Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Who is in charge in the White House?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Who is in charge in the White House?

    So according to Bob Woodwards new book Andrew Card the White House Chief of Staff actively was trying to get Rumsfeld dismissed. He had the support of Collin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, National Security Council Chief Stephen Hadley and Senior White House advisor Michael Gerson. Even Laura Bush was actively lobbying for Rumsfeld to go.

    Rumsfeld had the support of Cheney and Karl Rove. Guess that was enough.

    Seriously now who is running our country? Do we have a figurehead President and all the power is in the hands of these 2 men? What do these men have over Bush that he is so afraid of them and yield to them on nearly every intraoffice dispute. When Cheney had the hunting accident he didn't even call Bush for over a day?

    Seriously something is not kosher in the White House.
    [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901593.html[/URL]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    the 2 headed monster of two men who never ever ever served their country..cheney/rummy called all the shots from 01-on..
    [B]their mess includes:[/B]

    1) not focusing on al qeada pre 9-11..
    2) wanting to skip afghanistan and go right into Baghdad!!
    3) NOT completeing the mission in Afghanistan
    4) allowing OBL to escape at Tora Bora in December 01
    5) removing special forces hunting qeada and have them prepare an iraqui invasion
    6) lying to the US public about the true threat of Saddam Hussein
    7) Having no real war plan, sending US kids to die for no reason, without the right equipment, wth too few soldiers, and with no plan for the aftermath!!!!

    these american idiots make Clinton look like George Washington

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think we should send all the politicians to Iraq and we will be rid of them!
    This country is so screwed up now with politics as usual!

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    This country is fine, but agitators who seek change can't say that.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance]This country is fine, but agitators who seek change can't say that.[/QUOTE]
    Yeah we have a President who according to recent reports is in a complete State of Denial as to the current state of affairs in Iraq. Most in his own party, many in his cabinet, retired generals after serving in Iraq, and even his own wife are calling for the Sect of Defense to resign. Our troops in Iraq are in the middle of a civil war being shot at by both sides. The Taliban are regaining power in Afghanistan. There are more terrorists willing to blow themselves up to kill us than before. It seems like all power is in the hands of Cheney and Rove.

    Yes the country is in great shape. Stay the course.

    Those who want change in this country are the real problem. Just a brilliant post sackdance.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Yeah we have a President who according to recent reports is in a complete State of Denial as to the current state of affairs in Iraq.[/quote]
    "Recent reports" = Bob Woodward's book? (lol)

    [quote=QJF]Most in his own party, many in his cabinet, retired generals after serving in Iraq, and even his own wife are calling for the Sect of Defense to resign.[/quote]
    Factually wrong. Get it right, fool.

    [quote=QJF]
    Those who want change in this country are the real problem. Just a brilliant post sackdance.[/QUOTE]
    Big fat "F" in reading comprehension, QJF. What part of this "[COLOR=Red][I]This country is fine, but agitators who seek change can't say that[/I]"[/COLOR] do you see me calling people seeking change as the "real problem"?

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance]"Recent reports" = Bob Woodward's book? (lol)


    Factually wrong. Get it right, fool.


    Big fat "F" in reading comprehension, QJF. What part of this "[COLOR=Red][I]This country is fine, but agitators who seek change can't say that[/I]"[/COLOR] do you see me calling people seeking change as the "real problem"?[/QUOTE]
    Sorry I misread your original post. Certainly I did not misread your tone. Someone who wants change is an agitator? That's absurd.

    Recent reports is not just Biob Woodward's book. There have been a ton of books written about this same situation and nearly all have said the same thing. This President is out of touch and in denial with the facts on the ground. He has misled the American people and the situation in Iraq is getting worse.

    For you to say that is factually wrong shows that you are in denial also.

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have yet to hear a single, reasonable, logical post on how the Liberal Theory of Appeasement and Civil Law would do any better than we have done so far.

    Bush sucks? Ok. Fine. Show me the better way, and it better damn sure be something more thouroughly thought out than what we're heard to date, which is "appease, understanding, civil law, give captured terrorists the same rights as American Citizens, hope the UN can do better"

    What actions will the Democrats take to keep me and mine safe from Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism?

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    5,161
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I have yet to hear a single, reasonable, logical post on how the Liberal Theory of Appeasement and Civil Law would do any better than we have done so far.

    Bush sucks? Ok. Fine. Show me the better way, and it better damn sure be something more thouroughly thought out than what we're heard to date, which is "appease, understanding, civil law, give captured terrorists the same rights as American Citizens, hope the UN can do better"

    What actions will the Democrats take to keep me and mine safe from Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism?[/QUOTE]


    crickets ...


    All they care about is getting back in power.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I have yet to hear a single, reasonable, logical post on how the Liberal Theory of Appeasement and Civil Law would do any better than we have done so far.


    What actions will the Democrats take to keep me and mine safe from Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism?[/QUOTE]
    Well if you have yet to hear a single, reasonable or logical proposal maybe it's because you're not listening or reading. Seriously have you heard Jack Murtha speak recently or have you read his proposals.

    He has outlined a clearcut strategy for dealing with the situation. It's out there if you are truly open minded.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]

    For you to say that is factually wrong shows that you are in denial also.[/QUOTE]
    Really, can you show me where or how Laura Bush is actively campaigning for Rumsfeld to resign? That is absurd.

    My real point is that our country is on solid footing. Secondarily, my point is that "agitators" or those who seek power (and there's nothing wrong with this, it, like sex scandals, is politics as usual) must create demand for change - tell the country that we're lost here, and hopeless there...

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    I hope its no one with a cigar, cuz that's just nasty...

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Well if you have yet to hear a single, reasonable or logical proposal maybe it's because you're not listening or reading. Seriously have you heard Jack Murtha speak recently or have you read his proposals.

    He has outlined a clearcut strategy for dealing with the situation. It's out there if you are truly open minded.[/QUOTE]

    Ok, lets say I havn't heard Mr. "Our Soldiers are Guilty Cold Blooded Killers" Murtha's plan of action.

    Why don't you link it for me then, so we can all review it now. After all, if it's as "out there" as you claim, you shouldn't have any trouble at all finding it in it's entirety, and reporting it or linking it here.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance]Really, can you show me where or how Laura Bush is actively campaigning for Rumsfeld to resign? That is absurd.

    ...[/QUOTE]
    Woodward was just on CNN saying that he spoke to Andrew Card after the book came out and Card confirms that yes he did speak to Laura Bush about Rumsfeld and yes that was her position.

    Why should we believe you over Card and Woodward? Is it because you want to believe what you do?
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 10-04-2006 at 04:41 PM.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Ok, lets say I havn't heard Mr. "Our Soldiers are Guilty Cold Blooded Killers" Murtha's plan of action.

    Why don't you link it for me then, so we can all review it now. After all, if it's as "out there" as you claim, you shouldn't have any trouble at all finding it in it's entirety, and reporting it or linking it here.[/QUOTE]
    So I have to do your research for you? If you are so interested in knowing the Democrats plan why not look for it? I don't have time to today but I will get a link up.

    So are you a man who just refexively spouts off right wing talking points on the mention of Murtha. Murtha is a Marine war hero. He did not name any names of any person who he thought was guilty. He just said that an incident that was reported as innocent loss of life was indeed a massacre. Of course he was right about that. To label him as you did is an outrage.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]So I have to do your research for you? If you are so interested in knowing the Democrats plan why not look for it? I don't have time to today but I will get a link up.

    So are you a man who just refexively spouts off right wing talking points on the mention of Murtha. Murtha is a Marine war hero. He did not name any names of any person who he thought was guilty. He just said that an incident that was reported as innocent loss of life was indeed a massacre. Of course he was right about that. To label him as you did is an outrage.[/QUOTE]

    Outrage, eh? He passed judgement on our soldiers without having the facts or eveidence in hand, plain and simple. He called them "Cold Blooded Killers" before they were tried, or provided for their defense, plain and simple. Murtha would give more rights to captured terrorists than he would our own soldiers.

    If that is your sides version of a "Hero", it's no wonder your party is where it is today.

    And again, if his great plan was so "out there" as you claimed, it would have taken you less time to google it and link it than it did to whine about how "outraged" you are. :rolleyes:

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Outrage, eh? He passed judgement on our soldiers without having the facts or eveidence in hand, plain and simple. He called them "Cold Blooded Killers" before they were tried, or provided for their defense, plain and simple. Murtha would give more rights to captured terrorists than he would our own soldiers.

    If that is your sides version of a "Hero", it's no wonder your party is where it is today.

    And again, if his great plan was so "out there" as you claimed, it would have taken you less time to google it and link it than it did to whine about how "outraged" you are. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
    That is pure bs that he offers more rights to terrorists than our own soldiers. Murtha is a man with an extremely strong love of the US military. He has his own connections of information within the ranks as uniformed officers come to talk to him about what they are feeling but they can't speak out loud because they can't go against the chain of command. When an American soldier defames the uniform that he wears we all feel that pain but Murtha especially.

    This is what you have to understand before you flout off the right wing propaganda. Murtha did not accuse any individual soldier. All he said was what was reported as innocent civilian casualties was in actuality a massacre and should be investigated. Did he call those who did it cold blood killers? Of course he did. Wasn't he right? Did he name names of those doing the killing? No. This horsesh*t that you spit out is just hateful propaganda by political opponents and I am surprised at you Warfish as I thought your were an independent and could see through that stuff.

    So you complain about my "whining" about not having the time to do it yesterday as it was so easy to google. Well yes it is easy to google but I was otherwise occupied and I wanted to read over the articles before posting them. If you are so open minded as you say and really want to know the Democratic point of view why not do it yourself as it would have taken you the same time to google it as it did for you to "whine" about me not having time.

    Anywhere here is a link for the press release of his position on Iraq.
    [URL]http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html[/URL]

    Here is a transcript of Murtha on Meet the Press
    [URL=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/18/murtha-vs-bush-on-iraq-_n_23271.html]Meet the Press[/URL]

    Murtha talking about his plan
    [URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/13/60minutes/main1208423.shtml[/URL]

    I would appreciate your comments on this after you read it. Thanks.
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 10-05-2006 at 10:24 AM.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]My plan calls:

    To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
    To create a quick reaction force in the region.
    To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
    To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq [/QUOTE]

    I.e. Get Out Now, Screw What happens once we're gone.

    Quick Reaction Force? Over-the-Horizon Presence? Ok smart guy, you tell me what that means specificly, if it means anything at all. Sound to me like BS talking-points about being "ready for war", when in reality it means not taking the fight to the enemy.

    "Diplomatically persue" eh? Exactly, more standard issue "Appeasement, Civil Law, Understand their Side, Compassion for Islamic Fundamentalists, Rights for Terrorists in Courts, Pray the UN and other nations (like the corrupt and self-interested Russians and French) help us".

    Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me, frankly. Sounds like more of the same, Run away, try to "understand" our enemies, be sure they are given equal rights as americans, and pray the world likes us enough to do our work for us.

    How do YOU see this "plan" succeeding in keeping terrorists from attacking us? How does it make the Middle East less dangerous? How does it ensure that terrorists fear us, and fear attacking us? I just don't see how this plan makes ME safer.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I.e. Get Out Now, Screw What happens once we're gone.

    Quick Reaction Force? Over-the-Horizon Presence? Ok smart guy, you tell me what that means specificly, if it means anything at all. Sound to me like BS talking-points about being "ready for war", when in reality it means not taking the fight to the enemy.

    "Diplomatically persue" eh? Exactly, more standard issue "Appeasement, Civil Law, Understand their Side, Compassion for Islamic Fundamentalists, Rights for Terrorists in Courts, Pray the UN and other nations (like the corrupt and self-interested Russians and French) help us".

    Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me, frankly. Sounds like more of the same, Run away, try to "understand" our enemies, be sure they are given equal rights as americans, and pray the world likes us enough to do our work for us.

    How do YOU see this "plan" succeeding in keeping terrorists from attacking us? How does it make the Middle East less dangerous? How does it ensure that terrorists fear us, and fear attacking us? I just don't see how this plan makes ME safer.[/QUOTE]
    Warfish one thing that I think is confusing you is your thinking that us being in Iraq has anything to do with keeping us safe from terrorists striking here. Well the National Intelligence Estimate of last year says just the opposite. The report of this year which is just focused on Iraq is being held up by the administration and not being released. Can you imagine what that one says? Our invasion of Iraq has made the Middle East a more dangerous place. What will happen if we leave? Most agree the civil war will continue till there is a resolution.

    There is no question that it is a civil war there now and we are in the middle of it. Why stay when our best efforts to stop it is futile? We can't even secure f'n Baghdad. After so many years the capital of the country is not safe for a person to walk what have we accomplished?

    Maybe what will happen in Iraq eventaully is what happened in the Balkans when Tito left. The warring ethnic parties had out at each other. It was ugly and we tried to keep civilian atrocieties down with our bombing but it eventually resolved itself into separate entities and now they live in relative peace. Maybe as Biden promotes the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can get their separate entities and learn to tolerate each other. That's the diplomacy that is needed to forge out those entities. Why is diplomacy appeasement and weakness? That's a fools look at the world that the only way to change things is to fight. Isn't Bush pushing diplomacy with Iran and N Korea?

    As far as making us safer at home. That is a law enforcement job. Protecting borders and ports, improve intelligence and increased security. We should be concentrating militarily on bases where the terrorists are training and that has moved from Afghanistan to Syria. I think that is the military front we should be concentrating on. We can't let the Taliban increase their power again.

    To me and I will readily admit my biases here Murtha, Biden and the Democrats offer a much better and more specific plan than Bush has in his stay the course, fight them there battle plan.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]
    What actions will the Democrats take to keep me and mine safe from Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism?[/QUOTE]

    the actions of the GOP make things worse not better

    not making things worse is an improvement over status quo

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us