Posted on 09/20/2007 6:31:25 PM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
Edited on 09/20/2007 6:38:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
He can certainly be barred from travel anywhere but to and from the airport and the U.N.
Oh, well....
At least you got the tagline...:-)
Wow! Contrast that with the powderpuff answer Bush gave to the press.
“My thoughts are the local police there will make the right decision, and it looks like they aren’t going to let him there,” Bush said during a morning news conference. “If they decide they don’t want the leader of a country that sponsors terrorism, then I understand that.” George Bush
Yep, not sure how you can be stern about who can come to the UN and then turn around and start talking about security councils, sanctions, etc.
The UN will be as much help as they ever are, which is none at all. I see nothing stern here just some tough talk about sanctions for DinnerJacket’s amusement.
There is one way, if Iran continues on the path to nuclear armament, they get a coordinated 48 hour air campaign and the same lessons in miscalculation that Hussein received. Done and done.
FEAR THE FRED
“I love Fred, but is he mis-speaking here? Does a U.S. president have the authority to bar a head of state from a member nation coming to the UN?”
If the other republicans attack him for stating we shouldn’t let him in the country, they’ll be savaged by the base. You can debate law all you want, I’m pretty confident conservatives aren’t going to see this as a negative either way. Other then Ron Paul, I doubt any Republicans running are that foolish.
Although, The State Department is connected to the Executive Branch. They (meaning Bush) can deny him entrance. It’s been done before.
The Republican President of the United States is leaving it up to local police to decide where an Islamic terrorist goes while he is inside our country.
“The sad fact is that Ahmadinejad will come to America with the permission and blessings of President Bush, who is a man that passionately seeks approval from his enemies for some reason.”
You are being silly.
“The Republican President of the United States is leaving it up to local police to decide where an Islamic terrorist goes while he is inside our country.”
Sure, the bound at the hip cooperation of New York and the federal government in the war on terror, and you guys think he is turning it over to some small time cops.
There could be just a little more to this effort to minimize the aggrandizement of the nut case’s importance in relation to the President of the United States.
Would that include cooperation concerning illegal invaders that are potential violent criminals or terrorists? No, seeing as NY is a sanctuary city, I don't think so.
Wasn’t really relevant was it?
Oh, I don't know. You're the one bragging up the tight cooperation between Federal authorities and local NY LEO's when the truth is they, in violation of Federal law, refuse to cooperate with federal authorities when it comes to illegal invaders. In fact, as Ahmadinejad is not a convicted felon, if he illegally entered the Country he would be protected by NY's finest. And it seems to me that we have someone running for president that not only supported this illegal policy but sued the federal government, the same one you think NY cooperates so closely with, to maintain the policy despite the law. In fact, this person is runing against Fred Thompson whom this thread is about.
I believe there's some relevance, especially after you brought it up.
“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the world’s premier terrorist state, is speaking before the United Nations next week. He has also asked to visit Ground Zero. If I were President of the United States none of this would have been an issue—I wouldn’t have let him into the country in the first place.”
One would certainly hope not. Good for FDT.
We can only hope to get out of the UN. What action on the part of the U.S. would it take to get it out and relocated to say, Beirut?
The controversial visit by a foreign leader is not yet another reason to put an illegal alien spin to an unrelated story.
I have been anti illegal for more than 40 years, when I first took a deliberate public action where I had to explain my views.
I can play the connect all dots to immigration and enforcement policy too, but I don’t and I wouldn’t, it only annoys people and dilutes it into sounding like a goof ball’s chanting instead of the true serious matter that it is.
an 'inconvenient truth' is that, by US law, the Native Americans still legally own a great deal of land = especially in the mid-west. They may yet, one day, "inherit the land" - 'Manifest Destiny" = dastardly excuse for murder and mayhem to grab what is not yours.
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.