Dan Senor: Condi Rice Campaigning for VP
[Guest post by DRJ]
In an interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Republican Dan Senor said Condoleezza Rice is actively campaigning for the position of Vice President:
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the Vice Presidential nomination, according to Republican Strategist Dan Senor. “Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
I saw John McCain on Chris Wallace’s program on Fox News. When he was questioned about a VP, he said his goal was to pick someone who had the same values, principles, and priorities as he does, someone who would share his agenda. It did not matter to him whether that person had extensive or limited foreign policy experience as long as s/he would share his agenda. That immediately made me think of Sen. Lindsey Graham but it could also apply to Condi Rice.
When you portray yourself as a maverick the way John McCain does, it’s hard to know what agenda you stand for. He’s a little like Barack Obama in that sense (although I think Obama’s positions are consistently liberal, they are not well known), which is one reason why this election is so interesting. So far, it’s an election that is more about personalities than principles and IMO Condoleezza Rice is a personality whose principles aren’t very well known.
— DRJ
Rice would probably be a good bet, particularly given her relatively pro-free-speech and pro-gun stance. That’d at least help keep the more libertarian conservatives interested, important given campaign finance reform and the enduring Paulite faction. Given McCain’s age and health, the Vice President position’s probably going to get a lot more attention than normal for him.
I think there’s an assumption that it would reduce the racial and genderist divide that’s almost sure to pop up the second that Obama or Clinton take the Democratic crown, and that assumption is pretty heavily unfounded. Unless either one pulls ridiculously low punches, they’ll end up with the other in the Vice President slot, and especially if Obama gets the top rung, that’ll be enough to keep those voter sections sated.
gattsuru (1be9e7) — 4/6/2008 @ 3:55 pmThis conservative would be delighted to see a VP nominee of Condy’s character, integrity, and intelligence on the ticket, quite independently of her race and gender.
The only problem I have with her is that I don’t know her position on a variety of issues. But could they be worse than Obama/Clinton? Extremely doubtful. Could they be better than McCain’s? Highly likely. (sic)
Unless she turns out to favor abolishing the Second Amendment or wants to surrender in Iraq or provide free government sponsored abortions, she sounds like a great choice to me. Go for it.
DaMav (e84050) — 4/6/2008 @ 3:55 pmPicking Graham would almost guarantee a conservative sit-out.
gabriel (180095) — 4/6/2008 @ 4:01 pmI’m not sure of of her principles or her personality. She doesn’t appear to have either.
rrpjr (4f04d4) — 4/6/2008 @ 4:04 pmwhy not? england did very well with her “virgin queen”.
assistant devil's advocate (014ec2) — 4/6/2008 @ 4:10 pmI love it. She is great. Couldn’t care less about her sexuality, but the knowledge that the “hardcore” right who b*tched about McCain and anybody who wasn’t “conservative/religious” enough will choke on it makes me happy.
Hey, all you RINO-hating hardcores, YOU DON’T OWN THE PARTY! My vote counts just like yours, you don’t know more than me, and all your talk dismissing ‘moderates’ has created some ill will. I hope you get ready.:-)
Timesdisliker (8373f5) — 4/6/2008 @ 4:32 pmGO CONDI!
Jimmy (573134) — 4/6/2008 @ 5:01 pmRice would be a disaster. She has been less than accomplished as Sec. of State.
edward cropper (433993) — 4/6/2008 @ 5:06 pmShe would not draw a single black vote because she is looked on as an Aunt Tom.
She comes across as hesitant at times and not very forceful.
She would have a real problem with both black and white men.
McCain will have enough trouble by himself without adding additional dead weight.
Do not want.
At the very least, I want to find out where she stands on the issues. But I’m inclined against it.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 4/6/2008 @ 5:16 pmMcCain has no say about who his VP will be unless the national delegates end up being complete rats like him.
I predict that the delegates will choose Duncan Hunter as someone who the Romney types and the Huckabee types can compromise on.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 4/6/2008 @ 5:36 pmShe’d have to resign, of course. McCain paired with a Bush hold-over would be forced to spend time identifying policies they would NOT continue. Picking Condi signals there’s little impulse for change in the electorate. Not a safe bet.
steve (abc023) — 4/6/2008 @ 5:37 pmSteve,
I think you are right and apparently McCain agrees, too:
It sounds like he’s leaving the door open, or at least slightly ajar, for Colin Powell.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/6/2008 @ 6:17 pmMichael Steele would be a better choice on a number of fronts it seems to me.
I believe a clean break with W’s administration is politically imperative. Condi is much too identified with W to be viable.
Steele is a young and has impeccable Republican credentials. He is a very good speaker, and has a pleasant personality which wears well on talk shows.
Although the Dem AA gang will try the “Tom” BS, it won’t be effective against Steele. He may be able to peel off a small percentage of the black vote, and will somewhat provide an alternative outlet for some whites who want to vote for an AA should Obama be the Dem nominee.
vnjagvet (d3d48a) — 4/6/2008 @ 6:28 pmI’m not sure I buy this.
What among Dan Senor’s current activities would but him in a position to know these things definitively as opposed to being a conduit for gossip? If he is on McCain’s campaign, he would not oe should not be talking about such things.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/6/2008 @ 6:29 pmAlthough Rice has never run for office, as much as we like Mike Steele, he lost his only election to a store mannequin.
He never, ever should have run in 2006 for that seat. Now he’s damaged goods. He should do a spell as RNC chair first, then go for higher office, like Bush, Sr., did.
Dan Senor’s fairly wired in.
Condi is very popular in the country and in the party rank and file. Obama has just opened a huge hole in his gun rights flank and Rice is the perfect weapon to hit him on it. Plus, McCain is going to double down on the war and national security.
This will be a win the war vs. lose the war election.
There is literally no way McCain can separate himself from Iraq. He has a son fighting in the war. So why try to run away from it?
McCain will double down. He’ll pick Condi-then point out Obama’s flip-flopping on his war plans and start pointing out that he can’t be trusted, like LBJ.
section9 (a49193) — 4/6/2008 @ 8:01 pmI believe that Rice would be a lightening rod for the anti-Bush sentiment of independent voters and would weaken the ticket. McCain, while a Republican, has the benefit of not being seen as part of the administration, having stood against the administration on many occasions (a positive for many independents). Rice would be forced to constantly defend the administration on which she served. Further, she will generally be credited with being strongest on defense and foreign policy, which are already McCain’s strengths. Seems like the ticket would be better balanced with someone with solid domestic and/or economic credentials, or even better, someone who can be positioned as holding stronger conservative values to reassure Conservatives, who are not thrilled with McCain.
Regret (fe9629) — 4/6/2008 @ 8:51 pmWorst. Idea. Ever.
thebronze (0813d4) — 4/6/2008 @ 9:43 pmRice is a pragmatist. She and McCain are peas and carrots (tm Gump).
No way does she energize the base. She doesn’t bring any electoral votes with her. What’s her home? California? DC?
McCain has got to figure out how to take either OH or PA and he must take FL. How does Condi help in these states? Does she get VA to come back to the GOP?
Steele would be a tremendous candidate, but has the same electoral failing. He may, may, bring MD. But I highly doubt it.
My hope is that McCain chooses someone who has served in the U.S. Senate. The Dems will have at least 56, and probably 57, seats in the next Congress. I want someone who can spend full time as the president of the Senate figuring out how to beat them at their own games – especially when it comes to the SCOTUS noms.
Ed (215a21) — 4/6/2008 @ 9:51 pmNot the worst idea ever, but not a very good one. She had every chance to prove herself over the last 8 years, and unfortunately has remained tied to Bush’s record. Which, support him or not, hasn’t been all that good.
Now, if Hillary manages to steal the nomination for Obama, yeah, maybe. Although there would be better minority or female choices in the the party. Colin Powell has great positives. Then again he doesn’t help McCain with the religious right, but I’m not sure anything can.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/6/2008 @ 10:29 pmMcCain talk as though he thinks the party is going to unify around him, but I don’t think he’s actually that naive. I know that I have no intention of voting for him and I doubt that I’m all that unusual. His smartest VP move is not someone who can bring him a state, but someone who can solidify the Republican base.
I’ve been trying to come up with a running mate for McCain that would actually make me vote for him. I can think of only two: Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo. Gingrich because I believe that he actually believed in the Regan revolution and I would like to see him back in office. Tancredo because he would somewhat offset McCain’s stance on illegal immigration.
Doc Rampage (01f543) — 4/6/2008 @ 11:14 pmCondi Rice would make a fine vice president – but not today. She does not possess the necessary prerequisites to ascend to the office and she is caught in the wake of a turbulent presidency. Let her go home and run for office, any office, and build her credentials for a candidacy in the future.
turfmann (69177c) — 4/6/2008 @ 11:37 pmColin Powell already admitted that he won’t do his family as much damage as running would cause.
His wife says no, so he respects her.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 4/7/2008 @ 12:26 amMcCain can start singing it’s Condi & me,
we’re the best team for the country don’t you see…
and Mitt Romney can sit at The White House table with Condi & me,
he can be our Secretary of State we know he won’t be late…
Thompson can be my National Security
Adviser, he’s all the wiser… and Duncan 2nd
Hunter he’s no punter, I’ll make him my
advisor cause he’s one tough driver…
Let’s make the country happy…don’t be slap happy..
Let’s do it right, everyone votes McCain
on election night…that’ll be outta sight…
Vice President Rice that’s really nice…
Americans for Rice.com
re pub le can only (ab6b2a) — 4/7/2008 @ 3:04 amRepublicans for sharia slavery?
Conde compared the plight of the “Palestinians” to black Americans under Jim Crow.
Insanity.
psa (33cbf6) — 4/7/2008 @ 4:29 amOther than Ms.Rice’s race and gender, why would she be a good VP nominee? Other than her stated position on the second amendment I see no evidence of conservatism in her stated positions. She has become a willing tool for the State Department establishment,compares the Palestinian situation to that of post Civil War blacks,and continues to push for the “two state solution” for madmen and terrorists to savage Israel.
Having said all that, she’s probably perfect for the direction the Republican party is headed, away from conservative principles.
breakn70 (5ea388) — 4/7/2008 @ 4:44 amHere’s one that ought to: just about friggin’ anyone, given that if McCain doesn’t win, either Clinton or Obama will. It’s really that simple.
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/7/2008 @ 5:28 amI think Dr. Rice would be well qualified for the job, having more experience than Clinton and Obama put together. But she’s a bad political pick because she doesn’t bring a constituency with her. I hate to say it, but McCain should do the usual – some Southern governor. Eh, someone not from Arkansas.
Eric (884ea6) — 4/7/2008 @ 5:59 amCondi’s an idiot. She’s been a part of this unraveling foreign policy nightmare in Iraq every step of the way, and pretty obviously hasn’t done shit to improve America’s international diplomatic relations. What qualifications does she have?
I’d love to see her get picked. Anything that reminds people that McCain is bound to failed ideas of George Bush is a good thing, in my opinion, and Condi was one of those many failed ideas.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/7/2008 @ 7:30 amLevi – Did your mom take away your access to the computer last week?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:05 amThis tells us all we need to know about Levi’s lack of functioning grey matter.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:11 amCondi, if she has any political ambitions, should return to California and run for the Senate. I have heard speculation about Chris Cox and that would be interesting. I think someone younger and with economic expertise would be his best choice. Choosing a black VP nominee would be too obvious unless it was Powell. Powell is too old and McCain needs a young VP in case his melanoma shows up sometime.
Mike K (86bddb) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:12 amWhat’s she been working on the last 8 years? National security and international diplomacy, right? The areas that we’ve failed the most miserably at, right? This is conclusive proof that she’s an idiot, as far as I’m concerned, and should be kept away from government.
And yes, my mommy took away access to my computer, or I was busy aborting babies, or I was looking at gay porno, whatever you want to believe. Now I’m here again.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:17 amApparently, idiot means anyone that does not agree with Levi. Lets compare her credentials against Baracky or Hillary, and then see who is the academic lightweight.
daley – Someone should tell his parents.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:23 amThe areas that we’ve failed the most miserably at, right?
Levi – Where exactly have we failed in your mind Levi? Can you try to be specific for a change and cite some examples.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:26 amLevi, still delivering your failed rhetoric? We need change from the failed rhetoric of the Democrats. Vote for change.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:27 am“There is literally no way McCain can separate himself from Iraq. He has a son fighting in the war. So why try to run away from it?”
McCain has no intention of separating himself from his support for the mission in Iraq, but he has shown every intention of separating himself from the Bush Administrations strategy in Iraq from 2003-2006. Picking Rice makes that difficult to impossible.
Sean P (e57269) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:31 amI already did. Foreign policy and international diplomacy are the two areas where she’s had a significant role, the centerpiece of both of those areas is the Iraq war, and the Iraq war has been a disaster. Even if I grant you that the surge is going well, that doesn’t excuse the myriad of mistakes committed the administration for the 4 years prior to the surge, and she was a part of that, all along.
Neither Barack or Clinton have any blemishes on their ‘credentials’ nearly as disastrous as the Iraq stain is on Condi’s. What good has this woman done, at all? You guys like to play the ‘name one Obama accomplishment’ game, so is there anything that qualifies Condi for anything, at this point? Dogcatcher, maybe?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:36 amSPQR,
Still devolving into your primitive ‘It’s a liberal, insult him!’ pack mentality anytime one of us pops up?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:39 amLevi – I hope I don’t have to remind you that people here are much more familiar with the Iraq war and its antecedants than you. It is old hat.
Foreign policy and international diplomacy is a broad category. Are you saying that the previous miracles wrought by the Clinton Administration with North Korea and in the Middle East have been undone by the Bush Administration, Levi? You are noticably lacking on specifics, sport.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:44 amLevi, failed rhetoric. Vote for changed rhetoric.
Meanwhile your ignorance of the substantial foreign policy successes of the Bush administration is what is a “pack mentality”. A truly astonishing level of ignorance in fact.
During the Bush administration, among the high number of foreign policy successes are: the success is getting global financial markets to stop laundering terrorist money ( the significance of this is truly historic, and universally ignored by the juvenile such as yourself, Levi ); turning India from a hostile country to a close ally of the US; the reduction in tensions between Pakistan and India ; numerous trade agreements and military cooperation agreements among the various former Soviet Republics in Asia; and closer intelligence cooperation between european country’s and the US on terrorism investigations.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/7/2008 @ 8:49 amWhoever was just complaining about David Savage making appeals to authority on the abortion issue, look! I found someone doing the same thing. I wonder if you’ll receive a scolding for this?
Iraq, did you read what I wrote? Iraq. She was the National Security Adviser for first 3 years leading up to this Iraq war boondoggle that was caused by lapses in intelligence. What kind of advice was she giving about national security? Apparently, it was pretty shitty.
And for the last 4 years, she’s been chief diplomat, and Iraq is as much of a political mess as it ever has been. Where’s she been for all of this? What’s her excuse? Remember the ‘Coalition of the Willing?’ Even that pretend little alliance your side always used to tout has disintegrated, shouldn’t the Secretary of State be the glue keeping that shit like that together?
Additionally, anyone that endures the full 8 years with the shittiest President ever is bound to be as tainted by failure and professional embarrassment merely by the long-standingness of their association. Which is all the more proof that Condi is a dimwit. Everywhere once else has known when to ‘cut and run.’ Even Karl Rove bailed to take the check from Fox News.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/7/2008 @ 9:02 amSPQR – If it wrote “I hate Bush”, it would be more honest.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/7/2008 @ 9:10 amEven if I were to grant you that all those are accurate and that they are positive, they still don’t outweigh the total failure of this administration to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Darfur, China, Russia, Pakistan, Palestine, and probably most importantly, the real people that attacked us. The ‘successes’ you highlight most likely would have come naturally (what else are former Soviet bloc countries going to do but cooperate with us?)and weren’t glaring problem areas like all of these countries were, and all they’ve done is become worse under the watchful reign of George Bush and Condi.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/7/2008 @ 9:13 amLevi, “total failure” ? Ignoring Iraq for now, mostly because you are too ignorant to discuss it, it is Bush’s “total failure” that he has not solved Palestine? North Korea? China and Russia? You really are a joke.
Levi, the “real people that attacked us” have suffered casualties in the tens of thousands. The leadership of the “real people that attacked us” have suffered 90% KIA and the remainder are operationally ineffective.
The successes would come naturally? That is just more indication of your utter ignorance of history and foreign policy. India spent half a century actively opposing US foreign policy and you toss off that its alliance with the US would “come naturally”. You are a comedian, and not a funny one.
The “total failure” is your silly rhetoric.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/7/2008 @ 9:27 amNotice that Levi really is clueless at what a revolutionary change the Bush administration has achieved in global money laundering. The channels of terrorist funding – completely unhindered for half a century – are so disrupted that the PLO had to resort to smuggling cash into the PA and as a result had millions of dollars in cash confiscated in one case by Egypt and in another reportedly stolen from a hotel in the emirates.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/7/2008 @ 9:32 amThe ’successes’ you highlight most likely would have come naturally
Levi – We are not talking hypotheticals Levi. What objections do you have to the MULTILATERAL (as opposed to cowboy) diplomatic efforts being undertaken with respect to North Korea and Iran? Have the Bush Administration’s efforts with respects to the intractable Palestinian issue been any less successful than previous administrations? Are our efforts in Darfur less successful than they were in Rwanda or Bosnia when there was ethnic cleansing going on? Pakistan is a reluctant ally in the war on terror at the moment, so what is your point there? The coalition of the willing in Iraq currently includes 30 nations, but perhaps it excludes a few who were illegally raking money off the oil for food program.
As I said, Levi, you are woefully short on specifics. Naming countries means nothing. If you have a complaint about our actions in the diplomatic field, be specific. Explain how you would have done things better. Do I have to remind you of your own comment that complaint without a solution or alternative is meaningless?
All you have is meaningless BDS boilerplate once again. You really need to up your game.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 9:34 amIt is all Bush’s fault, except for those things that would have happened regardless of who was in office.
I think the really ironic part of this, SPQR, is that the troll thinks that many are actively supporting Condi in this role. Again, they argue with ideas in their head.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/7/2008 @ 9:36 amIt’s not so much to ask the President and his Secretary of State to foster good relationships or at the very least maneuver strategically in international diplomacy with the parts of the world that are of greatest concern to U.S. interests, and they should have been making some headway, somewhere, with any of those countries, but we’ve regressed with most of them. It’s their job to multi-task, this war isn’t the only thing America has going on right now. And anyway, I’m merely asking Condi’s record to prove itself with the most sensitive parts of the world, and it can’t.
This is part of the Republican illusion regarding the Iraq war. We created and attracted the tens of thousands of people that we’ve killed in Iraq that conservatives always claim to be ‘the people that attacked us.’ Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are in Pakistan, back to pre 9-11 strength and watching America derail itself on a fool’s errand in Iraq. Most of the people that are killing American soldiers in Iraq never would have had the either the means or inclination to attack us in America were it not for our invasion and subsequent presence as an occupying force, providing both motivation and access to kill as many Americans as we’re counter-productively willing to send right into their neighborhood.
These are the consequences of the ‘mistakes’ that many conservatives and even George Bush himself refer to when on a good day, they feel like admitting to a liberal that the war probably wasn’t handled that well.
All I’m saying is nobody was really concerned about creating trading agreements with the fragments of the Soviet Union when Bush took office and India wasn’t some supervillain Bush triumphantly defeated with some master stroke. Your best list of Bush’s diplomatic accomplishment just pales in comparison to my list of failures.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/7/2008 @ 9:51 amI’m thinking of granting Levi’s assumption that Bush is mentally retarded. That would make him the first mentally retarded man to earn an MBA from Harvard, the first mantally retarded man to be elected governor of Texas, and the first mentally retarded man to be elected president of the United States twice.
What point were you trying to make Levi?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 10:05 amLevi – Your list of failures exists in your mind, much like the heralded shredding of the constitution that liberals love to shout about in connection with Bush.
Levi, do you have any friends?
Do they read what you write here?
Do they think you are winning any arguments?
Are they as deluded as you?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 10:09 amLevi – Where exactly have we failed in your mind Levi? Can you try to be specific for a change and cite some examples.
Levi hates a perfect record: you know, the one involving zero 911-like attacks upon the U.S. since the Bush Adm. changed the previous policy associated with zero success in preventing attacks, to the new policy which is now associated with a 100% success rate.
Levi hates the perfect record so much that he would make a bet against it by voting for people who would change the policy back to the one with the zero success rate, by surrendering the mutually acknowledged front in the wot to Al Qaeda, enc..
BDS is but a symptom of Levi’s hate and fear of life.
J. Peden (b80e4e) — 4/7/2008 @ 12:25 pmLevi, now you’ve returned to outright making up stuff. Your BS about the Bush administration’s unprecedented foreign policy sucesses being something that was to be expected as a baseline is just complete stupidity.
Further, Osama bin laden and Al Queda are not at pre 9/11 strength – they can’t be. They lost their primary bases in Afghanistan, bases that were training tens of thousands of terrorists under the Clinton administration. They’ve had tens of thousands of casualties in Afghanistan much less Iraq.
Your claim that the people we are killing in Iraq would not have the means to attack us in America is not really correct. The foot soldiers in question were not going to fly to America, but they were supporting a terrorist infrastructure that has been unable to attack us since. And they were intended by Bin Laden to continue to attack US interests in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, something that they have largely failed to do since.
This is what is so annoying about your claims – not merely that they are false, but that they demonstrate that you really have no clue about events of the past 6 years.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/7/2008 @ 12:43 pmWhat you’re saying is ‘George Bush has a perfect record of preventing attacks, is that correct?
9-11 happened on George Bush’s watch, didn’t it? Why exactly is 9-11 an exception? Explain that leap in reasoning, please.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/7/2008 @ 1:18 pmAl-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are in Pakistan, back to pre 9-11 strength and watching America derail itself on a fool’s errand in Iraq.
What is your source for the claim they are back to pre 9-11 strength? I think you just made that up.
You also imply that bin Laden likes the fact we are in Iraq. Why then has he urged Americans to withdraw from Iraq?
Most of the people that are killing American soldiers in Iraq never would have had the either the means or inclination to attack us in America were it not for our invasion and subsequent presence as an occupying force, providing both motivation and access to kill as many Americans as we’re counter-productively willing to send right into their neighborhood.
This is a completely unsubstantiated claim that is repeated over and over again by liberal airheads as they try to impart to conservatives their superior knowledge about Iraq/terrorism. If this claim was true it suggests we should have been attacked with increasing frequency since 9-11.
One of the most idiotic things about this assertion is that is often comes from people who say the war in Afghanistan is a good idea. They must think that there’s lots of Muslims around the world for whom our invading and replacing the Islamic fundamentalist regime there is just dandy, it’s only when we invaded Iraq and their fairly secular regime that they have a problem.
Gerald A (b9214e) — 4/7/2008 @ 1:34 pm9-11 happened on George Bush’s watch, didn’t it? Why exactly is 9-11 an exception? Explain that leap in reasoning, please.
Osama and company were unmolested throughout the Clinton years as we were repeatedly attacked by AQ. The Bush approach is to go on the attack. That has been the policy since 9-11 and is what fools like you keep saying is a failure, based on made up “facts” like you have already indicated above.
Gerald A (b9214e) — 4/7/2008 @ 1:38 pm9-11 happened on George Bush’s watch, didn’t it? Why exactly is 9-11 an exception? Explain that leap in reasoning, please.
I should add that another element since 9-11 is the stepped up intelligence gathering which has probably stopped some attacks, and which fools like you also keep opposing. That has been SINCE 9-11. So under the policies you oppose, we’ve had no new attacks.
Gerald A (b9214e) — 4/7/2008 @ 1:42 pmLevi hates a perfect record: you know, the one involving zero 911-like attacks upon the U.S. since the Bush Adm. changed the previous policy associated with zero success in preventing attacks, to the new policy which is now associated with a 100% success rate.
What you’re saying is ‘George Bush has a perfect record of preventing attacks, is that correct?
Levi – What you are proving is that your reading skills suck. There is a five letter word “since” in the second line of the quote in your comment 53, reproduced here, which you ignore in your attempt to dishonestly restate the argument.
Why do you keep lying about the positions of others? Is it because your arguments are so weak on their own?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 2:25 pmDaleyrocks, Levi believes that FDR’s war policy was a failure because of Pearl Harbor.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/7/2008 @ 2:47 pmSPQR – Good point. That would be the parallel to the way he wrote that comment.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 3:55 pmSPQR – Crazy Andy dropped in.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/7/2008 @ 3:57 pm“…We created and attracted the tens of thousands of people that we’ve killed in Iraq …”
Levi is just pissed that we hung the “fly-paper” in Baghdad, and not in Charleston, SC.
BDM!
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/7/2008 @ 4:02 pmWe’ve all heard the caterwauling from the likes of you over the semi-tough measures the Administration took after 9/11. I shudder to think how much louder and more obnoxious the screeching would have been if it had taken a similar approach before 9/11, even if it had had actionable intelligence at the time – which it didn’t, courtesy of the administration that was in power during most of the planning.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 4/7/2008 @ 5:45 pmYep, Xrlq. That’s exactly why the screeching that Levi engages in is so clearly in bad faith.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/7/2008 @ 6:01 pmDon’t feed the trolls.
Beldar (c7d2f9) — 4/8/2008 @ 5:31 amThat’s bullshit. If you’re going to start arguing that Bush has some magical, perfect record when it comes to preventing terrorism, how can you justify leaving out 9-11 when considering that record? It’s all Clinton’s fault?
Bush didn’t hold a single Cabinet level meeting about terrorism in his first year in office, he apparently totally ignored a warning about Osama in a PDB a month before the attack, and in his first 9 months had taken more vacation time than any previous President in the same period (overall, he’s the most vacationed President we’ve ever had.) To put it mildly, he was asleep at the wheel.
Justify why he gets a pass for 9-11 if you’re going to defend such an assertion. Doesn’t seem very smart to afford Presidents such leeway. All Presidents get one free catastrophic terrorist attack? Is that what you’re saying?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/9/2008 @ 4:48 amCan you point to anything that George Bush did about terrorism in his first nine months in office? Did he initiate any policies or appoint any specialists? Did he give any speeches or hold any press conferences on the topic? Or did he spend all summer golfing?
If there really is a ‘blame the previous administration’ window for new Presidents, how long is it open for? Nine months seems awfully generous, why hadn’t Bush’s anti-terrorism team hit the ground running at that point if Clinton’s had been so piss-poor?
These ‘measures’ you mention are unaccountable, irresponsible, and blatant invasions of Americans’ privacy, by the way, something conservatives at one time purported to oppose but have since discarded in the name of Bush, just like fiscal responsibility and the idea of small government. I thought conservatives were the ones that inherently mistrusted the government? You have enough confidence in George Bush to put that mistrust aside?
Speaks to your gullibility, I’d say.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/9/2008 @ 5:04 amI’ll try to explain this, where others have failed. By your own admission, Bush’s policies changed after 9/11. The claim was that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since the policies changed. Do you understand the meaning?
You’ve been called on this bit of nonsense before, so I’ll put it plainly: go find the PDB you mention, show us the exact wording of the warning, and tell us how it was actionable. Further, go find other PDBs from 2000, and see whether they say anything about OBL.
Let’s see…Bush is at fault for not taking measures before 9/11, and he’s at fault for taking measures after 9/11. Anyone else see the logic here?
Steverino (e00589) — 4/9/2008 @ 7:53 amLevi, that you keep repeating this lie: “he apparently totally ignored a warning about Osama in a PDB a month before the attack” does not make it true. You’ve had your tail whipped on this one but evidently insist on maintaining your irrational beliefs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/9/2008 @ 7:56 am