Posted on 03/26/2011 6:07:46 PM PDT by mandaladon
DES MOINES, Iowa — Michele Bachmann served up red meat to the crowd at the Iowa conservative principles conference Saturday, slamming President Barack Obama as a Jimmy Carter retread, dissing the Mitch Daniels "truce" call for social issues, and saying she wants a "waiver" from the last two years of White House leadership. Talking loudly and waving her hands, a pumped Bachmann used a slide presentation of various numbers — the national debt, the cost of a gallon of gas two years ago the day before Obama took office, the corporate tax rate — to make her points and pull the crowd in.
Suggesting that Iowa caucus voters had the power to halt Obama, Bachmann wrapped up her speech by asking, "Are you in? are you in for 2012?"
"I agree with you!" she said as the crowd cheered, and added, "I'm in!"
The Minnesota firebrand gave the best-received speech of the potential 2012 hopefuls appearance at Rep. Steve King's conference and the crowd wildly applauded her brand of populism. It was a reminder that while Bachmann has been criticized for miscues in her public statements, there is a space for her to fill in the Iowa caucuses should she decide to jump into the race for the White House.
She called for a "fair tax" and said that the "current United States tax code is a weapon of mass destruction."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Herman Cain: President
Michele Bachmann: VP
Sarah Palin: Dept. of Energy
Chris Christie: Commerce Secretary
Scott Walker: Dept. of Education
...
She's bright, aggressive and outspoken. But there are better choices for Secretary of State- - - John Bolton!
Bolton has the experience, coolness, and savy to be a great SOS. Plus he is as hard nosed a Conservative as they come. I think he would handle pressure situations much better than Palin - she gets a bit too wound up to conduct diplomacy.
Oh yeaa.. definately
Really pissant? Sarah Palin supports the Obama Doctrine? What exactly is the Obama Doctrine. .... lewislynn
To choose sides in a civil war that has nothing to do with our national security before knowing about the people you're going to replace the regime with. .... tsowellfan
Allow me to elaborate since some people are more informed about Pissant than they are about what is going on in Libya.
Obama decided that Gadhafi had to go and launched a military strike against Gadhafi, declaring that it was his intention to topple him. However, as tsowellfan said, that was "choosing sides in a civil war that has nothing to do with our national security before knowing about the people you're going to replace the regime with".
Barack Obama got into the "Let's overthrow Gadhafi" chess game without ever bothering to study what would happen beyond the first move of "Pawn to King 4".
Barack Obama had not thought out the chess game beyond the extremely naïve notion that you can:
1.) Topple Gadhafi so that
2.) America can then Cut & Run so that
3.) The Democracy Fairy can wave her Magic Wand and everybody lives happily ever after
The three major problems with that childishly naïve lunacy is that:
1.) There is no such thing as a Democarcy Fairy
2.) In all of military history, air power has never, ever, secured a single square mile of territory. To secure territorry, you need "boots on the ground". The 8th Air Force may have flattened East Berlin in World War II but East Berlin became Communist because, after the bombing, it was the Soviets with "boots on the ground" there.
3.) The one warring faction that is pouring fighters into Libya in order to have "boots on the ground" to secure the final Victory in Libya is al Qaeda. ("Thank you, U.S. air power, for giving us the future Billions of dollars of Libyan oil revenues that we will use to kill Americans!")
After his intial blunder, saner heads at the Pentagon pointed out to Obama:
"Mr. President, what about the fact that al Qaeda has been flooding Libya with radical Islamist fighters in order to be the only warring faction with the necessary "boots on the ground" to secure the final control over Libya? You specifically expect to "get out" and leave a power vacuum in Libya that al Qaeda is already mobilized to fill? It will turn over Libya and it's oil wealth over to the Islamic radicals just as surely as Jimmy Carter's blundering with another dictator turned Iran over to the Islamist fanatics."
Then, Obama realized what an idiot he has been.
"What should I do now? How can I fix this?"
"Stalemate, Mr. President. We will claim a stalemate. With Gadhafi still in power, we can use him as a proxy to keep the radical Islamists in check just like Georgw H. W. Bush used Saddam to keep the Iranian-backed, radical Islamists in southern Iraq in check in 1991 after the Gulf War."
So, the Pentagon starts making statements about "Stalemate".
This is the Charlie Foxtrot that happens when voters support a ridiculously unprepared and unqualified Affirmative Action candidate just because they absolutely adore how that candidate looks and sounds without ever bothering to figure out if that candiate would lead America into FUBAR after FUBAR through sheer ignorance and incompetence.
Many FReepers think that Obama is playing right into al Qaeda's hands because he is a secret al Qaeda supporter. However, you do not have to be a secret al Qaeda supporter to get America into such a FUBAR and hand Billions of dollars of future oil revenue over to al Qaeda.
You just have to be so utterly unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief that you actually have the extremely naïve notion that you can:
1.) Topple Gadhafi so that
2.) America can then Cut & Run so that
3.) The Democracy Fairy can wave her Magic Wand and everybody lives happily ever after
Case in point:
"So what our president said at first, that our mission is to see Qaddafi go, he's got to go, but then we're told by one of his top advisers, the president's top advisers, saying, Well, no, really, Qaddafi is probably going to prevail on this. He's probably going to prevail over the opposition. And then our president changes the tune again, saying, Well, it's not our mission to oust Qaddafi. A lot of confusion. I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it. And if there's doubt, we get out. Win it means Qaddafi goes and America gets to get on out of there and let the people of Libya create their own government" .... Sarah Palin in interview with Greta van Sustern
"But, Governor Palin, what about the fact that al Qaeda has been flooding Libya with radical Islamist fighters in order to be the only warring faction with the necessary "boots on the ground" to secure the final control over Libya? You specifically expect to "get out" and leave a power vacuum in Libya that al Qaeda is already mobilized to fill? It will turn over Libya and it's oil wealth over to the Islamic radicals just as surely as Jimmy Carter's blundering with another dictator turned Iran over to the Islamist fanatics."
"Umm ... What do you mean by "boots on the ground"? What's an "Islamist"? What does al Qaeda have to do with any of this and the Democracy Fairy?"
yea, Sarah’s position really disappointed me. I’m not sure what Bachmann had to say on the subject but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was more of the same. No one is even questioning the policy which makes me believe that it’s time for a 3rd party.
Bolton would advocate war at every stop. No deal! Has he ever seen a war he didn’t agree with (along with mr. Krystal)
This is a wonderful assessment. (for its brilliance, not so much for the fact that it is true - that is just depressing)
Thank you!
Our government should have stayed out of Libya. We should let the private sector handle situations like this.
Perhaps you are right. It's almost too late now. By the time the republicans in Congress start asking why we're supporting Al Qaeda in Libya everyone will think it's them just being "politica;" because they will say: "why now? Now that we have the boots on the ground?"
I know you didn't really mean to say anything so rash as that. I know you probably didn't have time to really think about what you were saying.
It's ok. No harm, no foul.
The sad part is, I think Barack Obama actually thought Gadaffi was going to do exactly what the President of Egypt did. Just step down. I think Obama got so much of an ego trip by seeing Israel's only friend in the neighborhood President Mubarak step down at the mere sound of his voice that Obama got cocky and thought Gadaffi would do the same.
MISTAKE!
Anybody who knows the history of Gadaffi should know he's not going to step down like that.
I want a President who likes I.C.E. as much as playing golf. There’s so many frikin aliens sent in by the globalists I don’t know if I’ll be able to wade in to the polls to vote.
Good Lord, I hope he's not that stupid - and, I hope he doesn't have anyone working for him that stupid. But, he very well may be just that stupid.
When this "event" was only days old, several European countries said that they would pursue war-crimes charges against Gaddafi. That made the outcome of this event very predictable - Gaddaffi was either going to quell the rebellion, or he was going to be removed by force - but it became instantaneously clear that he wasn't going to leave of his own volition. Why? Because he doesn't want to be tried and convicted as a war-criminal. This is a completely different dynamic than faced Mubarak, a guy who's only real concern post-presidency was holding onto his fortune or at least enough of it to live comfortably in some plush resort community.
Plus, Gaddafi is passenger #1 on the crazy train. He, as you say, is just not going to go out peacefully.
If Obama and the people who are working for him can't discern this, then we really are in heap big trouble.
You may have noticed that Biden has been out in front of the cameras lately and when he is he avoids talking about Libya.
We have a President who went to war without the support of even his Vice-President.
You may have noticed that Biden has NOT been out in front of the cameras lately and when he is he avoids talking about Libya.
I wish FR had an edit button
I think Palin is waiting to see if Bachmann runs. If she does, Sarah may not run, but support her flank, then take a cabinet post. Just a theory.
No Allen. Rubio’s okay, but check out Flake from Arizona on ACU website.
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.