Posted on 11/28/2007 3:59:54 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
The Geneva Convention wasn't observed by the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis under Saddam, etc. We are dealing with a terrorist group, a non-state actor, that abides by no rules and could legally be summarily shot.
Do you believe we should abide completely by the Geneva Convention in how we treat AQ?
I am just glad the mantle of truth was picked up that CNN is exposed for trying to give the impression that they are objective Journalist, but instead are corrupt and without scruples... so typical of the Clinton Years, it was a given they were plants by CNN and Hillary, even before the evidence came forth. I can not go back to those Clinton Years... The Long trail of Obstruction and Justice they left behind, should not be repeated.
If American lives are at stake, I don't care if we set the mofo on fire to get info.
***********
Agree completely.
Agree completely, especially as it pertains to AQ. They can behead Americans on videos and we blather about human rights. This is not the same America that fire bombed Tokyo, Dresden, and Hamburg killing hundreds of thousands of civilians not to mention the atomic bomb attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, that is the last war we won unconditionally.
Nah - then we would have had President OJ (or so the joke goes)...
“The lib media are promoting Huckabee because they know he’ll guarantee a DEM win. I get the distinct impression that they’re really, really afraid of Romney.”
I like Romney, myself, better than most of the other candidates, and think he has a great shot to win the Presidency. I think he has some credibility problems, however.
But I don’t really buy into the claim that the media wants Huckabee to win because he would be defeated. Even if it were true that the media has such dubious intentions, it would be based upon a miscalculation, because I am certain Huckabee would blow away Clinton in a National election for one simple reason: He has MUCH MORE charisma than she does. He is likeable, she is not. And this is a quality that goes beyond anything to do with specific issues. On the issues, Clinton would probably be more in line with where our nation has been heading, politically. But she doesn’t have the winning personality of her husband or Reagan. Huckabee HAS that quality.
Okay. A lot of nuts like Ron Paul. That makes him neither electable, nor the best choice.
At every election some fringe candidate comes out and shake his tail feathers, and we are supposed to believe this is a new thing. Recent memory shows us Nader and Perot.
The only thing Nader blessed us with was taking votes away from Gore, and well... we know what Perot did to us.
Just because Ron Paul can draw a crowd does not make him the better candidate. He’ll blow over, and in four years we get to go through the same crap again.
Didn't see any real indication of that at the link, but it would fit. Hard to keep up with these long threads.
Seriously, the response would be “General, I believe it would be best if our soldiers continued to focus on the mission with the same self-discipline you showed over 40 years of service”
“Hunter always looks and sounds good — but he can’t win the nomination.
You know...I see and hear this all the time. What I have not seen nor heard is WHY NOT?”
Because, unfortunately, the nomination of the two major parties is about 99 percent preordained. Good case in point: who ever heard of Bill Clinton before he was nominated — and he was the front runner almost all the way to the nomination. Clinton and his operatives did the grass roots work years before he ran. Ditto with Pres. Bush, and I could go on.
The only thing that makes Hilliary a little more vulnerable with the Dems this time, is that she’s a woman and that Bill would be in the white house on her apron strings. She is still the Dem pick. She won’t be president. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the drops out before the general election and Edwards gets the nom. by default.
Guiliani is the flavor of the 2008 election pols and only has real competition from Romney, who has a great political organization and is squeaky clean. All the others are running for the second spot.
With all that said, Hunter would be a great VEEP or in a high level cabinet post.
Remember, a candidate does not have to win the popular vote to win the race.
Look for Charlie Crist on the GOP horizon along with Jeb Bush — maybe 2012 or 2016.
I don’t know that Rudy did anything worth talking about on 911.
^^^^^
It was the executive ability of Giuliani that had competent officials in place before the attacks, or quickly recruited after the attacks, that got NYC back up and running in miraculous time.
When things go smoothly, they look easy. People do not even recognize when things are done well, because the effort is not very visible. Consider the complexity of administration involved just in supporting the people working on the rubble and removing it all from the heart of the financial district, while commerce resumed.
Just consider what has happened to the hole in the ground in Manhattan since Bloomberg took over, as one example of an executive who cannot get things done.
I gave $100 and many of my friends and nearly everyone in our local ron paul meetup gave. We are small but passionate. Actually, not so small anymore.. :)
Also, many here on FR gave $$ that day, read those threads and people were talking about it.
My sister was in the audience in St. Pete and sat behind Mitt Romney’s sons. She called in to Bill Bennett’s show this morning to give feedback from the perspective of an attendee — was on with him for about 15 minutes, I guess. She told me that when that gay military guy’s (Hillary’s plant) mic went dead for that short time, the audience was applauding.
Where did CNN find a Gay General? Yikes!
######
He is part of the Hillary campaign. Seriously!
I am seriously going to have to reevaluate my past hatred for McCain.
That man worked has ass off and did not sleep for several weeks after 9/11. Maybe it’s because I live in the metro NYC area so I saw this.
Rudy is way down on my list of choices, but reducing his leadership and performance in the wake of 9/11 to cartoonish mockery makes me see red.
######
I am just getting to this thread today, so I second your remarks. See my #2673
As I noted in post 162, as usual, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are placed at the far ends of the stage. The so-called "top-tier" and always in the center and that's where the most attention, interaction, and "fireworks" occurs. For a supposedly random placement, it's highly suspect how this continually happens.
As I noted in the previous debate from October 21st, Duncan Hunter got only four questions in a 90-minute debate, and the same for Tancredo. I didn't count Paul's questions, but don't think he had much face time either. Of course, as usual, the focus was on the so-called "top-tier" candidates by the allegedly-conservative FoxNews (motto: we decide who you choose)
Then Alan Keyes got zero questions in these last few debate. Oh, that's right, the gatekeepers deemed him not worthy of sharing the stage with the anointed ones.
So in this debate we get "treated" to a Rudy-Romney catfight on illegal immigration/sanctuary cities in which neither candidate has any credibility on the subject. Bah. But at least some YouTuber brought up the NAU which I'm glad Ron Paul was able to go after (I wished other candidates had their shot at the question too)
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.