campaign trail this past fall, criticizing Democrats who differed with him over the issue of labor rights within the new department." Bush signs Homeland Security bill
Victim of circumstances or not, the record of spending and advocating federal programs speaks for itself.
I don't quite understand your logic. If circumstances like 9/11 and Katrina increased federal spending unavoidably, why should Bush be blamed? Where should he reduce spending and the size of government? He can't even get a GOP controlled Congress to approve a $36 billion reduction out of a $2 1/2 trillion annual budget. $36 billion is viturally a rounding error. In any event, the federal budget never goes down. All that can be done is to reduce the rate of increase.
If I misread, bop me on the head and give Rick my apologizes.
Rick Santorum lost me when he voted against more border patrol officers !
I don't recall the idea ever arising durng the Clinton years. Lieberman was one of the initial proponents after 9/11. Bush gave into the political pressure in much the same way that he approved the 9/11 Commission.
A mess of links below. The first are overarching, others get into details. Lieberman did put up the Senate version of the bill on October 21, 2001, but the history of Homeland Security is considerably older than that.
You are right that President Bush objected. He objected to the structure proposed by USCNS/21, and to the structure proposed by the House in March 2001.
U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, Hart-Rudman Commission
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nssg/
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/
New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century
The Phase I Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century
The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century
September 15, 1999
http://www.milnet.com/hart-rudman/nwc.htm
For example, in Phase I the Commission stressed that mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern. It therefore proposed in Phase II a strategy that prioritizes deterring, defending against, and responding effectively to such dangers. Thus, in Phase III, it recommends a new National Homeland Security Agency to consolidate and refine the missions of the nearly two dozen disparate departments and agencies that have a role in U.S. homeland security today.Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change
The Phase III Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century
The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century
January 31, 2001
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nssg.pdf
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nssg/phaseIIIfr.pdf
The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, popularly known as the Hart-Rudman Commission after its chairs, has recently produced a series of reports. The commission believes that recent changes in the security environment mean the rise of new threats, in particular the likelihood of an attack on American soil resulting in thousands of casualties. As a consequence, the commission calls for major changes in the organization of national security institutions in order to respond adequately to these new challenges. ...The commission s focus on a threat of mass casualty attack on the American homeland perpetrated by Third World states runs the risk of an unbalanced threat assessment. The threat of mass casualty by foreign states cannot be discounted, but it is not clear how the commission arrives at the conclusion that this is likely to be America's biggest security challenge in the coming decades. This monograph argues, first, that there is also a substantial risk of mass casualty attack perpetrated by U.S. citizens. ...
The major recommendations of the commission concern reorganization of the institutions of national security. While many of these recommendations, such as the call for a National Homeland Security Agency, should be adopted, the commission is prone to rely heavily on moral exhortation rather than, for example, economic incentives, as a way of changing what it sees as inefficiencies and defects in American government. This monograph argues that moral exhortation is unlikely to be effective except as part of a large package of policies.
THE HART-RUDMAN COMMISSION AND THE HOMELAND DEFENSE
Ian Roxborough - September 2001
http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS14778
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB295.pdf
In the spring of 2001, Congress began working on legislation creating a Homeland Defense Agency, but in May, 2001, President Bush issued Congress a cease and desist order.Sean D. Carberry, Democratic Political Strategist, Consultant, Former NPR Producer
Written in April, 2004
http://www.carpedonut.com/hart.php
There is no such thing as a "Presidential cease and desist order against Congress," but I think Mr. Carberry is referring to Executive action that would have the effect of rendering Congressional action moot.
FEMA's Mission: Policy Directives for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
CRS-RL31285 | Updated March 13, 2002
http://www.opencrs.com/getfile.php?rid=30518
For Release: May 8, 2001Thornberry Praises President Bush for Taking Steps to
Strengthen and Better Coordinate U.S. Homeland SecurityWASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) today praised President George W. Bush for taking steps to strengthen and better coordinate the way the federal government prevents and responds to homeland threats.
Thornberry is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Budget Committee. A leading proponent of transforming our military and national security structures and strategy so we are better prepared for future threats, he is the author legislation introduced this past March (HR 1158) that would reorganize the federal government so it is better prepared for threats against the American homeland.
"My bill would go farther than the President's plan in several key ways by bringing some of the key federal agencies with responsibility for homeland security under one roof," Thornberry stated. "Still, the President's plan is a step in the right direction because it elevates the importance the federal government places on homeland security. It is also something that will hopefully help lay the groundwork for further reorganization of our federal government in the future. And I do think we need to go farther.
"More than 40 federal agencies currently have responsibility for homeland security. Still, we remain remarkably unprepared. Each day, over $8.8 billion worth of goods, over 1.3 million people, over 340,000 vehicles, and over 58,000 shipments enter our country. Yet only 1 to 2 percent of these packages and vehicles are inspected at the border.
"At a time when we're debating how to transform our military and reorganize our national defenses, strengthening our homeland security is an issue we can no longer ignore."
Under the President's plan, Vice President Cheney would oversee the development of a coordinated national effort to better prepare the federal government to prevent and respond to homeland threats. In addition, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency will establish an Office of National Preparedness in FEMA to coordinate federal and state activities in this area.
In this regard, the President's plan mirrors Thornberry's bill somewhat. Under HR 1158, FEMA would be renamed the National Homeland Security Agency. The new NHSA would continue to be the federal government's principal response agency in times of natural disaster. It would also become the federal government's principal agency for coordination, response and prevention with regard to terrorist attacks and other manmade disasters, and the principal point of contact for state and local governments. The Coast Guard, Customs Service, and Border Patrol would be transferred to the new NHSA as individual entities.
Thornberry is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Budget Committee. A leading proponent of transforming our military and national security structures and strategy so we are better prepared for future threats, he was the prime House author of the 1999 legislative proposal that established the Rumsfeld Space Commission.
Thornberry is also the author of legislation introduced this past March (HR 1158) that would reorganize the federal government so it is better prepared for threats against the U.S. homeland.
http://www.house.gov/thornberry/news_releases/2001/May82001.htm
Cheney to Lead Anti-Terrorism Plan Team
New FEMA Office Will Coordinate Response Efforts of More Than 40 Agencies, Officials SayBy Vernon Loeb - Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 9, 2001; Page A29Vice President Cheney will oversee development of a plan for responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, while a new office within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will coordinate terrorist response efforts by more than 40 federal agencies, the Bush administration announced yesterday.
Testifying at a joint hearing of three Senate committees, FEMA Director Joe M. Allbaugh said he would soon be establishing an Office of National Preparedness to coordinate federal programs and assist local governments in responding to terrorist attacks involving so-called weapons of mass destruction. ...
But in choosing to transfer those duties to FEMA, the Bush administration stopped well short of creating a high-level coordinating council in the White House, as called for last year in legislation that passed unanimously in the House but died in the Senate.
Also in choosing FEMA, the administration declined to act on the recommendations of a congressionally mandated commission on national security that recommended combining the duties of the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, FEMA and the Border Patrol into a new National Homeland Security Agency.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said in an interview after the hearing that the administration's plan highlights the need for better coordination of responses to terrorism. But Gregg said he hopes Cheney's review will clearly define the roles of FEMA and the FBI, which remain murky.
During the hearing, Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) noted a recent $200 million cut in FEMA's budget and said that "rather than coordinating, we're dis-coordinating the effort being made in the prevention of terrorism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64420-2001May8?language=printer
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2001nn/0105nn/010509nn.htm
[Congressional Record: March 21, 2001 (House)]
[Page H1059-H1060]PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. THORNBERRY:
H.R. 1158. A bill to establish the National Homeland Security Agency; to the Committee on Government Reform.
H.R. 1158 Title: To establish the National Homeland Security Agency
Introduced in House of Representatives, March 21, 2001
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquerytr/z?d107:HR1158:@@@L&summ2=m&
[Congressional Record: March 29, 2001 (House)]
[Page H1343-H1345]PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. SKELTON:
H.R. 1292. A bill to require the President to develop and implement a strategy for homeland security; to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Judiciary, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
[Congressional Record: April 23, 2001 (Digest)]
[Page D334-D337]Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, April 24, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management and the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans' Affairs and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform, joint oversight hearing on Combating Terrorism: Options to Improve the Federal Response, focusing on the following bills: H.R. 525, Preparedness Against Domestic Terrorism Act of 2001; H.R. 1158, National Homeland Security Strategy Act; and H.R. 1292, Homeland Security Strategy Act of 2001, 3 p.m., 2167 Rayburn.
[Congressional Record: June 22, 2001 (Digest)]
[Page D619-D623]Select Committee on Intelligence, June 27, Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security, executive, joint briefing on Counterterrorism Issues, 2 p.m., H-405 Capitol.
[Congressional Record: June 26, 2001 (Digest)]
[Page D638-D639]Select Committee on Intelligence, Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security, executive, joint briefing on Counterterrorism Issues, 2 p.m., H-405 Capitol.
[Congressional Record: August 1, 2001 (Digest)]
[Page D829-D830]Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security, executive, briefing on ``CBRN 101,'' The Terrorist Threat, 10 a.m., H-405 Capitol.
[Congressional Record: September 5, 2001 (House)]
[Page H5391-H5393]MILITARY STRATEGY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Illinois). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the Chair would recognize the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for half the time remaining before midnight, or approximately 56 minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address a crucial issue for the future of our Nation, the military strategy that will govern our armed services. ...
The first preventive element of our military strategy is the protection of the U.S. homeland as it is our most fundamental national interest. We know of a number of states and nonstate actors that may seek to counter U.S. conventional strength through attacks that may involve weapons of mass destruction.
To counter these threats, the United States needs a comprehensive homeland security strategy, and I have called for this in legislation. To be sure, a limited missile defense system is part of such an effort, but the obsession of national missile defense by some as a ``Maginot line in the sky'' has become theological. Secretary Rumsfeld rightly points out that we cannot predict all of the threats that we will face, just as no one predicted Pearl Harbor or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. But yet his strategy lacks the flexibility to deal with a range of threats when it puts such significant emphasis and resources on a single threat to be countered with missile defense. Missile defense systems should be treated as a weapons system like any other, and it should be only one part of the U.S. approach to protecting its citizens.
Homeland security must include continued support for nonproliferation programs, including cooperative threat reduction programs with states of the former Soviet Union. It must include great resources for intelligence and coordinated response mechanisms among a range of government agencies. Comprehensive homeland security, not merely the one element represented by missile defense, should be the focus of our efforts.
Commission warned Bush
By Jake Tapper - Sept. 12, 2001Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.
The Hart-Rudman Commission had specifically recommended that the issue of terrorism was such a threat it needed far more than FEMA's attention.
Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. "Frankly, the White House shut it down," Hart says. "The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day."
Salon.com Politics | "We predicted it"
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/
I cut FedGov more slack in the areas of defense and disaster response. My perception that President Bush is a big government guy is not based on those items, much, if at all.
And as we all know, the President isn't really the purse strings guy, except inasmuch as he advocates bigger FedGov (see, e.g., Medicare Drug Program and increasing size of Federal Department of Education) and withholds his veto on bills that contain more spending than he would like.
His lack of aversion to big FedGov extends into areas that are not purely fiscal, such as Campaign Finance and his willingness to extend the mean-looking-weapons ban (the Assault Weapons Ban).
Understandably, 9/11 also provoked a "big government" reaction without much rhetoric encouraging people to develop more local and self reliance. Our centralized society (not just government) creates a set of vulnerabilities that could be reduced. But we are now on a path that leads to more centralized control, not less.
In any event, the federal budget never goes down. All that can be done is to reduce the rate of increase.
That's my definition of big federal government. I'm not saying President Bush broke any campaign promise relating to the above - he's been open about being a big government guy, not only for domestic programs, but also for foreign aid and "spreading democracy around the world." See, e.g., National Endowment for Democracy and its activities, generously funded and fully supported by the Bush administration.
I would say the same to you. By your attitude you and other "pure at hearts" guarantee a dim will be elected next year. Will that make you happy? That will show him; right?
The term "useful idiot" comes to mind.
|
|
Buh-bye, Rick... |
BUt I just couldn't believe Santorum would slam Dubya, which in fact he didn't.
The headline is more dramatic than the comments.
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.