Posted on 01/31/2008 9:29:37 PM PST by Yosemitest
As in Loral Corp/ need we say more?
You want to know who had a hand in destroying republican party? REPUBLICANS that is who. Now its time to change that we need someone that can bring every american together and I do believe McCain can do that
Oh yes, just look at the solidarity on FR these days. It's overwhelming evidence that McCain can unify Americans.
/sarc
I don't think most conservatives are interested in McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in. There have been a few posts here mentioning it.
And I appreciate all the references to Reagan's efforts to advance his agenda, which did involve making compromises with a Democrat House and, throughout most of his presidency, a Democrat Congress.
And if John McCain showed this kind of temperament and vision in his political career, I don't think most who object to his candidacy during the primaries would be objecting to it today. I think we would be enthusiastically supporting him.
Painting Reagan as a tax-and-spend Republican, who basically went along with Washington and appointed a bunch of moderates to the Supreme Court, in an apparent attempt to build up McCain's conservative and leadership credentials and mollify his critics, has the opposite effect mostly because it is inaccurate. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's supporters using Thomas Jefferson's alleged adultery to explain the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Reagan challenged his party from the Right. He sought the Republican nomination in 1968 against Richard Nixon and lost. He sought the nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976 and lost. He fought the Republican establishment in 1980 as well, including Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and George H. W. Bush, and won.
McCain has challenged his party from the Left. I don't know how many more times I and others have to lay out his record to prove the point.
To put a fine point on it, when he had to, Reagan sought compromise from a different set of beliefs and principles than McCain. It does a great disservice to historical accuracy and the current debate to continue to urge otherwise.
Let me be more specific, rather than spar in generalities. Reagan would never have used the phrase "manage for profit" as a zinger to put down a Republican opponent. Reagan believed in managing for profit because he believed in free enterprise. That doesn't mean he didn't agree to certain tax increases (after fighting for and winning the most massive tax cuts in modern American history), which were incidentally to be accompanied by even greater spending cuts.
McCain believes the oil companies are evil, and said it during one of the debates.
Among his first acts as president, Reagan decontrolled the prices of natural gas and crude oil with the stroke of his pen because, as he understood, profit funds research and exploration. Reagan had a respect for and comprehension of private property rights and markets that McCain does not. There never would have been a Reagan-Lieberman bill, in which the federal government's power over the private sector would have trumped the New Deal.
Reagan opposed limits on political speech.
The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and the media ownership rules, which helped create the alternative media that McCain despises. Reagan's reverence for the Constitution would never have allowed him to support, let alone add his name to, something like McCain-Feingold.
As for Reagan's Supreme Court appointments, it is wholly misleading to simply list those who turned out to be disappointing as evidence of Reagan's willingness to compromise on judicial appointments or appoint moderates, or whatever the point was.
In Sandra Day O'Connor's case, he was assured by Barry Goldwater and Ken Starr that she was an originalist. While on the Court, she started out on fairly sound footing, and then lurched toward the Left, something Reagan could not foresee or control.
Yes, Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court, but only after:
Reagan sought to abolish all kinds of federal programs and agencies — from the Department of Education to the Action Agency/VISTA — and the list goes on and on.
I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for someone with the time and inclination, such as a think-tank scholar, to go back and examine the early budgets that Reagan sent to Congress. Am I the only one who remembers all the horror stories in the media portraying Reagan's budgets
The one area Reagan drastically increased spending was defense.
And while McCain is said to be among the most capable of hawks, he used little of his political capital and media savvy to oppose the Clinton cuts — or to warn the nation about the rising threat from al-Qaeda, for that matter. He did not call for the resignation of his good friend Bill Cohen, who was a terrible defense secretary. McCain was not alone, of course. But a more fulsome examination of McCain's senatorial record relating to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement is met mostly with silence or admonitions to avert our eyes.
Reagan would not have led efforts to grant the enemy constitutional and international rights, as McCain has. I believe he would have sided with President Bush. After all, as president, Reagan rejected efforts to expand the Geneva Conventions to cover terrorists.
This is a key area of departure for McCain not only from Bush but most national security advocates. But, alas, we must avert our eyes, again.
As for the 1986 Reagan amnesty for illegal aliens, we've been down this road time and again.
The bill was carefully reviewed within the Reagan administration, including at the Justice Department (at the time, the INS reported to the attorney general). Reagan agreed that amnesty would be conferred on 2-3 million illegal aliens as a one-time event in exchange for adequate funding for border security. The bill passed in 1987. The border security part of the deal was never enforced.
To say that Reagan supported amnesty and no more is to rewrite history. There would have been no Reagan-Kennedy bill, written largely by LULAC and LaRaza.
But we must rewrite history
if we are to make the case that McCain is no different from Reagan,
Reagan is no different from his predecessors,
and Reagan's speeches weren't all that revolutionary.
And if we object to such characterizations, then the argument shifts to Reagan wasn't perfect,
the Reagan era is dead,
these are different times, etc. Then, if we criticize McCain's record we are told
Look, I do not believe that McCain is a principled conservative.
I believe he is a populist hawk in the tradition of a Scoop Jackson. This isn't a perfect comparison, of course, but nothing is ever perfect, is it?
In my view, this is why the hawks will support McCain regardless of his record in virtually every other respect. Moreover, they see McCain as the only Republican who has the will or ability or whatever to fight terrorism. I don't.
But please, can we at least agree, on National Review's website of all places, to stop dumbing down or dismissing the Reagan record. If you are going to use it, at least be accurate about it. It isn't perfect, but it is far superior to the backhand it received earlier.
02/02 12:52 PM
Mark Levin isn't called the GREAT ONE for no reason.
I don't think most conservatives are interested in McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in. There have been a few posts here mentioning it.
And I appreciate all the references to Reagan's efforts to advance his agenda, which did involve making compromises with a Democrat House and, throughout most of his presidency, a Democrat Congress.
And if John McCain showed this kind of temperament and vision in his political career, I don't think most who object to his candidacy during the primaries would be objecting to it today. I think we would be enthusiastically supporting him.
Painting Reagan as a tax-and-spend Republican, who basically went along with Washington and appointed a bunch of moderates to the Supreme Court, in an apparent attempt to build up McCain's conservative and leadership credentials and mollify his critics, has the opposite effect mostly because it is inaccurate. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's supporters using Thomas Jefferson's alleged adultery to explain the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Reagan challenged his party from the Right. He sought the Republican nomination in 1968 against Richard Nixon and lost. He sought the nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976 and lost. He fought the Republican establishment in 1980 as well, including Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and George H. W. Bush, and won.
McCain has challenged his party from the Left. I don't know how many more times I and others have to lay out his record to prove the point.
To put a fine point on it, when he had to, Reagan sought compromise from a different set of beliefs and principles than McCain. It does a great disservice to historical accuracy and the current debate to continue to urge otherwise.
Let me be more specific, rather than spar in generalities. Reagan would never have used the phrase "manage for profit" as a zinger to put down a Republican opponent. Reagan believed in managing for profit because he believed in free enterprise. That doesn't mean he didn't agree to certain tax increases (after fighting for and winning the most massive tax cuts in modern American history), which were incidentally to be accompanied by even greater spending cuts.
McCain believes the oil companies are evil, and said it during one of the debates.
Among his first acts as president, Reagan decontrolled the prices of natural gas and crude oil with the stroke of his pen because, as he understood, profit funds research and exploration. Reagan had a respect for and comprehension of private property rights and markets that McCain does not. There never would have been a Reagan-Lieberman bill, in which the federal government's power over the private sector would have trumped the New Deal.
Reagan opposed limits on political speech.
The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and the media ownership rules, which helped create the alternative media that McCain despises. Reagan's reverence for the Constitution would never have allowed him to support, let alone add his name to, something like McCain-Feingold.
As for Reagan's Supreme Court appointments, it is wholly misleading to simply list those who turned out to be disappointing as evidence of Reagan's willingness to compromise on judicial appointments or appoint moderates, or whatever the point was.
In Sandra Day O'Connor's case, he was assured by Barry Goldwater and Ken Starr that she was an originalist. While on the Court, she started out on fairly sound footing, and then lurched toward the Left, something Reagan could not foresee or control.
Yes, Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court, but only after:
Reagan sought to abolish all kinds of federal programs and agencies — from the Department of Education to the Action Agency/VISTA — and the list goes on and on.
I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for someone with the time and inclination, such as a think-tank scholar, to go back and examine the early budgets that Reagan sent to Congress. Am I the only one who remembers all the horror stories in the media portraying Reagan's budgets
The one area Reagan drastically increased spending was defense.
And while McCain is said to be among the most capable of hawks, he used little of his political capital and media savvy to oppose the Clinton cuts — or to warn the nation about the rising threat from al-Qaeda, for that matter. He did not call for the resignation of his good friend Bill Cohen, who was a terrible defense secretary. McCain was not alone, of course. But a more fulsome examination of McCain's senatorial record relating to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement is met mostly with silence or admonitions to avert our eyes.
Reagan would not have led efforts to grant the enemy constitutional and international rights, as McCain has. I believe he would have sided with President Bush. After all, as president, Reagan rejected efforts to expand the Geneva Conventions to cover terrorists.
This is a key area of departure for McCain not only from Bush but most national security advocates. But, alas, we must avert our eyes, again.
As for the 1986 Reagan amnesty for illegal aliens, we've been down this road time and again.
The bill was carefully reviewed within the Reagan administration, including at the Justice Department (at the time, the INS reported to the attorney general). Reagan agreed that amnesty would be conferred on 2-3 million illegal aliens as a one-time event in exchange for adequate funding for border security. The bill passed in 1987. The border security part of the deal was never enforced.
To say that Reagan supported amnesty and no more is to rewrite history. There would have been no Reagan-Kennedy bill, written largely by LULAC and LaRaza.
But we must rewrite history
if we are to make the case that McCain is no different from Reagan,
Reagan is no different from his predecessors,
and Reagan's speeches weren't all that revolutionary.
And if we object to such characterizations, then the argument shifts to Reagan wasn't perfect,
the Reagan era is dead,
these are different times, etc. Then, if we criticize McCain's record we are told
Look, I do not believe that McCain is a principled conservative.
I believe he is a populist hawk in the tradition of a Scoop Jackson. This isn't a perfect comparison, of course, but nothing is ever perfect, is it?
In my view, this is why the hawks will support McCain regardless of his record in virtually every other respect. Moreover, they see McCain as the only Republican who has the will or ability or whatever to fight terrorism. I don't.
But please, can we at least agree, on National Review's website of all places, to stop dumbing down or dismissing the Reagan record. If you are going to use it, at least be accurate about it. It isn't perfect, but it is far superior to the backhand it received earlier.
02/02 12:52 PM
Mark Levin on Hillary Rotten Clinton
Here is what Mark Levin thinks Of Hillary Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT7X2wQjwAs
Anyone who believes Queeg's nomination will result in anything other than a colossal, well-earned shellacking for the republicans in November.
But keep throwing spitballs at Queeg's (many) detractors. It's a hell of a lot easier than defending his record.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12635
Reagan and McCain
By Peter J. Wallison
Published 1/25/2008 12:08:40 AM
The American Spctator
Apparently dissatisfied with their presidential choices, Republicans are asking, “Why don’t we have another Ronald Reagan?” But if we think seriously about what made Ronald Reagan a great leader and a great president, we may find that there’s a reasonable facsimile hiding in plain sight. John McCain, although he has failed to toe the line of conservative orthodoxy, has many of the characteristics that the American people admired in Ronald Reagan, including the key elements that made him a successful president. In fact, given his electability, McCain offers a rare chance for conservatives to recapture the essence of the Reagan revolution.
The similarities between Reagan and McCain begin with their extraordinary attachment to principle. Reagan never altered his views about Communism, the Soviet Union or the importance of shrinking the government, and it was this quality that made him a successful president. Washington is a city where everything is negotiable. In this world, a president with actual principles has a unique attribute — credibility. When Reagan stayed the course on tax cuts, despite high interest rates and a weak economy in 1982, he was relying on his principles. When John McCain said, in supporting the surge in Iraq, he would “rather lose an election than lose a war,” he is demonstrating the same attachment to principle that animated Ronald Reagan. And this firmness will give him the same credibility in Washington that Reagan enjoyed.
A second similarity is their view of the United States and its role in the world. Reagan, as we recall, described America as a shining city on a hill. What he meant by this was that the United States is an exceptional nation — “the last best hope of earth,” in Lincoln’s words. This is the foundation of an aggressive foreign policy, respectful of other nations but ultimately doing what is necessary to defeat the enemies of peace and freedom. Thus, Reagan’s foreign policy — much to the chagrin of our European allies — was the opposite of the accommodationist approach followed by his predecessors in dealing with the Soviet Union; as he summarized it: “We win; they lose.” McCain sees the United States in the same way, having served in its armed forces, borne years of torture in its behalf, fought for a stronger military, and promised to follow Osama bin Laden to “the gates of hell.” He wants to defeat our next great enemy, Islamofascism, not live with it, just as Reagan refused to accept the Soviet Union as a permanent fixture on the international scene.
Reagan and McCain also share the essential characteristic of leaders — both set their own course without reference to polls or political pressures. When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, he made a powerful statement about the rule of law, although customary Washington politics would have dictated compromise. When he said in his first inaugural address that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem,” he was putting himself in opposition to a half-century of growth in the government and its role in the economy. When McCain told a questioner at a New Hampshire town meeting that if he wants to limit free trade “I am not your candidate,” or told Iowans that ethanol is not the solution to the nation’s energy problems, he, like Reagan, was signaling that he will set his own course and not pander to the politics of the moment.
Finally, Reagan built a new coalition to secure his election, attracting voters across the political spectrum with his vision of smaller government and more personal freedom. Many conservatives fail to understand that Reagan’s tax cuts had two objectives — to promote economic recovery, of course, but also to “starve the beast,” by reducing the funds available for government growth. Although Reagan did in fact successfully cut domestic discretionary spending, later Republican presidents and congressional majorities spoiled the brand that Reagan had created for his party. They did it, however, over the strong objections of John McCain, who has been the most consistent advocate in Congress for Reagan’s original vision of a smaller and less intrusive government.
The Reagan coalition is still out there, a majority of Americans — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents — who believe that the size of government and its role in the economy should be reduced. Through the aggressive use of the veto pen, McCain has promised restore this essential element of Reagan’s vision. Why should disaffected conservatives believe this? Because John McCain is like Ronald Reagan in the most significant respect of all: he is an authentic person, not a confection designed by consultants. Reagan, as his diary shows (as if we needed further proof), wanted to be president for a purpose — as a real person would — not simply to hold the office. He had a consistent and firmly held set of views that he intended to pursue as president. McCain’s straight talk is popular because it’s the way real people talk to one another, not the coddling way today’s politicians present themselves to us. So when John McCain said, after his victory in South Carolina, that he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution and is running for president “not to be something, but to do something” he was making clear that on a range of issues — from defending the nation to reducing the size of government — he would bring a new vitality to the Reagan revolution.
Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency (Westview, 2002).
...not if we storm the capitol like they did in Tennessee about five years ago concerning taxation....
You consider a guy with a radio show a "leader"?
I suppose you consider cartoon characters to be relevant, too.
IRED ADMIRALS AND GENERALS SUPPORTING JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT
Rear Admiral John W. Adams, USN (Ret.)
Major General Albert B. Akers, USA (Ret.)
Major General John Blatsos, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harry Blot, USMC (Ret.)
Major General John L. Borling, USAF (Ret.), POW
Vice Admiral Mike Bowman, III, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Roger Box, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Bruce Bremner, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas Brown, III, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Tom Bruner, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Lyle Bull, USN (Ret.)
Major General George Cates, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jack Christiansen, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward Clexton, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General John B. Conaway, USAF (Ret.), Former Chief of the National Guard Bureau
Lieutenant General Matthew T. “Terry” Cooper, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Dastin, USAF (Ret.)
General James B. Davis, USAF (Ret.), Classmate of Senator McCain’s at the U.S. Naval Academy, Former Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (NATO)
Vice Admiral Walter J. Davis, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Major General Hollis Davison, USMC (Ret.)
Colonel George “Bud” Day, USAF (Ret.), POW, Medal of Honor
Rear Admiral Jerry Denton, USN (Ret.), POW, Former U.S. Senator
Vice Admiral Robert F. Dunn, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Russ Eggers, USAF (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Paul Engel, USN (Ret.)
Major General Bill Eshelman, USMC (Ret.)
Major General Merrill Evans, USA (Ret.)
Admiral S. Robert Foley, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPACFLT
Rear Admiral Skip Furlong, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Barton Gilbert, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Andrew Giordano, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Russell W. Gorman, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Ronald J. Hays, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPAC and CINCUSNAVEUR
Rear Admiral Robert P. Hickey, USN (Ret.)
Major General Don Hilbert, USA (Ret.)
Major General Kent Hillhouse, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral A. Byron Holderby, USN (Ret.)
Admiral James L. Holloway, USN (Ret.), Former Chief of Naval Operations
Lieutenant General Jefferson D. Howell, USMC (Ret.)
Major General Evan Hultman, USA (Ret.)
Major General Charles Ingram, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Bobby Inman, USN (Ret.), Former Director, NSA
Major General Harry Jenkins, USMC (Ret.)
Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (Ret.), Former Vice Chief of Naval Operations
Rear Admiral J. Michael “Carlos” Johnson, USN (Ret.)
General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), Former Commandant, USMC
Admiral Robert J. “Barney” Kelly, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPACFLT
Admiral Frank Kelso, USN (Ret.), Former Chief of Naval Operations
Major General Phillip G. Killey, USAF (Ret.)
Admiral George “Gus” Kinnear, USN (Ret.), Former COMAIRLANT
Admiral Charles R. “Chuck” Larson, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPAC
Vice Admiral Tony Less, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Frederick L. Lewis, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.), Former CINCUSNAVEUR
Rear Admiral Thomas C. Lynch, USN (Ret.)
Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPACFLT
Vice Admiral Michael D. Malone, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Daniel P. March, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward H. Martin, USN (Ret.), POW
Vice Admiral John J. Mazach, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William “Scot” McCauley, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Denny McGinn, USN (Ret.)
Major General Ed Mechanbier, USAFR (Ret.), POW
Rear Admiral George Meinig, USN (Ret.)
Major General Robert L. Menist, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Paul David Miller, USN (Ret.), Former CINCLANT
Vice Admiral Joseph Mobley, USN (Ret.), POW
Rear Admiral Patrick D. Moneymaker, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Benjamin Montoya, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Douglas Moore, Jr., USN (Ret.)
General Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.), Former Commandant, USMC
Rear Admiral Jack Natter, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Warren “Bud” Nelson, USAF (Ret.)
Brigadier General Eddie Newman, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert S. “Rupe” Owens, USN (Ret.)
Major General Earl G. Peck, USAF (Ret.)
Major General John Peppers, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Maurice Phillips, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral David Polatty, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William E. Ramsey, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jon A. Reynolds, USAF (Ret.), POW
Vice Admiral David B. Robinson, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General Wayne Rosenthal, USAF (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John R. Ryan, USN (Ret.)
Major General Michael D. Ryan, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General Dennis Schulstad, USAF (Ret.)
Vice Admiral James E. Service, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Edward D. “Ted” Sheafer, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Robert F. “Dutch” Shultz, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert H. Shumaker, USN (Ret.), POW
Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith, Jr., USN (Ret.), Former CINCUSNAVEUR, CINCSOUTH, Commander IFOR
Lieutenant General Norman Smith, USMC (Ret.)
Major General Stanhope S. Spears, USA, Adjutant General of South Carolina
Lieutenant General Hank Stackpole, USMC (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Howie Thorsen, USN (Ret.)
Colonel Leo Thorsness, USAF (Ret.), POW, Medal of Honor
Rear Admiral Ernest E. Tissot, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John B. Totushek, USN (Ret.)
Major General Alfred A. Valenzuela, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Lloyd “Joe” Vasey, USN (Ret.)
Brigadier General W.L. “Bill” Wallace, USA (Ret.)
Major General Gary Wattnern, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Donald Weatherson, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Hugh Webster, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General James A. Williams, USA (Ret.), Former Director, DIA
Brigadier General Mitchell M. Willoughby, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Dennis Wisely, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Ronald J. Zlatoper, USN (Ret.), Former CINCPACFLT
Good luck on that LOL.
They've got more brains than most of those RINOs we're infiltrated with.
And a picture's worth a thousand words!
The Clinton department of propaganda has succeeded (kinda) in suppressing a significant protest, which has gone virtually unreported. Some of us have been complaining about the "perfumed princes" (Colonel Hackworth's phrase) in the Pentagon. The complaint has been "... why don't you military types DO or SAY something about the serial absurdities of the administration's foreign policy?"
Well, in fairness, we know the military can't itch and moan about their civilian leaders. However, they can, and have done something. According to what I consider reliable sources, in 1997 24 -- count 'em, twenty-four -- generals retired early. I am still in the process of confirming names, dates and replacements (if any). On July 7, 1997, in what is being called a mass protest over the conditions in the military (primarily because of administration policy) 24 generals quit. They reportedly had fought a losing battle to correct, modify, or mitigate the politically correct, operational tempo, and repeated "hey you" deployments. They tried to address the problems with readiness (or lack of) and pay. They tried, and they failed to compel the administration to fix what is wrong. Then, in a final act of courage and commitment (two concepts alien to this administration), they ALL went to see Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, and RESIGNED. Twenty-four general officers representing 600 years of combined military experience tendered their resignations. THAT is a big deal. ... So why haven't we heard about it? So how could the office of propaganda cover up the mass resignations of 24 generals? Allegedly, Cohen informed them they would not be replaced. Their positions would be streamlined and their previous duties would be spread out among remaining generals. The "spin" was a tongue in cheek: "Thanks for helping us consolidate general officer slots in the wake of reductions in force."
You can think for yourself, you don't need him to give you opinions.
Grow a little self confidence.
As they suppresed the Chingate Loral Corp scandal, all of this time. That was one of th reasons Cohen was upset.
Kowing missle technology was transferred by signature of Bill Clinton to the Chinese, as he received campign funds from the same corporationt hat needed the declassification for the big money transfer.
Why shouldn’t she? The Republican Party is doing everything in its power to get her elected.
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.