Rudy hits it spot-on. The Democrats own defeat (thank you, Senator Reid for making that clear!). In light of that, I'm beginning to doubt if they even believe in defense at all.

Has Rudy forgotten that it was were Republicans who were elected before 9/11?

Mark

Democrats (and liberal pundits) have made a habit of accusing President Bush of making us less safe.

Mark is forgetting that this was the conclusion of 16 U.S. government intelligence agencies last year. Google for NIE and "less safe".

Willem, the "less safe" phrase is merely editorializing by the media. Nice try.

Especially in light of the fact that Giuliani has now thrown down the gauntlet to the Dems, and especially in light of the fact that he has, as yet, no opinion on Bush's surge strategy, perhaps he should be pressed to provide some details of his own on how, exactly, he plans on staying on the offensive.

al Queda is an international problem. Not spending our resources on one country where our occupation fuels new recruits will allow America the resources needed to be on the offense against al Queda all over the globe.

"But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?"? Giuliani said. "If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer."
Iraq is the perfect example of a Republican President going on the offensive, it was foolish and the Presidents policies have failed the American Troops and citizens. Over 3 thousand Troops dead fighting in a country that had no ties to 9/11/01. Meanwhile the Taliban(who harbored bin Ladden) has been reorganizing and influencing Afghanistan politically again.
You people would sell out our Constitution for a false sense of safety promised by a bunch of liars who did nothing to protect us from 9/11.

Uh, carsick... we ARE on the offensive all over the globe. The treasonous MSM just doesn't cover it, preferring car bombs to more mundane military items.

How many recruits do you think a major victory for Al-Queda will bring in? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? You must think al queda will disband after we leave, right? Or do you think the best way to fight terrorists is with peace and love? Maybe you could smoke a joint with Bin-Laden, that will do the trick.

Why don't Dems just get it over with and nominate Google as their Pres and Wikipedia as their VP?

His speech sounds good. But I'm still concerned about where he stands. He's been too vague.

Matt,

Republicans on offense, Democrats on defense? What a great sports analogy.

You know what they say, though... offense wins games, defense wins championships. (You're a Patriots fan, presumably, you know what I'm talking about.)

Wow, I feel so much safer now, after 6 years of George W. Bush's extraordinary leadership.

His fine example of statesmanship and the ability to get his points across to the world are just some of the benefits we have come to know.

Now I don't believe in the drive by media's polls or anything like that, but, if you took one, a trustworthy one, one that promotes right wing interests, I am sure the average American, the honest ones, feel safer. Not just safer, but WAY safer.

Here's the capper, if you took a poll of other democratic nations and asked them: "Do you feel safer because of America's activities in the middle east and it's WAR on TERROR?"

I bet dollars against doughnuts that in their hearts, maybe not in their minds, but in their hearts, they feel safer.

And Rudy, of all people, can maintain the security we have come to know and love.

We should be able to drop a few colors on the warning system by now, don't you think?

I thank God for our Republican administered safety.

lib dems are so blinded with hatred for the US that they will side with the terroists in order to make us lose. we all better get out and vote.

Mark is forgetting that this was the conclusion of 16 U.S. government intelligence agencies last year.

Would those be the same intelligence agencies that the libs have been deriding for the last three years about getting the WMD data wrong?

Not spending our resources on one country where our occupation fuels new recruits will allow America the resources needed to be on the offense against al Queda all over the globe.

So...umm...staging attacks in several muslim countries rather than just one or two wont "fuel" new recruits? You libs make me laugh, your logic is so convoluted.

BTW, how much do you think our occupation of that other muslim country is adding to the supply of potential recruits? You know, the 'good' war in Afghanistan, the war liberals love to support.

Well, I must disagree with raker. I myself would feel much better with a democrat in charge of the nation, because within one month of their rise to power we would all be safely under the protective umbrella of the U.N.

Ok ok, so our national interests would be subordinated to the likes of Ahmadinejad and Chavez and we would probably have to dismantle our military, but Im willing to jump on board in the interests of being liked by raving islamic lunatics and pedophilic asian dictators.

Besides, there would be a free-range chicken in every pot, a solar-powered unicycle in every garage, and a guaranteed job for every adult at the local commune broom factory.

Did I mention a democrat POTUS would also hand out free bunnies once a year?

setting aside for the moment the fact that we have a christian moral absolutist giving deference to a candidate who's pretty much given the finger to social conservatism, let's take a moment and try for once to actually take giuliani seriously (he was my mayor for 6 years) and deconstruct his statement:

"But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?"� Giuliani said. "If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer."

"We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense."�

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.�

Questions from a conservative to Bush supporters:Why did this tactic fail in 2006? Why do a majority of Americans no longer see Iraq as part of the broader war on terror?
These questions must be adressed if Bushs' party is to regain control of Congress, and keep control of the White House in 2008.
Look forward to your answers.

Cheers for Harry Reid for "telling it like it is."

A man with a 9% approval rating lost a war against some rag-tag terrorists.

That would be Republican Dick Cheney.

Wade

There are many great people who were "nothing" before history made them into stars, that list could go on forever. I could name Churchill or Patton or Reagan or Ghandi, and no Im not equating any of them directly to Giuliani, just making a point. Feel free to name ANY of the dem crop of POTUS candidates and tell me what stellar qualifications make them such noteworthy figures.

Do you really think AQ was contained completely within the persona of Bin Laden? Would his network die with him were he to catch a bullet to the head? AQ in Iraq didnt die when its Iraqi leader, Zarqawi, got himself smashed, it wont die in Afghanistan if Binny were to die tomorrow.

There are islamic terrorists killing people all over the globe and they were doing so long before we ever heard of OBL or Al Queda; the democrats failure to recognize this is what has become so dangerous for the United States.

Ill ask the question again, how is our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan any different from Iraq in "fueling" new recruits to islamic terrorism?

It was a republican president who said (and it is a notion I've seen reiterated here) that Osama bin Laden doesn't matter. The guy who orchestrated the al queda network and its specific attack on America doesn't matter.
Now Drudge is linking to two articles about how bin laden is orchestrating attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan*.
It was a travesty of justice not to get the guy who had us attacked in the first place but it is compounded that he was left to go after us another day.
American interests are not safer.

*I mention that because Drudge linked to it but I have my doubts about its veracity. Still, my point stands.

But it's true all you need to do is turn on the news. It is a true fact.

Democrats wave the white flag; and the Republicans charge after their enemies!

Too bad the truth hurts!

Notice how defensive these liberals are getting? You have Kooksinich who is looking to impeach Cheney because he tells it like it is. You have the democrat candidates falling all over themselves over Rudy's words, yet delivering nothing of substance.

I keep hearing over and over how on one hand the war in Iraq isn't the war on terror, yet these same idiots then go on about how the war in Iraq is a "breeding ground" for terrorists. Hmph. How do you make that kind of logic work? Don't worry, they will harp on OBL and think that if we only got him the troubles would be over. Never mind that he is isolated, never mind that he may not even be alive, OBL getting caught and put on trial will solve everything and we can all start singing Kum By Yah.

Bringing in Condi is just silly posturing. But, that won't defray the lunatic left who are running things in Congress. Their tactics, perfected by Billy Boy is to throw as much mud around as possible, keep saying stupid things like the above and have their mindless pychophants keep repeating them, and some will come to believe it.

I mean, why use logic when you have rhetoric that is repeated on the MSM and by Olberman.

While you liberals are at it, follow along with Crow's idea of using one piece of toilet paper to clean yourself after doing bodily evacuations, then go shake hands with the rest of your lib buddies. If you are going to spread it might as well do it literally as well as figuratively.

...perhaps he should be pressed to provide some details of his own on how, exactly, he plans on staying on the offensive.

Why, Rico? Because he not a DemocRAT? IIRC, Kerry/Edwards had no plan in '04. The DemocRAT Party had no plan in '06. Did you ask for their plan at the time?

Not spending our resources on one country where our occupation fuels new recruits will allow America the resources needed to be on the offense against al Queda all over the globe.

Uh, carsick, we have resources all over the globe, you dolt. Somalia, the Philippines, etc. No, we don't have entire armies, but we're there. And btw, what happened to the lib mantra--we can't be the world's police?

Wow, constripper, you know nothing at all about Rudy and what he did for NYC. But then again, you're a spoon-fed, talking-point spouting dickweed, aren't ya?

Would those be the same intelligence agencies that the libs have been deriding for the last three years about getting the WMD data wrong?

Now, Bacon, that didn't fit their template. Just like ol' Reid-tard, who one week, meets with the President, says talks were very productive, then the following week says he hasn't met with the President. These people can't keep their feet out of their pie-holes. That's why they have Schumer...

bacon
Support for America's attack on al queda and the Taliban was supported by moderates in the Middle East and around the world. Our invasion of Iraq and the talk that surrounded the attack has shrunk the number of moderates in the Middle East as they began to question our motives in their part of the world. The problem was made worse by the early and continuing missteps there...not to mention the number of civilian deaths and relocations...and of course the sectarian issues in Iraq.

keefer
We needed to take resources out of Afghanistan to deal with Iraq and now we are extending tours across the board and re-utilizing our national guard. Yes, we have bases in some 70 or 80 countries but it doesn't mean they are operationally prepared to go after al queda.
Also, going after al queda is not being the world's policeman* and going after them is supported by all of our allies and friends. Our mission in Iraq? Not so much.

*(that would require going after tyrants and human rights abusers and the like)

9 months after we elected the last one we got hit bad with 9/11

"The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists," Goss said in his first public testimony since taking over the CIA. Goss said Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist who has joined al Qaeda since the U.S. invasion, "hopes to establish a safe haven in Iraq" from which he could operate against Western nations and moderate Muslim governments.

"Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment," Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate panel. "Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."

We got hit multiple times under Clinton... and he didn't even try to play defense... Perhaps Rudy was giving Democrats too much credit.

With all due respect;
1 We will be safer with a Republican President? Wasn’t it a Republican President on 9/11?
2 Wasn’t Rudy the Governor of NYC when; “They came here and killed us in 1993 (with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center killing six people) and we didn’t get it.”

I mean, what did he do to prepare for 9/11, other than move the cities Main Crisis Command Center INTO the World Trade Center after the 1993 bombing. The move by the way was against Federal and State warnings that the buildings where still a major target. (Testimony from the 1993 bombers reveled that they were going to keep trying until the buildings fell.) Mayor Rudy's entire command center was lost that day, maybe it should have been located somewhere safe?

Side note; after the 1993 bombing, one of the main recommendations was to get new radios so that the fire and police could talk to each other during a major crisis. Mayor Rudy had 8 years to fix the problem. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the MAIN reason over 300 firefighters died that day was because they were not being informed of the building beginning to fall. The police had no way of contacting the firefighters because their radios were not compatible. (All the nations firefighters unions have come out against Rudy running for president, for the above reason and the treatment NYC firefighters have received after 9/11.)

Another side note; do you know why building 7 collapsed 8 hours after the towers fell? The command center that good old Rudy wanted in the World Trade Center Complex needed to have its own back up power source, so they put a giant diesel fuel tank (42,000 gallons) in the basement of building 7. The debris from the two towers hit building 7 and started fires, which blew the tank causing a fire so hot it burned and smoldered for days and melted enough support beams that it helped in causing the building to imploded within 8 hours.

So lets recap!

Both of the worst attacks on NYC in history happened on Rudy’s watch. Rudy did nothing between the two attacks to prepare. The surviving firefighters, heroes of 9/11, don't like him. The people of NYC who he supposedly “protected” threw him out as soon as they could, and voted in another Republican. NYC voted Rudy out, it was personal, and they did not like him.

The press wants me to believe that Rudy’s “America’s Mayor”

Rudy wants me to believe, “he’ll protect me”

The fire fighters sure don’t think so, the people of NYC sure didn’t think so, and they are the ones that got attacked, twice!

Please understand I won't feel any safer with a Democrat in charge. My God, just look how Clinton bungled things. I didn’t vote for Mr. Clinton and I will certainly not vote for Ms. Clinton. They have no idea how to fight our real enemies. I am just trying to point out how ridicules Rudy’s persona on the “war on terror” is. He can’t save you any more than any of the other candidates can. If you all have not figured out by now, the Government is not going to protect you, protect yourself. Republican and Democrat leaders have all failed us. The CIA always fails us. The FBI fails us. The Justice Department, the EPA, the FDA, and state and local governments all fail us. Hell, even my local police fail me. Protect yourself and stay well armed and alert.

I am posting on this site because I wish you Bush/Rudy supporters would see that hating “Big Government” and all it messes up in this country is not just bad when the Democrats are in charge. I was born in the 60’s and I have yet to see a President that has represented all of the people. That’s the President’s job. I don’t want a leader; I lead my life fine, thank you. I want a representative.

We need a new way. We need to break free from these two parties and all their corporate influence. The President is suppose to be “our guy” fighting against the Congress and all its special interests for our common good. Name me a President that fought for the poor as well as the rich. Fought for the liberal democrat as well as the conservative republican or fought for the other 50% of America that doesn’t even vote because they don’t feel represented.

If you read all of this, thank you. And no matter what your political beliefs are and no matter how bad you think things are getting, remember America is the greatest Country in the world and its worth fighting for.

keefer: ...perhaps he should be pressed to provide some details of his own on how, exactly, he plans on staying on the offensive.

Why, Rico? Because he not a DemocRAT? IIRC, Kerry/Edwards had no plan in '04. The DemocRAT Party had no plan in '06. Did you ask for their plan at the time?

Actually, I did. I didn't vote for Kerry/Edwards in 2004, but it wasn't about Iraq. And they did have a plan, which I thought wasn't too bad. Kerry actually had considerable experience in tracking terrorists through their communications and banking networks. And in fact, he was instrumental in bringing down a number of Democrats in the banking scandal that fell out of his efforts. In the end, though, I didn't like Kerry's other policies more than I didn't like Bush's policies on Iraq and the GWOT. Plus, I thought Edwards was a lightweight (still do) and Kerry was a blow-hard (still do). What I didn't appreciate at the time was how much of a clusterf@ck Iraq would become. Had I known, maybe I'd have changed my vote. Further, had I known how much of a clusterf@ck Bush's whole second term would become, I almost CERTAINLY would changed my vote. Between Bush and the GOP congress (in general) I feel like too many conservative principles I hold dear, too many moral/ethical principles I hold dear, and too many principles of comity I hold dear, have been compromised. I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, I'm just saying I'm very disillusioned in the GOP.

In spite of all that, I voted for exactly one Dem in 2006: Dianne Feinstein. I kinda like her (I am, however, concerned about recent revelations about her husband's ties to companies working with the Pentagon and I would like to see them investigated). I won't vote for Boxer though (I think she's a fruitcake). And I did not vote for my Representative, Gary Miller (R), this time around. And I will not in the future. I caught him in a lie about tax issues. And maybe it was coincidence, but after receiving a couple of disingenuous replies from his office, I mentioned that I was going to the press with our correspondence. Suddenly poof, a whole section of his web site disappeared. It could have been coincidence, though: soon thereafter he started being investigated for a shady land deal. Now there's two investigations. They're both still pending, but at least the first one may have had more to do with the changes on his web site than I did. I still take credit for it though, lol! It may be worth adding that I did not vote for Miller's opposition, either. I couldn't: he had the distinction of being the only GOP representative in all of CA to run unopposed. Mine is a very red district.

Anyway, I guess you could say that I hold principles and ethics above ideology. I understand that sometimes the exigencies of politics requires one to cut corners -- to miss meetings, to cover up to some extent for underlings or overlings, maybe even to make questionable deals with the devil. But there comes a point when you can't cut corners anymore. And no matter what your race, sex, creed, party affiliation, or who your friends are, there is no excuse for incompetence.

Does that answer your question?

Rudy Giuliani said:

"The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

No, they don't. They don't have a clue. It's will be a nightmare, costing tens of thousands of lives (very low estimate) if a Democrat gets elected to the White House in 2008.

Here's an UPDATE on a woman who does know the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us-Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was recently threaten with DEATH for "defaming Islam" by a Pittsburgh, USA Muslim Imam.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: He's Only Quoting from the Koran

(via) Hot Air: (Audio) "From John Gibson’s radio show yesterday. [..] Gibby wants to know what she thinks of Imam Fouad ElBayly telling an interviewer that she deserves to die for defaming Islam. Exactly right, retorts AHA; that’s what the Koran says. The man’s just following his religion. The takeaway: “This imam has been strikingly honest.”

Click the link and see a picture of Ayaan Hirsi Ali-she really is a FREEDOM FIGHTER!

John Gibson! He's great...at deflecting blame. (Let's go to a transcript...)

"CALLER 2: Look, Harry Reid's a buffoon, but I think you're being a bit disingenuous --

GIBSON: All right.

CALLER 2: -- when you say that we're not responsible for the chaos in Iraq. I mean, who was it that disbanded their security forces and left that country in an unstable state?

GIBSON: Look, good point. The Bremer period is going to take the fall on the Iraq story -- dismantling the Baathist organization, not letting anybody who was a Baathist run the electric system or the sewage system or the garbage pickup or any of that stuff. They're going to take the hit on it. And the Bremer period where they disbanded the army, that's going to take the hit on it -- I guarantee you.
But, and that's a mistake, I agree that was a mistake, but who is doing this killing? Give me a break. These are Iraqis killing each other. So what did we do? If you're saying it's our fault that we unmasked them as knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century -- fine! I'll take credit. But thanks -- but thanks for the observation, [Caller]."

‘Hamas or Abbas, It Makes No Difference,’ Rudy Giuliani Says.

Rudy Giuliani doesn’t care whether the Palestinian government is run by Hamas, which is recognized by the US as a terrorist organization, or Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of Fatah who is regarded by the Bush administration as a moderate.

“Hamas or Abbas, it makes no difference. The ball is in their court, and we just have to show patience and not push any peace process until they do what they have to do,” said Mr. Giuliani.

What they have to do, he said, is, at the very minimum, to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to renounce terrorism. Then, he said, Israel and the US should sit back and see if they mean it.

“They don’t just have to say the words. Anyone can say the words. They have to show that they are ending terrorism; they have to show that they are doing what they have to do to end terrorism. I’m a strong proponent of the philosophy that we can trust, but we have to verify,” he said. “If all that happens, then it will lead naturally to a peace process, but we have to wait patiently until they are ready to make it happen. And no one should make any concessions to the Palestinians until they take those steps.”

Ru-dy!
Ru-dy!
Ru-dy!
:)

Of course, Bremer won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civil award for "especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." He was also presented with the Department of Defense award for Distinguished Public Service and the Nixon Library honored him with the "Victory of Freedom Award" for "demonstrating leadership and working towards peace and freedom.

Freedom1
Good luck with that Ru-dy! thing.
I hope he runs too and represents the republican party in all its glory.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (April 20-23, 2007):
"According to the poll, only 22 percent believe the country is on the right track. That's the lowest number on this question since October 1992, when Bush father's was running for a second term -- and lost."

Maybe Ru-dy with a little lipstick and a dress can make those numbers look a little better. If not maybe he can divorce them a couple times and announce another change of plan live on television.

Freedom1

“I’m a strong proponent of the philosophy that we can trust, but we have to verify,” he said. (Rudy)

Didn’t Rudy have Bernard Kerik as his Police Commissioner in NYC? Didn’t Rudy nominate Bernard Kerik as the new Director of Homeland Security? Didn’t Bernard Kerik step down because of ties to the mob and an ongoing investigation?

When did Rudy verify Bernard Kerik?

“They don’t just have to say the words. Anyone can say the words. They have to show that they are ending terrorism; they have to show that they are doing what they have to do to end terrorism.” (Rudy)

How has Rudy shown that he has helped end terrorism? Name one thing that he has done.

Freedom1

“I’m a strong proponent of the philosophy that we can trust, but we have to verify,” he said. (Rudy)

Didn’t Rudy have Bernard Kerik as his Police Commissioner in NYC? Didn’t Rudy nominate Bernard Kerik as the new Director of Homeland Security? Didn’t Bernard Kerik step down because of ties to the mob and an ongoing investigation?

When did Rudy verify Bernard Kerik?

“They don’t just have to say the words. Anyone can say the words. They have to show that they are ending terrorism; they have to show that they are doing what they have to do to end terrorism.” (Rudy)

How has Rudy shown that he has helped end terrorism? Name one thing that he has done.

Dont cherry-pick your polls, carsick, especially when we have such good ones out there showing Rudy with double-digit leads over Hillary.

Now I dont believe in polls myself, they are far too easily thwarted, cheated and illigitimately constructed, but since you seem to like them be sure to look at all of them. Still hope Rudy runs in '08, because the current evidence has him scooping up all the key states?

Did I mention Dubya isnt running in '08?

Bacon,
Don't cherry pick? That's the most recent Wall Street Journal poll. I know that the poll was not about Ru-dy that's why I suggested that he "with a little lipstick and a dress can make those numbers look a little better." Did you think I was suggesting Bush would divorce a few times and add some lipstick and a dress to boost his numbers?
I was referring to the republican party's chances in changing their numbers by nominating a cross dressing flip flopping candidate whose greatest triumph hasn't even given him the support of the town in which it took place (wait a minute, I thought all you guys hate NYC!). Of course, when you believe a president has shown his leadership by garnering the support of ...what is it today?...32 or 34% of Americans, a guy like that might look A-OK.
Again, please run him. Ru-dy!

Anyway, I guess you could say that I hold principles and ethics above ideology.

So do I, Rico--so do I. Living in a dark blue state, I see DemocRAT politics up close and personal, and I don't like what I see. So I'll never vote DemocRAT, as long as I live, unless held at gunpoint.

Further, had I known how much of a clusterf@ck Bush's whole second term would become, I almost CERTAINLY would changed my vote.

Please clarify--other than the partisan mess Iraq has become, I've seen business as usual in Congress. When the Senate is, in effect, split so evenly, very little appears to get done.

Thanks for the beer...;)

So I'll never vote DemocRAT, as long as I live, unless held at gunpoint.

Posted by: keefer at April 26, 2007 05:20 AM

Why let that stop you, keefer? Isn't it your patriotic duty to die for the ideals that the Republican party espouses?

keefer: Please clarify--other than the partisan mess Iraq has become, I've seen business as usual in Congress. When the Senate is, in effect, split so evenly, very little appears to get done.

On that score I agree: a relatively evenly divided congress -- especially an evenly divided Senate -- makes things difficult, especially when you're trying to push partisan agendas. So if you want to get something done, I guess the take-home message would be: don't try to push partisan agendas. It took a while for Clinton and the GOP congress to figure it out, but once they did some good things happened. Perhaps there's not enough time for Bush and the Dem congress to figure it out, especially given that bi-partisanship hasn't been highly valued for a while. Both parties have been playing to their base more aggressively than trying to reach across the aisle. That's a gripe I have against both parties. IMO, it is an attitude that is both destructive and corrosive to the national psyche.

But that's not really the question, is it? And while that attitude may bear upon it, the question is why I think the events during Bush's second term has been a clusterf@ck. Mind you, I'm not calling only Bush into question, but also the actions of GOP congresscritters as well. Some of the things in my litany could be construed as understandable when considered in isolation. It is the confluence of the events that I consider unacceptable and disappointing. Likewise, I could present a list of what I didn't like about the Clinton administration, and the actions of the Dems since then. But that's another topic. Here I concentrate on the issues I have with regard to the actions and accountability of the GOP that occurred or were exposed during Bush's second term. And of course, these are only my opinions. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just trying to explain why I'm disappointed in my party. So here goes...

Katrina: Bush failed to sieze the initiative immediately. If he had, I think, at least some of the bickering between federal, state, and local agencies could have been eased. IMO, he also should have exercised better oversight over the longer-term response once the crisis was over. Moreover, I think that much of the difficulty was the result of systemic problems that were allowed to develop in FEMA. I'm not implying any level of Bush's culpability in that (some say it was extensive, some vehemently disagree). But whatever the answer to that is, I do feel that he should have exercised more oversight over the response to the Katrina crisis and aftermath than he did.

Stacking of scientific and other independent advisory committees with industry reps and political cronies: Unfortunately, this kind of thing became pervasive. And it is exceedingly damaging to the pursuit of independent information upon which important decisions are dependent.

Pervasive incompetence: This is my major gripe against the Bush administration. A certain level of cronyism is nothing new. But for goodness sake, at least try to ensure right from the get-go that your friends are competent. And when they have demonstrated that they aren't, don't let personal loyalty trump the interests of the nation. There are so many examples I could provide here. And I suspect that if you were honest about it, so could you. Brownie obviously falls into this category. As does Gonzalez, IMO. There are many other examples. But certainly the most eggregious example is the Coalition Provisional Authority. The way those guys were selected boggles the mind. And it has put us in a deep, deep hole in Iraq. Of course, the problems with the CPA were largely perpetrated during Bush's first term. I just found out about it during the second. However, Bush's apparent disinclination to aggressively fix the problems has made the situation worse. Because of it, we aren't just battling insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, but a pervasive skepticism about our motivations and ability, both in Iraq and throughout the region. And I believe Rumsfeld is more than a little bit culpable. Rumsfeld did good things insofar as re-structuring the military, but his performance in Iraq was woeful. Bush should have gotten rid of the guy a long time before he did. And the circumstances surrounding his eventual dismissal served to raise more questions than it answered.

Warrantless wiretaps: I'm not against wire taps, but once it became apparent that the existing FISA law was inadequate, Bush should have quickly taken steps to work with congress and FISA to fix the problem, not ignore it. I have problems with the whole "unitary executive" concept.

Terry Schiavo: the federal congress should never have gotten involved in that episode. I am predisposed to favor state's rights over federal law. Obviously though, there are times when federal statutes make more sense. I doubt this was a particularly good instance, though. But let's assume it was: the "Terry's law" legislation that fell out of it was a joke. The whole thing turned into a circus.

Immigration: everyone's against illegals coming across the border in hoards. But concentrating exclusively on policing the border without attempting to effectively address the issue of WHY they are coming across, compounded by the insensitive sweeps through Latino communities that netted legal immigrants and citizens along with illegals, has done profound and long-lasting damage to relations between the GOP and the Latino community. That's a shame, because the Latino community is, in many ways, a natural fit for the GOP.

Ethics scandals: Scandals are nothing new, nor are they exclusive to one party or another. But the sophistication and/or pervasiveness of some of them that broke during Bush's second term boggle the mind. The Abramoff and Cunningham scandals are the best known and the most eggregious -- and unfortunately, both appear to be "gifts" that will keep on giving. And that's likely to make it very tough for GOP candidates in 2008.

Legislative "slights of hand": votes being left open for hours, of ammendments being added at the eleventh hour, or within closed-door joint committees, is underhanded -- particularly when it happens with regularity.

Again, I don't doubt that any one of the above could be disputed. Likewise, similar accusations could be leveled against the Dems. But while that may add some perspective, it doesn't excuse anything. Rationalizing one's own misbehavior on the basis of misbehavior of others diminishes the notion of personal responsibility and accountability. And frankly, one of the big gripes I have against the Dems is that they are too often inclined to ignore those principles in pursuit of misplaced notions of "compassion" and "equality".

You ready for another beer?

Sure, Rico, another beer will do. Good post, although I reserve judgement on some of it. Overall, you and I are pretty close to being on the same page, so I guess the boxing gloves can go back in the locker...lol

Mark Noonan,
I think you need to boost ricorun's above comment to it's own post for discussion. Think of it as a Guest Post.
It brings value as this blog begins its slow transition to supporting who ever is your next "Blog for..."
Reflective and insightful.

I think you need to boost ricorun's above comment to it's own post for discussion. Think of it as a Guest Post.

Maybe you should get your own blog, and stop advising others on how to run their blogs...

keefer,
I was giving a compliment. I didn't actually think the recommendation would be taken seriously.