Ahhh yes, who could ever forget Chertoff...
Posted on 03/03/2016 11:52:04 AM PST by detective
When we stop meddling in the Middle East, they will be unemployed.
"...And Chad Sweet, Ted Cruz’s campaign chairman, is a former CIA officer. Michael Chertoff, George W. Bush’s former Secretary of Homeland Security, hired Sweet from Goldman Sachs to restructure and optimize the flow of information between the CIA, FBI and other members of the national security community and DHS. Chertoff and Sweet co-founded the Chertoff Group upon leaving the administration..."
“I have had suspicions about Cruz since his votes for Corker and TPA. This pretty much confirms that Cruz is the one who is the con-man.”
I have my suspicions about people who have only joined this forum less than a year ago and seem eager to bash the most conservative candidate in the race.
If you prefer Trump, fine, I certainly think we can do far worse. But supporting Trump does not have to mean attacking Cruz at every opportunity... and pretending it is just part of the conversation.
Trump’s hired guns around here need to focus on promoting the positive aspects of their candidate rather than trying to make enemies of those of us who are very conservative and prefer a very conservative candidate. You are going to need our help and support in the general if Trumps gets the nomination. And we are sick and tired of being taken for granted.
GOP hawks declare war on Trump
Prominent Republican hawks are debating whether to hold their noses and vote for Clinto
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151#ixzz41sF52dtk
Could it just be that these people have a motive other than or very much in addition to concern over "National Security?"
Put another way. Does anybody not believe that Donald Trump would appoint qualified experts in a Trump Administration? Does anybody believe that we have ever had a President who did not depend upon people he appointed to protect our "national security?" Any body?
Hold their noses???
Oh, no - they’ll vote that way with unbridled enthusiasm!
In fact, most probably would have voted that way without any prompting at all. ; )
CA....
Neocons attack!
Dozens of conservative national security experts are warning that Republicans presidential candidate Donald Trump is unfit to be commander in chief.
These are the same douchbags that kept thier big mouths shut when the affirmative action imposter took over. Un fit we will see whos unfit, the donald sez he never forgets. 8 years of unfit and they still kept thier lyin a##es a shut
There is nothing they hat more than a Weapon of Mass Construction!
Note again, I have let them define themselves, before explaining some of their detrimental policies!
As for their "expertise," consider the confusion they promoted in the Bush White House: Clueless. Remember, it was under Neocon influence at the time, that Bush adopted the strategy that he did, after our initial success in Iraq.
Other than Chertoff never heard of any-—but one is with the World Bank? That’s “national security?”
Ahhh yes, who could ever forget Chertoff...
See, how out of their own writings they defined themselves, and recognize what is likely afoot here: Neocon Phenomenon..
Note, I have let their acknowledged "Godfather" define his movement. Unlike the misrepresentations in the attack on Trump, my piece is completely fair. This all appears to be growing out of Trump's attack on the judgment of the junior Bush brothers, in a recent debate.
Apologize for that sentence!
Chertoff is no conservative. I recall the controversy over his mishandling security. He also made a huge profit from his “national security expertise.”
I never thought W could come up with anyone worse for that job than Tom Ridge. But by krikies, he managed to do it!
It makes me wonder about the strength and honesty of Chertoff and McGarth. They seem unable to stop Obam in the Mid East and his handling of intelligence. They have been quiet as church mice about Obama’s actions in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
What I find interesting is that every time an organization or ANY of its membership disagrees with Trump they must make a public announcement of their disapproval, as opposed to simply and quietly voting against him.
My point: It's obvious that ANY disagreement about Trump is trotted out onto the main stage and magnified in order to try to diminish his growing popularity.
And.. before and Cruz supporters attack me.. isn't it obvious that if the establishment DOESN'T want Trump would they NOT have the same things in store for Cruz if he were, or should be the front runner.
The establishment wants to choose the candidate and to HELL with want the public wants.
What I find interesting is that every time an organization or ANY of its membership disagrees with Trump they must make a public announcement of their disapproval, as opposed to simply and quietly voting against him.
My point: It's obvious that ANY disagreement about Trump is trotted out onto the main stage and magnified in order to try to diminish his growing popularity.
And.. before any Cruz supporters attack me.. isn't it obvious that if the establishment DOESN'T want Trump would they NOT have the same things in store for Cruz if he were, or should be the front runner.
The establishment wants to choose the candidate and to HELL with what the public wants.
This means war. Before this election is done I will become a registered independent.
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.