 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / April 2004Rudy Giuliani To The United Nations?
"Rudy Belongs at Turtle Bay" "The position of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is coming vacant, now that President Bush has appointed its current holder, John Negroponte, to the newly created post of ambassador to Baghdad. If President Bush wants to be bold, why doesn't he tap Rudolph Giuliani as Negroponte's replacement? The New York Post floated the idea last week, and it deserves serious attention. Giuliani seems just the right man for the time -- a time when America, the only country capable of doing the hard work of protecting Western civilization from Islamic terrorists, is constantly at risk of falling into the quagmire of U.N. diplomacy. ****** Not only would Giuliani be a bully-pulpiteer in the great tradition of Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but he would bring the penetrating eye of a former prosecutor to the continuing Oil-for-Food scandal -- which may well turn out to be the corrupt reason why countries like France and Russia fought so fiercely to keep Saddam Hussein's murderous dictatorship in power in Iraq. To be sure, some of Giuliani's critics, including our colleagues at The Wall Street Journal, are of the view that he was overzealous and unfair in prosecuting white-collar crimes. But that's all the more reason why he's a perfect fit for the U.N., which certainly doesn't suffer from an excess of prosecutorial fervor. ****** Apart from the president himself, it's hard to think of any more powerful spokesman and symbol for America's war on terror than Rudy Giuliani, and not only because of his inspired mayoral leadership after Sept. 11. Giuliani took a stand against terror even when it was unpopular. In 1995 he ordered security to eject Yasser Arafat from Lincoln Center, in an era when the terror boss was being feted at the White House and lavished with Nobel Peace Prizes. How about those apples, pogues and poguettes? ---- DSH The politics of a Giuliani appointment seem perfect for Bush as well. At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Jeane Kirkpatrick gave a rousing foreign-policy speech in which she, a lifelong Democrat, denounced her party for abandoning its erstwhile policies of strength: "Lifelong Democrat." Vide supra et infra. ---- DSH ------------------------------------------- "When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich -- convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand. . . . When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States. But then, they always blame America first. When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago. But then, they always blame America first. The American people know better." ----------------------------- Imagine U.N. Ambassador Rudy Giuliani traveling across town to the Republican National Convention to deliver a speech on the "Boston Democrats," and you begin to see why this is such a brilliant idea." James Taranto The Wall Street Journal ----------------------- <Groak!> D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > The position of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is coming vacant, now that > President Bush has appointed its current holder, John Negroponte, to the > newly created post of ambassador to Baghdad. If President Bush wants to > be bold, why doesn't he tap Rudolph Giuliani as Negroponte's > replacement? Because The Shrub is deathly afraid of giving Giuliani any visibility. On 9/11/01 when The Shrub was nowhere to be seen, hiding in secret places, Rudy was right at the heart of the disaster, visible in front of a devasted city and country, giving heart and soul to saving his city and calming his people. I think we Republicans should dump The Shrub, and nominate Rudy for President this fall. > Because The Shrub is deathly afraid of giving Giuliani any > visibility. Gad, you Bush haters can't ever give it up, can you. Why would "W" fear Giuliana? He had always gone for the top people. The UN post would not be any different. > On 9/11/01 when The Shrub was nowhere to be seen, hiding in > secret places, Rudy was right at the heart of the disaster, > visible in front of a devasted city and country, giving heart and > soul to saving his city and calming his people. Oh, you silly person! "W" has/had responsibility for the defense of the entire country. "G" was mayor of NYC. They both had work to attend to on 911 and they both did it. > I think we Republicans should dump The Shrub, and nominate Rudy > for President this fall. Gad. Does your brain cell get lonely? EMWTK >> Because The Shrub is deathly afraid of giving Giuliani any >> visibility. >Gad, you Bush haters can't ever give it up, can you. >Why would "W" fear Giuliana? He had always gone for the top people. The >UN post would not be any different. Well, here are some pointers. Rudy does not take orders. Rudy does not keep his disdain for folks he dislikes hidden. Rudy can't stand not being top dog. Rudy is not always right but he doesn't care much about being wrong. Somebody else will clean up the mess. He's cost New York a small fortune in law suits for things he ordered done as mayor that were known to be illegal. On the other hand, his extraordinary (and somewhat undeserved) self confidence makes him an excellent rallying point in an emergency. He keeps his cool and isn't afraid to take a position that might not be right. My guess is that he will run for Governor. I doubt he could win election as a senator from New York against either of our incumbents. ----- Paul J. Gans, who lived with Rudy both as mayor and as federal prosecutor, an enormous number of whose cases got overturned on appeals. > >> Because The Shrub is deathly afraid of giving Giuliani any > >> visibility. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rudy does not take orders. Again, you Bush Haters have a case of the very sillies! Rudy took orders when appropriate and gave orders when appropriate. He would fit right into the team "W" has working for him. > Rudy does not keep his disdain for folks he dislikes hidden. That's a "Rudy Problem" and not a "W" problem. > Rudy can't stand not being top dog. Again, a "Rudy Problem" and not a "W" problem. > Rudy is not always right but he doesn't care much about > being wrong. Somebody else will clean up the mess. He's > cost New York a small fortune in law suits for things he > ordered done as mayor that were known to be illegal. You seem to be on the opinion that "Rudy" is a jerk. What can I say? > On the other hand, his extraordinary (and somewhat undeserved) > self confidence makes him an excellent rallying point in an > emergency. He keeps his cool and isn't afraid to take a > position that might not be right. Good man in a crisis. But you can't operate anything in in 100% crisis mode. > My guess is that he will run for Governor. I doubt he could > win election as a senator from New York against either of > our incumbents. He might well be able to beat either of them. Were Rudy to work at the UN for a year or two and, thus, keep in the limelight in NYC, he would have a LOT of votes from NYC voters that ordinarily would go to the democRAT. Remember that Rudy got a MAJORITY of the NYC voters in the past. About the only person who would fear Rudy in the UN would be Hillary. If "G" goes to the UN, Hillary will KNOW she will have trouble in 2006. That might force her to join the Kerry ticket as VP. Of course, if Kerry doesn't do much better than he is now, Hillary just might have problems across the board. > ----- Paul J. Gans, who lived with Rudy both as mayor > and as federal prosecutor, an enormous number > of whose cases got overturned on appeals. >> >> Because The Shrub is deathly afraid of giving Giuliani any >> >> visibility. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Rudy does not take orders. >Again, you Bush Haters have a case of the very sillies! What has Bush to do with Rudy? >Rudy took orders when appropriate and gave orders when appropriate. He >would fit right into the team "W" has working for him. I don't think so. Don't forget, I lived under him for a good number of years. He hardly missed a day of publicity in the papers. And his actions in New York are the stuff of legend. He was tough and pugnacious and took no crap from anyone. >> Rudy does not keep his disdain for folks he dislikes hidden. >That's a "Rudy Problem" and not a "W" problem. Who keeps bringing Bush into this. I'm describing what I know of Rudy's character. If you think Bush would like him, be my guest. >> Rudy can't stand not being top dog. >> >Again, a "Rudy Problem" and not a "W" problem. >> Rudy is not always right but he doesn't care much about >> being wrong. Somebody else will clean up the mess. He's >> cost New York a small fortune in law suits for things he >> ordered done as mayor that were known to be illegal. >You seem to be on the opinion that "Rudy" is a jerk. >What can I say? No. What can *I* say. I am of the opinion that Rudy is a very difficult personality, very hard to work with on an equal basis or one where you are his superior, and difficult to work for if you think differently than he does. >> On the other hand, his extraordinary (and somewhat undeserved) >> self confidence makes him an excellent rallying point in an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Good man in a crisis. But you can't operate anything in in 100% crisis >mode. >> My guess is that he will run for Governor. I doubt he could >> win election as a senator from New York against either of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >LOT of votes from NYC voters that ordinarily would go to the democRAT. >Remember that Rudy got a MAJORITY of the NYC voters in the past. Yes, he did get the majority of NYC votes, but consider who he was running against. Let me spell out this UN thing. The US representative to the UN has to be able to totally submerge his personality, carry out the dictates of the State Department unless directed otherwise by the White House. And he has to be able to get along with his collegues no matter what. There is no room for telling folks to get lost, grow up, or that they stink. In other words the one thing Rudy is NOT is diplomatic. If Bush wants him in the UN, he will have a handful. Rudy will take the limelight and keep his name in the papers as often as possible. >About the only person who would fear Rudy in the UN would be Hillary. If >"G" goes to the UN, Hillary will KNOW she will have trouble in 2006. That >might force her to join the Kerry ticket as VP. Of course, if Kerry >doesn't do much better than he is now, Hillary just might have problems >across the board. You folks seem to be scared silly of Hillary. It is not at all certain that anybody could beat her. She did very well upstate in traditional Republican territory, something that her enemies like to forget. But I admit that politics is a strange business and strange things might happen. ---- Paul J. Gans > Let me spell out this UN thing. The US representative to the UN > has to be able to totally submerge his personality, carry out > the dictates of the State Department unless directed otherwise > by the White House. And he has to be able to get along with > his collegues no matter what. There is no room for telling > folks to get lost, grow up, or that they stink. You are describing the "ideal" UN representative from the view of the state department bureaucracy. From the view of our Presidents, this idea leaves much to be desired. No one remembers the names of the UN representatives that toed the State Department line. But EVERYONE remembers those who didn't. AND their Presidents appreciated their serrvice even if the Sec. State didn't always. > In other words the one thing Rudy is NOT is diplomatic. If > Bush wants him in the UN, he will have a handful. Rudy will > take the limelight and keep his name in the papers as often > as possible. I think "W" would be quite happy with "G" representing the US to the UN. > >About the only person who would fear Rudy in the UN would be Hillary. If > >"G" goes to the UN, Hillary will KNOW she will have trouble in 2006. That [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You folks seem to be scared silly of Hillary. Yes, we are. >It is not at all > certain that anybody could beat her. She did very well upstate > in traditional Republican territory, something that her enemies > like to forget. Oh, we remember. That's why we fear her. A LOT of Republican woman vote for Hillary. We know that and that's why we fear her. Hillary is very popular among "Country Club" Republican Woman (hell, Hillary was a Country Club Republican until she went off to college.) But Hillary is disliked by Pro-Life folks across the board. Hillary gets a lot of votes from nominal Republicans but in the process she loses a few votes from "Social Conservatives." "G" might well hold on to the CC GOP women and still keep a few of the social conservatives who tended to approve of his "quality of life" stuff in NYC. > But I admit that politics is a strange business and strange things > might happen. At last, something upon which we can both agree. > But Hillary > is disliked by Pro-Life folks across the board. Pro-life? Is that the 'politically correct' way of describing Catholic men who want to stop women having abortions these days?  SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government >> But Hillary >> is disliked by Pro-Life folks across the board. >Pro-life? >Is that the 'politically correct' way of describing Catholic men who want to >stop women having abortions these days? Sort of. The men usually aren't Catholic. They are members of our more fundamentalist religious groups, and they include plenty of women. They back the political party that claims it wants to get the government off the backs of the people. While catholics are officially (according to the heirarchy) against abortion, polls over the years have shown that an overwhelming majority of catholics don't agree with the church on this. Neither does Kerry, who is a practising catholic and pro-abortion. The church, in a bold move to show how church and state are separate in the US, has threatened to keep him from receiving communion because of his views. The US is a marvelously complex nation! ----- Paul J. Gans > > But Hillary > > is disliked by Pro-Life folks across the board. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is that the 'politically correct' way of describing Catholic men who want to > stop women having abortions these days? Nope. It's the difference between Country Club Republican Woman and your "social conservative", church going, working class Christian Woman. Those who truly believe that only men are opposed to abortion just don't get very far away from the campus or the country club. The abortion issue has "legs" for the Republican party. Those images of those smiling woman defending partial birth abortion and being cheered on by Hillary will come back to haunt them. MOST woman don't believe in killing babies. Most Roman Catholic men don't either. And this issue has brought Catholics and Fundy Protestants very close. It has also brought black and white (and Latin) Christians together. These are mostly lower middle class and below folks. They routinely vote for the democRATs. But if the economy is OK, and the choice is between LIFE and DEATH for unborn babies, they will choose LIFE. > The abortion issue has "legs" for the Republican party. Those images of > those smiling woman defending partial birth abortion and being cheered on by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > economy is OK, and the choice is between LIFE and DEATH for unborn babies, > they will choose LIFE. Are you bonkers or something. This isn't an issue anywhere 'civilised' except in the USA and the Catholic countries. There isn't an issue, a woman has the right to choose, all you're taking about is taking that right away. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > Are you bonkers or something. > > This isn't an issue anywhere 'civilised' except in the USA and the Catholic > countries. Perhaps you should re-think the word, "civilised." It seems that the "civilised" world (with the exception of USA and "Catholic" countries) thinks a lot like Uncle Adolf: if a life is inconvenient, kill it. > There isn't an issue, a woman has the right to choose, all you're taking > about is taking that right away. Well, the "funny" thing is that a woman seems to have the right to kill her baby but doesn't have the right to be casual with her pre-natal care with the result that the kid dies. Funny, ain't it. But for a LONG time the ethics of the western world protected the unborn. This "modern" world just isn't very civilized. >> Are you bonkers or something. >> >> This isn't an issue anywhere 'civilised' except in the USA and the >Catholic >> countries. >Perhaps you should re-think the word, "civilised." It seems that the >"civilised" world (with the exception of USA and "Catholic" countries) >thinks a lot like Uncle Adolf: if a life is inconvenient, kill it. >> There isn't an issue, a woman has the right to choose, all you're taking >> about is taking that right away. >Well, the "funny" thing is that a woman seems to have the right to kill her >baby but doesn't have the right to be casual with her pre-natal care with >the result that the kid dies. That law will never stand up to a court challenge in any but the most extreme case. What constitutes "improper" pre-natal care? You don't see it but I will tell you how women do, being married to one and the father of two others. They do NOT want the government telling them what they can eat, what they can drink, what they can wear, what they can ride, what places they can go, etc., all because some man put a sperm inside them. My daughter, 6 months pregnant, travelled with the permission of her doctor. She attended a conference in her field in Madrid. The night before she was to return to the US she went into labor and early in the morning gave birth to a baby girl 14 1/2 weeks early. That baby lived (thank you Spain) and is a rollicking three-year old today. Had she not, and many many that premature do not, and had the early birth happened in the US, my daughter could have gone to jail. Do you understand that? There was no known cause for this early birth and her next pregnancy was totally normal. If you and your bunch of woman-haters had there way my daughter might never have had my second grandchild because they don't allow conjugal visits in US jails. Women see it this way. Being pregnant is tough enough. There are enough problems with "normal" pregnancies. You would have every spontaneously aborted pregnancy (that is technically what a premature birth is) lead to possible criminal prosecution. Why not just put an iron collar around women and chain them to the bed? >Funny, ain't it. Very. >But for a LONG time the ethics of the western world protected the unborn. >This "modern" world just isn't very civilized. You have spoken. The rest of the world will conform or die. Right? ----- Paul J. Gans > >> about is taking that right away. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the most extreme case. What constitutes "improper" pre-natal > care? Don't you follow the news? In Utah, recently, a woman was charged with MURDER because she delayed getting a C-section. Woman who give birth to FAS (alcohol) or drug damaged or intoxicated babies are often prosecuted. "Inproper," like other adjectives is often defined by the whim of the judge or jury and sometimes it is spelled out in the law. > You don't see it but I will tell you how women do, being married > to one and the father of two others. They do NOT want the > government telling them what they can eat, what they can drink, > what they can wear, what they can ride, what places they can > go, etc., all because some man put a sperm inside them. So? Lots of folks don't like lots of laws. But you seem to believe that all those women having abortions were raped. It just ain't so. > My daughter, 6 months pregnant, travelled with the permission > of her doctor. She attended a conference in her field in > Madrid. The night before she was to return to the US she > went into labor and early in the morning gave birth to > a baby girl 14 1/2 weeks early. WTF is your point? >> >> about is taking that right away. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> the most extreme case. What constitutes "improper" pre-natal >> care? >Don't you follow the news? In Utah, recently, a woman was charged with >MURDER because she delayed getting a C-section. Woman who give birth to >FAS (alcohol) or drug damaged or intoxicated babies are often prosecuted. >"Inproper," like other adjectives is often defined by the whim of the judge >or jury and sometimes it is spelled out in the law. And what happened in that case? >> You don't see it but I will tell you how women do, being married >> to one and the father of two others. They do NOT want the >> government telling them what they can eat, what they can drink, >> what they can wear, what they can ride, what places they can >> go, etc., all because some man put a sperm inside them. >So? Lots of folks don't like lots of laws. But you seem to believe that >all those women having abortions were raped. It just ain't so. I did not say "raped". I said "because some man put a sperm inside them." >> My daughter, 6 months pregnant, travelled with the permission >> of her doctor. She attended a conference in her field in >> Madrid. The night before she was to return to the US she >> went into labor and early in the morning gave birth to >> a baby girl 14 1/2 weeks early. >WTF is your point? You clipped it. It was there. I'll say it again. In the US she could be prosecuted under the law for taking improper care of her fetus. ----- Paul J. Gans > MOST woman don't believe in killing babies. Most Roman Catholic men > don't either. Don't you understand English or are you trying to lie your way into winning an argument. Killing babies is illegal and is not the topic under discussion. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines > Don't you understand English or are you trying to lie your way into winning > an argument. Killing babies is illegal and is not the topic under > discussion. Really? Perhaps you should pull your head out of your a.s and read up on "partial birth abortionl." When an attempt was made to make the procedure illegal the "usual suspects" said it was a attempt to reduce a woman's right of "choice" and they dug in their heels. >> Don't you understand English or are you trying to lie your way into >winning >> an argument. Killing babies is illegal and is not the topic under >> discussion. >Really? >Perhaps you should pull your head out of your a.s and read up on "partial >birth abortionl." >When an attempt was made to make the procedure illegal the "usual suspects" >said it was a attempt to reduce a woman's right of "choice" and they dug in >their heels. It is law now. No exceptions, not even if the woman dies. Have any female children? ---- Paul J. Gans > >> Don't you understand English or are you trying to lie your way into > >winning [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Have any female children? What *is* the US law currently? Simplistically, please! Surreyman > > Have any female children? And IDIOT type argument. But what I expect from you know who. > What *is* the US law currently? Simplistically, please! Right now, during the first 12 weeks (first "trimester") a woman can get a abortion with not question asked upon demand. MAYBE one or two states requires "informed concent" and/or a waiting period. The first trimester rule is because of the Supreme Court. Were the supreme court to turn the matter back to the states, to a good approximation the "Red States" would, one by one, likely restore the old anti-abortion laws. The courts have also effectively made it the law that a minor does not need parental consent to get an abortion. It's like the death penalty debate: states pass laws that they HOPE will be permitted to stand by the courts. The whole abortion industry is built upon a house of cards. Regardless of the smiling women and Hillary, about 1/2 of Americans what "abortion on demand" to be made illegal (with "exceptions.). The that 1/2 isn't just white male Christians. It is a sleeper issue. It has done all the harm it can to the GOP (the country club Republican woman are drifting to the democRAT party.) At some future time, it may bite the democRATs on the a.s. The issue likely caused algore to lose West (by God) Virginia in the 2000 election. It's slowly increasing the percentage of the "black and hispanic" vote the GOP gets. The second and third trimesters usually require the recommendation of a physician (easy to get but ...). The "partial birth" procedure is legal. So far, states can only legislate around the court rulings. >> > But Hillary >> > is disliked by Pro-Life folks across the board. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to >> stop women having abortions these days? >Nope. It's the difference between Country Club Republican Woman and your >"social conservative", church going, working class Christian Woman. >Those who truly believe that only men are opposed to abortion just don't get >very far away from the campus or the country club. >The abortion issue has "legs" for the Republican party. Those images of >those smiling woman defending partial birth abortion and being cheered on by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >economy is OK, and the choice is between LIFE and DEATH for unborn babies, >they will choose LIFE. I don't agree with you on this. My experience is that most women do NOT want the government telling them what they can and can not do with *their* bodies. Over and over again polls have shown that a majority of US women are pro-choice. Further, they strongly resent being called "baby-killers" because of this. They may personally not believe in abortion *for them*, but they resent the name-callers lumping them in with whom? Is there anybody who wants to kill babies for fun? The passage of the anti-abortion "partial birth abortion" bill has galvanized many women otherwise indifferent to the question. It does NOT allow an abortion even if the woman will die if she does not have one. If if was up to you and you had a pregnant wife faced with this in her sixth month of pregnancy, would you tell her that you are sorry but she has to die? ---- Paul J. Gans > Pro-life? > Is that the 'politically correct' way of describing Catholic men who > want to stop women having abortions these days? Frequently the same people who want to kill those found guilty of a murder they (30% chance) didn't commit and are even happy to see doctors murdered. Pro-Life=(frequently) bigoted. It's part of Newspeak as in Orwell. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines > Frequently the same people who want to kill those found guilty of a murder > they (30% chance) didn't commit and are even happy to see doctors murdered. 1) IF you claim that 30% of those executed for murder in the US were innocent then, again, you have your head up your a.s. It would be difficult to find even a handful of "executions of innocents" in the US in the entire 20th century. 2) Killing a doctor who routinely kills hundreds of babies each year is frontier justice. > Pro-Life=(frequently) bigoted. It's part of Newspeak as in Orwell. Could be. Pro-Choice=(frequently) bigoted. The secret (but unfounded reason) that middle class woman tend to be pro-choice is because they hope and assume that "minorities and the poor" will kill their babies. >> Frequently the same people who want to kill those found guilty of a murder >> they (30% chance) didn't commit and are even happy to see doctors >murdered. >1) IF you claim that 30% of those executed for murder in the US were >innocent then, again, you have your head up your a.s. It would be >difficult to find even a handful of "executions of innocents" in the US in >the entire 20th century. You are not in touch with reality. Nobody is trying to exonerate the dead. But far more than a handfull of living have been removed from death row because they did't do it. >2) Killing a doctor who routinely kills hundreds of babies each year is >frontier justice. Actually, that's against the law. I assume that you'd be in favor of also killing any woman who had an abortion? Or would you just brand them "murdering slut" right across their forehead? >> Pro-Life=(frequently) bigoted. It's part of Newspeak as in Orwell. >> >Could be. Pro-Choice=(frequently) bigoted. The secret (but unfounded >reason) that middle class woman tend to be pro-choice is because they hope >and assume that "minorities and the poor" will kill their babies. Oh my my. You do know that the middle class (and the upper class) have always been able to get LEGAL abortions in the US even when abortions were illegal? I thought not. Why are you guys always so ignorant? ----- Paul J. Gans > >> Frequently the same people who want to kill those found guilty of a murder > >> they (30% chance) didn't commit and are even happy to see doctors [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the dead. But far more than a handfull of living have been > removed from death row because they did't do it. So? That's what appeals are for. > >2) Killing a doctor who routinely kills hundreds of babies each year is > >frontier justice. > > Actually, that's against the law. I assume that you'd be in > favor of also killing any woman who had an abortion? Nope, just the operators of the abortion mills! >Or would > you just brand them "murdering slut" right across their forehead? Not at all. I have great compassion and pity for a woman who decides to take the lives of her children. > >> Pro-Life=(frequently) bigoted. It's part of Newspeak as in Orwell. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > been able to get LEGAL abortions in the US even when abortions were > illegal? So? > I thought not. You thought WRONG. But that's to be expected. >> Let me spell out this UN thing. The US representative to the UN >> has to be able to totally submerge his personality, carry out >> the dictates of the State Department unless directed otherwise >> by the White House. And he has to be able to get along with >> his collegues no matter what. There is no room for telling >> folks to get lost, grow up, or that they stink. >You are describing the "ideal" UN representative from the view of the state >department bureaucracy. >From the view of our Presidents, this idea leaves much to be desired. No >one remembers the names of the UN representatives that toed the State >Department line. >But EVERYONE remembers those who didn't. AND their Presidents appreciated >their serrvice even if the Sec. State didn't always. Don't be silly. If he was not following State Department directions he was following those of the White House. I pointed this out in a missing part of my post. >> In other words the one thing Rudy is NOT is diplomatic. If >> Bush wants him in the UN, he will have a handful. Rudy will >> take the limelight and keep his name in the papers as often >> as possible. >> >I think "W" would be quite happy with "G" representing the US to the UN. Quite possibly. It is not easy to know what or if he thinks. >> >About the only person who would fear Rudy in the UN would be Hillary. >If [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> You folks seem to be scared silly of Hillary. >Yes, we are. Good. Then we shall keep her where she is and let her terrify you for years. >>It is not at all >> certain that anybody could beat her. She did very well upstate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Oh, we remember. That's why we fear her. A LOT of Republican woman vote >for Hillary. We know that and that's why we fear her. >Hillary is very popular among "Country Club" Republican Woman (hell, Hillary >was a Country Club Republican until she went off to college.) But Hillary >is disliked by Pro-Life folks across the board. Hillary gets a lot of >votes from nominal Republicans but in the process she loses a few votes from >"Social Conservatives." Yes, but there are more pro-abortion folks in the US than anti. >"G" might well hold on to the CC GOP women and still keep a few of the >social conservatives who tended to approve of his "quality of life" stuff in >NYC. >> But I admit that politics is a strange business and strange things >> might happen. >At last, something upon which we can both agree. ---- Paul J. Gans [snip] > On 9/11/01 when The Shrub was nowhere to be seen, hiding in > secret places, Rudy was right at the heart of the disaster, > visible in front of a devasted city and country, giving heart and > soul to saving his city and calming his people. The President has larger concerns than ground zero of a disaster area while the extent of the disaster is yet unknown. The Secret Service has a responsibility to safeguard the President and VP as well. Flying either individual into the center of the said disaster whilst it was possibly still in process would, I venture to say, not be number one on their contingency plans roster. Giuliani was Chief Magistrate of the City of New York. It was his job to be there and a fine job he did too. Me, I'd like him to have a crack at Hitlery or the Cereal-Killer. Taking either of those two out of the political would give hime a very high profile indeed. > I think we Republicans should dump The Shrub, and nominate Rudy > for President this fall. And I firmly believe you should have that recto-cranial inversion reversed so everything doesn't look like sh.t. IBM > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > disaster area while the extent of the disaster is yet > unknown. The Secret Service has a responsibility to safeguard > the President and VP as well. Flying either individual into > the center of the said disaster whilst it was possibly > still in process would, I venture to say, not be number one > on their contingency plans roster. Hey, I didn't say send him to ground zero, but the first peep anyone heard from The Shrub was about 10 hours after he skeedaddled from that Florida schoolroom. While the country agonized and waited to hear from it's leadership, all we heard from Washington until well into the evening was sound bytes from 3rd and 4th level talking heads. I'm sure Air Force One has wonderful video conferencing facilities and the public could have heard something from it's leader (lower case "l") without compromising his location or security. Meanwhile Rudy, without regard to a few falling skyscrapers nearby, moved quickly to act like a Leader (upper case "L") and reassure his people. I think the GOP should dump Bush II and draft Rudy. With all kind wishes, Hans > "Rudy Belongs at Turtle Bay" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be bold, why doesn't he tap Rudolph Giuliani as Negroponte's > replacement? ANOTHER JEW COCKSUCKER IN THE BUSH ENCLAVE! > "Rudy Belongs at Turtle Bay" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > protecting Western civilization from Islamic terrorists, is constantly > at risk of falling into the quagmire of U.N. diplomacy. ****** Bad idea. First, I listened to Rudy speak on foreign affairs once and he sounded like someone way over his head. He was no where near as well versed in the issues as he is when he speaks to domestic matters. Second, he is way too pro Israel. If the US is to achieve peace in this war with the arabs, it has to stop taking sides in the Israel/Palestine fight. Attorney General might be the best job for Rudy. -Steve Incredibly stupid. We take sides because Israel is an ally. We took sides in Iraq; we took sides in Afghanistan. Why should we not take sides in the Israeli/arab conflict? >> "Rudy Belongs at Turtle Bay" >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >-Steve >Incredibly stupid. We take sides because Israel is an ally. We took >sides in Iraq; we took sides in Afghanistan. Why should we not take >sides in the Israeli/arab conflict? Because taking sides, per se, will not lead to a resolution to the problem. Until the two sides can sort it out, Jewish, Muslim and Christian children will keep on dying. -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL > Incredibly stupid. We take sides because Israel is an ally. We took > sides in Iraq; we took sides in Afghanistan. We invaded Afg and Iraq because of 9/11. That was our fight. > Why should we not take > sides in the Israeli/arab conflict? Because the Palestinians have never done anything to hurt us! It's not our fight. Are you aware that Israel fought and won the 1967 Six Day War entirely without American aid? If Israel did not need US help to defeat its Russian backed foe in 67, why does it need $2B+ per year in military aid to fight the Palestinians today? -Steve > > Incredibly stupid. We take sides because Israel is an ally. We took > > sides in Iraq; we took sides in Afghanistan. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because the Palestinians have never done anything to hurt us! It's not > our fight. You mean apart from hijacking and blowing up British and US aircraft and killing a disabled US pensioner on a hijacked cruise ship for bad mouthing them. Keith > > ileif@ix.netcom.com wrote in message > news:<i4ot8012r5r192gtj8rhsg3si4prtcflio@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Keith Arguably those attacks occured after the US took the side of Israel and backed its occupation of Palestinian territory. I have asked the following question on line a number of times without a good answer. Why did Israel have to invade and occupy Jordan's WB territory in the 67 war? Even if you want to argue for the invasion, why the occupation? There were very few Palestinian guerrilla attacks coming from the WB onto Israel before the 67 war. Jordan was a non hostile, even friendly neighbor of Israel. Why did it merit being invaded and its territory taken from it? -Steve :I have asked the :following question on line a number of times without a good answer. I suspect this is because, so far as you are concerned, there is no such thing as a 'good answer', no matter how good the answer. :Why did Israel have to invade and occupy Jordan's WB territory in the :67 war? Because Jordan attacked them. And it is not, technically, Jordan's territory except by the same right that it is currently Israeli territory. :Even if you want to argue for the invasion, why the :occupation? Because when someone invades you, you want to get to a defensible frontier (like a river). :There were very few Palestinian guerrilla attacks coming :from the WB onto Israel before the 67 war. Bullshit. :Jordan was a non hostile, even friendly neighbor of Israel. Bullshit. Jordan was part of a military alliance with Egypt and, despite Israeli appeals to stay out of the 1967 fight, attacked Israel. :Why did it merit being invaded and :its territory taken from it? At the onset of the June 1967 War, Jordan had four infantry brigades and one armored brigade in the Jerusalem-Ram Allah-Hebron sector, two infantry brigades reinforced by armor and artillery in the Nabulus area, and one infantry brigade and one armored brigade in the Jordan River valley as reserve for the Nabulus forces. Jordan attacked Israel first. They lost. Now all those military forces are on the other side of a river. Which part of the preceding don't you get? Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > "Rudy Belongs at Turtle Bay" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be bold, why doesn't he tap Rudolph Giuliani as Negroponte's > replacement? Reason one is that Giuliani wants the Pope's job, not a measely Ambassador's job. Reason two is that Guiliani's Skyscrapers are twice as high as the UN building, so he get's a better view of Yankee Stadium on opening day of the Steinbrenner New York / New Jersey International Trade Talks. Reason three is that Bush thinks Houston is New York, so he would probably tap Guiliani for a higher paying insider job as Mayor of Houston, rather than a UN Post. > The New York Post floated the idea last week, and it deserves serious > attention. Giuliani seems just the right man for the time -- a time > when America, the only country capable of doing the hard work of > protecting Western civilization from Islamic terrorists, is constantly > at risk of falling into the quagmire of U.N. diplomacy. ****** But the New York Post will float anything the current Mayor Of New York says as long as the Mayor promises to execute *somebody* at mignight. > > "Rudy Belongs at Turtle Bay" snip > > The New York Post floated the idea last week, and it deserves serious > > attention. Giuliani seems just the right man for the time -- a time [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the Mayor promises to execute *somebody* > at mignight. Say what? > > "D. Spencer Hines" <D_SpencerHines@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message > news:<Y3fjc.244$IJ2.7278@eagle.america.net>... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Say what? The New York Post was only meant to be consumed by New York subway riders, and the visiting Russian Team. So it's given that whoever is the current mayor of New York needs to declare that somebody will be killed at midnight in order to fullfill the job requirements. And if the Mayor needs Federal funding he needs to visit Fort Meade rather than Fort Knox, so he/she or it needs he to educated how real subways work rather than Commie subways. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.