To back up pldennison, a war as we understand it looks unlikely. If Bush was such a mindless hawk, don’t you, curious george, think that military retaliation would already have commenced? Would Bush work to meticulously arrange an international block of support for an initiative against terrorism?
Curious george, why don’t you wait to complain about Bush getting us into war until when and if it actually happens? Or do you think that going to an internationally-decried war is a forgone conclusion?
rjung, since my comments were specifically and obviously directed at curious george and no one else, I’m almost curious regarding under what circumstances you would find it necessary to “dignify” them with comment? Alas, however, I am not that curious. But rest assured – the day that I develop enough respect for you that I feel I need your evaluation of my posts, I will seek it quickly and without reservation.
gobear, between voting for Gore and wanting my children, that changes everything I thought I knew about you!!
I didn’t say that. To see what I said on 9-17, go to page 2. pld replied by saying that I said that, and how shocked he was by that. Then, I said that political and military leaders do start wars for personal gain, so he shouldn’t be shocked by that idea. However, I never said that GW is “a traitor who collaborated in the slaughter of 5,000 of his fellow citizens for politcal gain”. PLD was twisting my words and mixing this thread up with my other thread about the CIA.
I believe GQ is the only forum on this board where factual evidence is needed for discussion. I can’t prove anything about this topic, of course. I don’t need to prove anything. What do you think this is, a court of law?
Regarding your secret orders gripe, I never said anything about that. That’s another poster.
I CAN type, but I am certainly being derided, personally attacked, and verbally lynched for doing so. When people such as PLD don’t like what people write here,
they attack them in this manner to make them stop writing more. They only like ideas that match their own, and can’t tolerate other ideas
Bush has done NOTHING?! He has:
-declared war against terrorists, and all nations that host them.
-called up the reservists.
-gotten approval from congress for war powers and special funds.
-made quotes like “they will feel our wrath” and “it’s going to be a long war”.
-sent troops to Pakistan
He has done everything but start the bombing. It appears as if he is putting the USA on the verge of a very long, costly war. As far as his campaign goes, he has
been asking for an increase in military spending and missile defense for a long time. He is a hawk, not interested in peaceful solutions to conflicts and attacks like the
9/11 bombing.
You don’t have to prove anything? Fine by me, but who’s going to buy what you’re selling? ANd if you don’t care is anyone buys it, why are you even making a post in Great Debates? IMHO, you are very close to trolling.
So we can post anything we want in GD with no backup? Awesome!
<ahem, ahem>
Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Gary Condit got together and ordered terrorist cells to hijack U.S. planes and destroy the WTC! The two-pronged goal was to make George W. Bush look bad and to get the press off of Condit’s back.
is not denying the idea of Bush abetting the WTC destruction.
How can PLDstop you from writing more? I mean, I like him and all, but nobody’s prose is that good!
Correction, war was declared on us, Bush is responding.
A. Calling up the reservists is a sensible measure
B. The War Powers Act of 1975 is all the legal justification Bush requires.
C.What’s wrong with vowing revenge on terrorists? Five thousand people are dead in New York and Arlington. Don’t you think that merits a little rhetoric?
d. Pakistan is next to where the terrorists are. Where should we send troops, France?
And how, pray, should we solve the murder of thousands of innocent Americans peacefully: “We surrender?”
I admit the term executive order was incorrect, that term applies more to the war doctrines, I’ll get to that in a minute. However, the result will be the same. In his role as Chief Legislator, Bush is pushing an Official Secrets Act through the Senate Intelligence Committee. You can read about this in the NYTimes, but alas it is now in their paid archive. I’m not paying $2.95 for an article I’ve already read. Here is the cite, if you want to search it yourself:
August 22, 2001, Wednesday
Keeping Secrets at Too High a Price
By Thomas S. Blanton
Source: The New York Times
In addition, Bush is changing government policies, not by executive order, but by secret changes in doctrine. You might be interested in this: http://www.bushwatch.net/rma.htm
Well, here’s what the cited NY Times article says:
Since you say you didn’t mean actual Executive Orders, I now ask you for evidence that Bush is pushing this act through the committee. I point out that Bush is not a Chief Legislator; he’s not even a Junior Assistant Legislator. He can neither propose nor vote for legislation.
But certainly he can ask Congress for it. Has he, in this case? The article you offered as evidence doesn’t mention it. In fact, the only mention of President Bush in that article is in the one line I quote above - that he is “unlikely to veto [it].”
So again - specifically - what evidence do you have that Bush is specifically pushing this legislation?
And since you’re apparently either too lazy to look it up, Chas, or perhaps too embarrassed to admit how foolish your previous assertion was, the correct answer is “two years old.” A carpetbagger, indeed. :rolleyes:
You must have been sleeping in Civics class. The President has three roles, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, and Chief Legislator. The President can propose legislation, in fact, he is required to submit at least one bill annually: the Federal Budget bill. The Chief Legislator has exactly one vote on every bill. He either signs the bill, or vetos it.
I read hundreds of Bush-related articles a week, I am hunting for the cite for Bush’s pushing the bill. I haven’t found it yet. I’ll hunt more tonight.
Yes minty, I looked it up. It’s kinda like California, everyone who has lived there more than 5 years claims they’re a native.
Except you didn’t claim he was passing himself off as a native Texan, Chas. Instead, you claimed that he was faking his Texas accent for the sake of getting elected governor, as well as putting on a home-spun Texas persona. Why don’t you just admit you didn’t know what you were talking about? You know, just for a refreshing change in your M.O.?
I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE ACCUSING BUSH OF STARTING A WAR. THE FUCKING TERRORISTS STARTED THIS YOU DUMBFUCKS. YOU BLAME OUR PRESIDENT, WELL FUCK YOU. I HEARD A LADY SAY THAT SHE THINKS BUSH ORDERED THE PLANES HIJACKED AND FLOWN INTO THOSE BUILDINGS TO GET US INTO A WAR. I SAY FUCK HER AND FUCK ALL OF YOU FO SPREADING YOUR LIES. FUCKERS.
kgriffey, I AM SPEAKING IN YOUR NATIVE MANNER IN THE HOPES THAT YOU WILL COMPREHEND IT MORE EASILY. THIS IS NOT THE PIT. DO NOT TELL PEOPLE “FUCK YOU” OR CALL THEM FUCKERS HERE. THANK YOU.
I never said he put on a fake texas accent for the Texas election, that never would have worked. I said (perhaps unclearly) that he used the fake Texan accent for the presidential election. Just like he used his awful Spanish to try to impress the Latino voters. I guess some people are easily duped…
But it is more than obvious that Bush jr. has been downplaying his Ivy League heritage even as far back as the Texas Gov election. Listen carefully when he speaks without a script. Sometimes he lays on the fake Texan accent thickly when he thinks his words will end up on TV, sometimes it is almost absent.
