To: MizSterious; rebdov; Nix 2; green lantern; BeOSUser; Brad's Gramma; dreadme; Turk2; Squantos; ...
Ping
To: knighthawk
I'd love to see him run for prez against Bill's former in 2008
3 posted on
04/10/2003 12:57:56 PM PDT by
bedolido
To: All
DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
4 posted on
04/10/2003 1:00:06 PM PDT by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: knighthawk
5 posted on
04/10/2003 1:00:46 PM PDT by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
To: knighthawk
ah, the greasy pole.
i love this sort of insider analysis.
what if Powell does leave sometime before the '04 elections?
my guess is that either Wolfowitz or Rice would become State head, the latter if GWB decides to get serious about the Rice '08 movement. Regardless, if either of those happen, it is basically then State and Defense speaking from one "voice" and perspective (which would be contra what GWB was taught at HBS, of course, and contra his history, as the author points out).
I have posited this question here before, but I think it is worth repeating: As the youngest Secy of Defense ever (and as Kissinger makes clear in the referenced memoirs), Rummy wanted to be Prez.
Is he REALLY too old in '08? What would he be, 77 or 78? I guess that is a bit old at the front end, but he is a pretty shrap tack, much sharper than Dole in '96....
To: knighthawk
He's right about Powell. After a decent interval, Condi Rice goes to State.
9 posted on
04/10/2003 1:03:14 PM PDT by
Publius
To: knighthawk
Go Rummy!
11 posted on
04/10/2003 1:03:39 PM PDT by
3AngelaD
To: knighthawk
Good...that's all I have to say...GOOD!!!!!
15 posted on
04/10/2003 1:06:14 PM PDT by
Ga Rob
(I'm not the cause of your problems.....you are!!)
To: knighthawk; *war_list; W.O.T.
18 posted on
04/10/2003 1:12:12 PM PDT by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(Where is Saddam? and where is Tom Daschle?)
To: knighthawk
There are even rumours that Powell may not serve out the rest of Bush's first presidential term. That is not to say Powell's moderation and international credibility are not valued by Bush, who likes having divergent advisers among whom he adjudicates. I don't mind having Powell at State with a moderating voice. And he has been a good soldier once a decision is made. He has been supportive of the war once the UN route was discarded. However, where I think Powell hurts us is his reliance on the old guard at Foggy Bottom, the Clintonites. Rumsfeld cleaned house at the Pentagon; Powell has left his intact, and they run around interfering with this war.
Powell did blab too much to Woodward.
22 posted on
04/10/2003 1:25:27 PM PDT by
Defiant
(The Blazing Saddles Defense: "Don't shoot, or the Iraqi gets it!")
To: knighthawk
I think Powell will last through the campaign, but will leave soon after Bush's re-election. He will, I think, be given an open door to any diplomatic position he wants upon his departure, however, so he might end up as Ambassador to the U.K or Japan.
The question then falls as to what Condi Rice will be doing. If Bush selects her for VP candidate, great! If not, she would be a top choice to go to State, or even Homeland Security if Ridge wants out. I don't see her sitting as NSA for a second term.
Either way, Bush needs to make sure that once the Iraq War leaves the daily flood of news coverage that he hands his now considerable political capital to Rove. Rove has proven to be a great political mind and after winning big on the mid-terms and now winning big on the war, Bush's political bank book is bulging. He can't afford to get careless in his spending of it now, and Rove is clearly to one to hold the political purse-strings.
First thing domestically is to break the deadlock over the judges. I was upset at the Senate, still am to a point, over not being aggresive enough. Bush may now have enough political power to tighten the screws there without any vulnerable Republican Senators getting dirt on them. If Bush can win this battle, he might completely break the back of the centrist Democrats and cause the widening rift between the left and central branches of the party to become a giant gulf. If that happens, watch for Nader to make another run.
Anyway, enough rambling now, just nice to think on politics for a change.
To: knighthawk
There are no "winners" yet. Our boys are still out there fighting and dying. This talk of winner and losers is I think very disrespectful at this time. We lost 4 today dammit.
And another thing....TELL THE WHITE HOUSE "NO" TO BARBARA BODINE!!!
To: knighthawk
The biggest winners are the Iraqi people.
To: knighthawk
The only important thing with the Army is the equipment on-hand. Manpower can be called up as needed. The US has something like 8000 M1A1 tanks, and another 3000 or so M60 tanks in storage. That's enough for about 40 armored divisions to be created within one year (I believe we have around 15 active???). Considering it took just two armored divisions to kick Iraq's ass, we can see that they are clearly committed to maintaining the potential of overwhelming US superiority. There is no reason to pay for all the troops needed for that though to be on active duty - that's why we have reserve forces.
To: knighthawk
Trying to be objective as possible, I have never seen a more impressive group of individuals than GW, Condi, Rummy, Powell, and Cheney. They are all incredibly decent, straightforward, intellegent, dignified, selfless, and possess great character. We are truly blessed to have them. I can only imagine the vermin Gore would have running around.
Thank you Elian for tipping the scales in Florida.
31 posted on
04/10/2003 1:59:02 PM PDT by
MattinNJ
To: knighthawk
There can be no doubt about it. Donald Rumsfeld is the man of the year.
No one even comes close.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson