A letter to the congress from the PNAC.

[Frank]

@Reeder

I respectfully disagree.

I don’t think Bush has the balls to run. He never makes any mistakes you know.

Elucidator is quite correct. If history proves nothing else, it has proven that the Big Lie works.

[milroyj]

@Reeder

We will stay till the bloody end if for nothing else than that Bush can say in 2008, that we need to elect his hand chosen candidate because we are at war.

C’mon Reeder, you’re not keeping up with the conspiracy theory du jour–Bush is going to amend the Constitution so he can have a third term, don’t ya know?

[Reeder]

@elucidator

Respectfully re-disagree. You’re assuming that GeeDubya has to admit failure. Notice I say “declare victory”. I mean what I say. Yes, it would be one heck of a big fib. Can he sell it? Have you noticed the contingent of true believers hereabouts? Think they wouldn’t buy it?

And later, when the trajectory of the shit intersects the locus of the fan, and GeeDubya tells him that their political enemies, those namby-pamby liberals, are to blame, think they won’t believe him?

As the Joker said to the Thief:“You and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate…”

Well…

If he ducks and runs, and all hell breaks loose…

It will be very hard for him to say “the librals made me do it”.

When his party controls every branch of the govt.

Some big lies just don’t work.

[Reeder]

@milroyj

C’mon Reeder, you’re not keeping up with the conspiracy theory du jour–Bush is going to amend the Constitution so he can have a third term, don’t ya know?

It wouldn’t surprise me. They amended it so another democrat couldn’t serve three terms.

[Tuckerfan]

Let’s see, they had the gall to yank our forces out of one conflict, then send them to another, with inadequate resources (remember the stories of our forces not having anything to eat and having to rely on the Iraqi’s for meals on their way to Baghdad?), insufficiently armored vehicles, and Og knows what else our folks didn’t have that they needed, and you think that Rummy & Co. are suddenly going to buy a clue and realize that we need more troops? :rolleyes:

Given the, dare I say, contempt, this Administration has shown for the military’s requests for more personnel and equipment, I fail to see how you can believe that they’d accept a letter from anyone saying that the military needs anything.

Hell, if they want to increase enlistment, all the military has to do is drop the requirement for a high school diploma, and they’ll be able to increase they’re numbers. They raise enlistment age, and they’ll get even more volunteers. (They jack it up high enough and I’ll enlist.) But you know what? Even if we go into Iran, I fully expect them to not do anything different than what they’re doing now.

[Frank]

@treis

Would you rather shorten the time frame?

No. I think the Bush presidency is a logical time frame. If neither of us is around in four years, them’s the breaks. But assuming that we keep track of each other:

I believe that there will be a draft instituted, defined as: An act of Congress, or a Presidential Decree, that allows the U.S. Military (Army, Navy (Marines), Air Force, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine) to conscript citizens of the U.S. and non-citizen residents of the U.S. into the U.S. Military against their will. This definition should not apply to members of the Reserves or retired officers of the U.S. Military.

Now comes the hard part - let’s talk about this. Is a full scale invasion Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Somalia, or Iraq?

[treis]

@This Year's Model

I believe that there will be a draft instituted, defined as: An act of Congress, or a Presidential Decree, that allows the U.S. Military (Army, Navy (Marines), Air Force, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine) to conscript citizens of the U.S. and non-citizen residents of the U.S. into the U.S. Military against their will. This definition should not apply to members of the Reserves or retired officers of the U.S. Military.

I would like to add that the draft be random as opposed to ‘drafting’ experts into service for the military.

I believe that there will be a draft instituted, defined as: An act of Congress, or a Presidential Decree, that allows the U.S. Military (Army, Navy (Marines), Air Force, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine) to conscript citizens ** in a random fashion ** of the U.S. and non-citizen residents of the U.S. into the U.S. Military against their will. This definition should not apply to members of the Reserves or retired officers of the U.S. Military.

is that agreeable?

@This Year's Model

Now comes the hard part - let’s talk about this. Is a full scale invasion Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Somalia, or Iraq?

Shall we say an invasion consists of 10 tanks moving into enemy territory with the intent to overthrow the current government for reasons other than humanitarian?

[Frank]

@treis

I believe that there will be a draft instituted, defined as: An act of Congress, or a Presidential Decree, that allows the U.S. Military (Army, Navy (Marines), Air Force, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine) to conscript citizens ** in a random fashion ** of the U.S. and non-citizen residents of the U.S. into the U.S. Military against their will. This definition should not apply to members of the Reserves or retired officers of the U.S. Military.

is that agreeable?

Yes.

Shall we say an invasion consists of 10 tanks moving into enemy territory with the intent to overthrow the current government for reasons other than humanitarian?

I want to mull this one over. I don’t believe we had tanks in Grenada, and I firmly feel the only reason to go there was to overthrow the current government for reasons other than humanitarian. (That may lead us into a discussion of humantarian, eh?) Nor do I believe we had tanks in Panama, but I don’t think the only reason we went there was to overthrow the current government for reasons other than humanitarian. (It was - legally or illegally - to arrest Noriega.)

I think your concept of defining an invasion is good; I’m just not sure on the details. I’ll get back to you.

[villa]

@milroyj

C’mon Reeder, you’re not keeping up with the conspiracy theory du jour–Bush is going to amend the Constitution so he can have a third term, don’t ya know?

Now that’s something no Republican would do, at list not while Bill is still alive. C’mon… Dub squeaked by the charismatic duo of Gore and Kerry. Big Bill would hand his hat to him in a second.

[milroyj]

@villa

Now that’s something no Republican would do, at list not while Bill is still alive. C’mon… Dub squeaked by the charismatic duo of Gore and Kerry. Big Bill would hand his hat to him in a second.

Well, I didn’t say it was myconspiracy theory.

[Frank]

@villa

Now that’s something no Republican would do, at list not while Bill is still alive. C’mon… Dub squeaked by the charismatic duo of Gore and Kerry. Big Bill would hand his hat to him in a second.

I agree completely. I’m not sure he would have run - he has a sense of tradition - but had he run, I’ve no doubt he would have won. Of course even the potential of Clinton running again would have been enough to change the Republican landscape, and they possibly would have come up with a different candidate.

[rjung]

That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act.

If the PNAC is “a bipartisan group with diverse policy views,” then Michael Jackson is a beer-drinking lesbian named Rita. :rolleyes:

[annaplurabelle]

@This Year's Model

Where did I insult anyone in this thread? I had some ignorance, I stated that, Reeder dispelled it, done deal. WTF?

Look at the post times. We simulposted. That comment wasn’t meant for you (as you might have figured out by now).