How does one prosecute a suicide bomber AFTER his attack?
Use Bounty! It’s the ‘quicker picker upper’!
Tony737 on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Now THAT’s FUNNY!!!
.

Hey Barry, have you seen what is going on in Iowa?

And Shep, and Anderson Cooper, and all the wackos who blamed Bush for Katrina.

On topic, I think barry really would call someone after an attack.
First? his wife (she is meaner), then maybe France or Heinz Kerry, or Murtha…we’re doomed.

How does one prosecute a suicide bomber AFTER his attack?

Use Bounty! It’s the ‘quicker picker upper’!

Take away his virgins? Send him some of Heidi Fleiss’s former employees?

Obama … wants to adopt a law-enforcement issue, and when is it appropriate to prosecute terrorists …

How does one prosecute a suicide bomber AFTER his attack?

Use Bounty! It’s the ‘quicker picker upper’!

Tony737 on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

That’s an easy one…Barack HUSSEIN Obama will face Mecca five times, and pray for the BOMBER. Then to not be undone by Saddam Hussein, he’ll make sure the BOMBER’S family recieves $25,000 U.S. tax free dollars. Mission accomplished.

I must be a little thick on this one. Rudy is a surrogate for McCain on national security? Is he next going to send Mitt Romney out to talk about the economy?

BigD on June 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM

If your opposing candidate is sending out people like Susan Rice to say we should go back to handling terrorists the way we did after the World Trade Center I attack, sending out the politician who was nearly killed by the results of that policy, the World Trade Center II attack, is a pretty smart stategerie on the McCain staff’s part. It challenges Obama to either say why Ms. Rice is more authoritative than Rudy Giuliani in explaining how we should handle terrorists and the consequences of being wrong, or it forces Barack to do another flip-flop on the issue (which my guess he’ll do within the week, at least for public consumption).

jon1979 on June 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Well, the difference would be that Ms. Rice is not Obama’s former primary opponent. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see the benefit to “Team McCain” sending Giuliani out to talk about major national security events. Benefits Giuliani, maybe. Other than that, it might make me wish Rudy was the Republican nominee. (I was actually a Romney supporter)

I don’t dislike Romney for VP, but he doesn’t appear to bring much, and with the stature he acquired during the primary, I’m not sure how well Mitt would play second-fiddle to McCain. . .

acat on June 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Mitt might just help bring in Michigan. John McCain should campaign with Mitt and Rudy on either side, kicking economic and national-security butt wherever they go, a Fearsome Threesome. And McCain should make it clear: “This here’s the kind of horsepower you’re going to get in a McCain administration.”

Might even make the base sit up and take notice.

What kind of player is that? My tardputer just shows a black box?

its vintage duh on June 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM

I’m just seeing a black box, too. Safari usually has no trouble playing the videos here.

In a world that ran right side up: McCain – POTUS, Romney – VP, Rudy – Chief Homeland Security, Bolton – Secy of State, Malkin – Press Secy.

JustTruth101 on June 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Not bad, not bad at all. ‘Cept maybe we should nominate Ed for Press Secretary! Michelle can stay on at Fox (and her own site). And Ed would give us a private line to the White House—right, Ed?

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

Those arrested in WTC 93 were done so by what I assume were FBI agents, they were read their rights and they had houses and evidence to check. A guy shooting at you from an alley won’t have evidence or be very willing to stop from pressing his ignition while your telling him that he can get a free ACLU lawyer if he wants.

PS. Word was Barry was in Iowa filling sandbags with various things, Old Documents, Bullcr@p and the bodies of those he had to pull from under his bus (they absorb well)

Anyone who has XM radio, it carries all these conference calls every day on POTUS 08, channel 130. I’m addicted to it! The McCain campaign is doing a terrific job on these calls.

That would make me very happy.

Disagree. I don’t dislike Romney for VP, but he doesn’t appear to bring much, and with the stature he acquired during the primary, I’m not sure how well Mitt would play second-fiddle to McCain.

As for where to put Fred, I’d put him at State, and put Bolton back at the U.N. with orders to shoot to kill.

Mew

I must be a little thick on this one. Rudy is a surrogate for McCain on national security? Is he next going to send Mitt Romney out to talk about the economy?

BigD on June 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM

If your opposing candidate is sending out people like Susan Rice to say we should go back to handling terrorists the way we did after the World Trade Center I attack, sending out the politician who was nearly killed by the results of that policy, the World Trade Center II attack, is a pretty smart stategerie on the McCain staff’s part. It challenges Obama to either say why Ms. Rice is more authoritative than Rudy Giuliani in explaining how we should handle terrorists and the consequences of being wrong, or it forces Barack to do another flip-flop on the issue (which my guess he’ll do within the week, at least for public consumption).

Where would you put Fred?

Rudy is a surrogate for McCain on national security? Is he next going to send Mitt Romney out to talk about the economy?
BigD on June 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM

Sounds good to me.

Maybe Rudy can have a cabinet level position like so many people here are suggesting. And Romney can as well.

Again, sounds good to me.

Besides, do our soldiers now have to Mirandize illegal combantants captured on the battlefield and provide them with lawyers to make their interrogation statements pass Federal evidence muster in court hearings after Boumidiene? When do our soldiers require warrants to search for evidence and what entity could issue such warrants for foreign locations? How do we control losing intelligence assets if we have to give terrorists attorneys sources of the evidence against them? We already saw one attorney for Sheik Rahman prosecuted for assiting the terrorists? What if we capture 100,000 illegal combatants? Wouldn’t the court system collapse under the numbers? Would we have to turn them loose if we could not prosecute them?

Boumediene opens many questions but the court provided no answers. How do our soldiers know what to do? Obama also does not answer these questions while he praises the decision. He is a lawyer; he should be asked how these issues will be addressed if he is commander-in-chief now that we have this can of worms decision.

Help me understand why McCain didn’t do this conference call himself.

BigD on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

If you want to hammer home the fact that Obama wants to go back to the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno/Jamie Gorelick method of tracking down and prosecuting terrorists, sending Rudy out there gives the effort a little more gravitas (to borrow the Democrats’ beloved word from eight years ago). McCain will have to make that point himself eventually, but you’d rather have him do that in a higher-profile location (sorry Ed), than an early-Wednesday morning conference call.

jon1979 on June 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM

I must be a little thick on this one. Rudy is a surrogate for McCain on national security? Is he next going to send Mitt Romney out to talk about the economy?

Help me understand why McCain didn’t do this conference call himself.

BigD on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

If you want to hammer home the fact that Obama wants to go back to the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno/Jamie Gorelick method of tracking down and prosecuting terrorists, sending Rudy out there gives the effort a little more gravitas (to borrow the Democrats’ beloved word from eight years ago). McCain will have to make that point himself eventually, but you’d rather have him do that in a higher-profile location (sorry Ed), than an early-Wednesday morning conference call.

Giuliani likened the Boumediene decision to the efforts of the Warren Court to kneecap law enforcement against domestic crime. “We have to follow the Supreme Court’s decisions,” Giuliani said, but the court assigned rights to enemy detainees that have never existed before.

Giuliani gets it. The LIBERAL-5 of the Supreme Court has done an incredible amount of damage with the Boumediene decision. It’s just treasonous what the court did and it needs to be fixed with legislation and then Congress needs to ban the Court from having anything to say about it.

Congress has the Constitutional power to do that and they need to get it done. Our solders are not policemen, they are solders.

(sorry about that Ed, I guess it’s time for me to get glasses)

What Cabinet position will Rudy have in the McCain administration?

jgapinoy on June 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Attorney General or Homeland Security I would hope.