What is Digg?526 Comments
- MichaelBradley, on 10/11/2007, -33/+245***** this... I'm moving to Austrailia. They mind their own business. Bush is on his way to starting WW3
- johnny2k, on 10/11/2007, -34/+218Just a question for folks to comment on, or just think about. Do you think that this executive order came about because they are expecting a massive terrorist attack? I'm looking forward to your replies on this question.
Here are my thoughts:
Perhaps a nuclear attack on multiple U.S. targets would require this executive order to go into affect immediately. The other possibility that would provide the trigger would be a biological attack. Basically, it sounds like this executive order includes martial law. What really disturbs me, is if just one nuclear weapon blows away one of our major cities, would that alone be enough to put the executive order into action?
This is probably the biggest thing to hit the news, via the always dependable WorldNetDaily.com news source. And you probably won't find this story on any of the main stream news sources. Ever. Unless we start making some noise about this! As I write this, there have only been 7 Diggs, and this is the first comment. This story MUST be exposed to the public, and it may take some of us to do that. When you go the story on WND, make sure that you email the story to your friends! I am hoping to see thousands of Diggs on this story very soon.
It is going to be the comments for this story that are going to be very interesting. I am looking forward to seeing what is on your mind as you find out about this executive order.
johnny2k - amoutbound, on 10/11/2007, -30/+186There is a huge battle group assembling off the Iranian coast this morning. ABC just stated Bush has authorized Black Ops inside Iran. This new executive order could be in place to respond to any action Iran might take in response to being attacked shortly. I also believe this has nothing to do with Iran building a nuclear weapon- it is all about big OIL.
- dukeeeey, on 10/11/2007, -45/+152if there is a massive attack
Bush will have arranged it
benefits no one else than those in charge .. and you know how power hungry these fools are - 4chin8, on 10/11/2007, -14/+103The last President to stand up to the CFR agenda was JFK and he was assassinated. I'm not afraid of the pen and paper revolution, but if the masses unite, the weapons of mass destruction, paid for by the American people are at the disposal of the global elitists. We better be ready to take cover for our last stand. Leave the car with the On-Star at home.
- Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -12/+101Bit by bit, little by little. It has come to the point where we can't blame Bush, or the Congress, or the NeoCons, or the Media. This is now OUR fault. We have let this "President" divide our nation, kill our soldiers, steal our treasure, torture our citizens, and corrupt our government. This is OUR fault now, because we didn't stop him. We were blindsided by age old issues and swarms of scandals that we paid more attention to then our own rights and government. So now what? Now WE need to fix it. Don't think your congressmen is going to fix it, and don't be fooled into thinking that the next president will forfeit this power. We need complete transparency and sweeping reform in all branches of the government. How do we do that? Well, that's a good question.
Just my opinion. - Cwo655321, on 10/11/2007, -16/+82this is interesting.
An anti Bush story on world net daily, and now its suddenly a credible source? - alanhlake, on 10/11/2007, -15/+76If the President isn't going to enforce the laws passed by Congress to give us border security and we get terrorism in our midst because of that, somebody is going to have to deal with the result. Mr. Bush's solution is to, in effect, suspend the Constitution in order to preserve Constitutional government. What irony!
98% of what the federal government is doing is not authorized by the Constitution. This needs to be fixed. Revolution, anybody? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -37/+98johnny2k:
"the always dependable WorldNetDaily.com news source"
Are you ***** kidding me!? Please tell me you're being sarcastic! PLEASE!
This website is nothing but an openly biased mouth-piece of the conservative right. They're perhaps most famous for printing retarded conspiracy theories ("America shot down Flight 93!!!") and deranged ultra-conservative paranoia ("Drinking soy milk makes you gay!!!"). It's like a psychotic, half-aborted version of Fox News. The only difference I can find between this website and Fox News is that, unlike with the cable network, this site employs Chuck Norris as a regular columnist. What the *****? - Phendrana, on 10/11/2007, -6/+61Bush: What are we going to do tomorrow night, Dick?
Cheney: The same thing we do every night, George. TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! - tedez, on 10/11/2007, -14/+60If you mean that all the interventionism has been good for America then you are the weakest link. Goodby.
- Halbermunken, on 10/11/2007, -12/+57For Those Interested in Facts: They Hate Our Foreign Policy
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10988
"He told them that America was the aggressor, and cited 6 specific policies as evidence:
1: The bases in Saudi Arabia
2: Unquestioning support for Israel (The 1996 Fatwa came on the heels of the first Qana massacre in Lebanon)
3: The no-fly zone bombings and blockade of Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of people (now replaced on the jihadist sales pitch list by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed hundreds of thousands more)
4: Support for dictators across the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.)
5: Pressure on the oil producing states to keep their prices set where America wants them
6: Support for Russia, China and India in their wars against Muslims"
_________
Pentagon: 'They Hate Our Policies, Not Our Freedom'
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html
PNAC World Dominance "Wolfowitz Bases in Arabia Motivated al Qaeda":
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/17/paul-wolfowitz-bases-in-arabia-motivated-al-qaeda/
There's no real war on terrorism. 9/11 was the greatest thing that could've happened to the neocon PNAC agenda.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia - Schnep97, on 10/11/2007, -13/+56It’s actually more tame than that. It does say that, in the event of a catastrophic emergency, “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.” (6) But, it does not set him up to run everything.
The directive recognizes that there are 3 branches to the federal government. This directive focuses on the executive branch, and assumes the other 2 branches have made their own plans to carry out their own duties. It says: “each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs.” (9) It also makes sure the executive branch isn’t riding roughshod over the other 2 branches: “an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's [policies] are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches.” (9)
The directive requires that all 3 branches work together in the event of a catastrophic emergency. Specifically it calls for “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government . . . to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities.” (2)(e)
The directive also requires that the federal government work with state and local officials, rather than take over from them: “The federal government . . . shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.” (10)
I’m not bothered by the document. But then again, I like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights too; W just chooses to ignore them. It’s what the President actually does or tries to do that has me more worried. Will W actually follow this as written, or make a big power grab after some calamity? - johnny2k, on 10/11/2007, -9/+49Yes, I am all for the revolution, alanhlake, but only if by pen and not by sword. This is the information age. We can INFORM people, and that is what the catalyst can be in order to vote out all the silly fools that are currently our leaders, legislators, etc. This is no longer a war of ideologies, as in Republicans vs Democrats. They both stand for the same thing, which is the government getting complete control over us. This is now a war between us and them. We the people vs the government.
Let's put all the national and local politicians on notice: shape up or you're OUT! That is my version of a revolt. Non-violent. Provide the information to the masses, and then get rid of all the CFR-controlled politicians. We, the people, are not a fringe group cult. We ARE the people, and we don't have to take this any more! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+57Don't ever forget who re-elected these Terrorists?!! Complete retards you Bush psychos are!!
Bush is a border-line retard corporate puppet. Never forget who supported this failure, don't let them distance themselves from him. Whining about Libs and Dems and Clinton and Kerry and gay sex, while offering nothing of substance - and most notably - no defense for the lying little sack of ***** from Texas they shackled us with!
America's enemy is the idiot who IGNORES that Bush lied to us about Iraq, IGNORES that Bush defends treason, IGNORES that Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11, IGNORES that Bush had already blundered our war effort in Iraq, IGNORES that Bush still tries to link Iraq and 911, IGNORES that Bush was going to run amok with our Constitution and still voted to re-elect this miserable failure.
The enemy from within has perpetuated this death and devastation. Don't forget it.
It is because of a bush voter that the country is in the atrocious position it is in today. - extratwice, on 10/11/2007, -5/+44"The White House declined to comment on the directive. "
Yeah, I guess that it is not important enough to explain. You crooks. - jabalco, on 10/11/2007, -12/+47watch Ron Pauls House speech from yesterday. He is basically hinting at civil disobedience to restore the republic. Count me as prepared. I will support Ron Paul and the constitution with all my heart, against the dictator George.
- 1013, on 10/11/2007, -4/+34Yes. There is definitely something brewing and quite frankly I am very disturbed by the policies they are putting into place. We are being set up for a "warranted" dictatorship. I say warranted because so many Americans will truly believe it's the only way to stay safe after another terrorist attack on our soil. Didn't anyone have to thoroughly study how Hitler and other dictators came to power?
- KANSUO, on 10/11/2007, -5/+35Just to give you an idea what our soldiers are doing in the middle east, I had a conversation this afternoon with my buddy who is in Kuwait right now. Part of it went like this (although I've changed the screen names):
[13:47] “KuwaitGuy”: anyways they put me on this tactical assault team with all these high speed dudes
[13:48] “Me”: cool, you enjoying that?
[13:48] “KuwaitGuy”: i got this kick ass weapon now with all these neat little dud dads on it
[13:48] “Me”: heh, alright, i'll have to see pictures some time i guess
[13:48] “Me”: when you headin' back our way?
[13:48] “KuwaitGuy”: yeah its pretty awesome they air dropped us two nights ago outside this village and we had to go in there and kick doors and *****
[13:48] “KuwaitGuy”: cool as *****
[13:49] “KuwaitGuy”: well supposed to be in august
[13:49] “KuwaitGuy”: just for a couple weeks
[13:49] “Me”: cool
[13:49] “KuwaitGuy”: but home for about thirty days or so in late jan early feb
[13:49] “KuwaitGuy”: might make it in time for my twenty first
[13:49] “KuwaitGuy”: but i got my doubts
[13:49] “Me”: so, what exactly was the reason you were going door to door the other night?
[13:50] “KuwaitGuy”: lookin for weapons caches
[13:51] “Me”: find anything?
[13:51] “KuwaitGuy”: we got intel on it or some ***** so they were like fuggin go tonight and catch them off guard
[13:51] “KuwaitGuy”: which was completely not thought out and we made no surprises and caught absolutly dick
[13:52] “KuwaitGuy”: just trudged around in the fuggin dirt for a few hours
[13:52] “Me”: scare some people *****?
[13:53] “KuwaitGuy”: yeah thats always fun
[13:53] “KuwaitGuy”: bust up in there little mud house screamin and *****
[13:54] “KuwaitGuy”: well we have to knock first and identify ourselves
[13:54] “Me”: were you just bustin' peoples houses?
[13:54] “KuwaitGuy”: as coalition forces
[13:54] “Me”: oh, ok, at least you give 'em a little warning
[13:54] “KuwaitGuy”: but if no answer just ***** kick that ***** in or blow it with the shot gun
[13:54] “Me”: do they usually open up for you, or do you have to enter yourselves
[13:54] “KuwaitGuy”: dude its great when you get one who is tryin to run out or just ***** freaks out
[13:55] “Me”: couldn't you... couldn't you easily kill lots of people by blowing the door open with a shotty?
[13:55] “KuwaitGuy”: yellin al that alah alah dirka dirka *****
[13:55] “KuwaitGuy”: they all get on ground dude its so fun
[13:55] “Me”: heh, i guess so
[13:55] “KuwaitGuy”: well its been known to happen
[13:55] “Me”: dude, that's just ***** up
[13:56] “KuwaitGuy”: but they blow it at awkward angle so as to minimize the spray
[13:56] “Me”: gotcha
[13:56] “KuwaitGuy”: like a downward in shot
[13:56] “Me”: but, didn't you just say they get on the ground? wouldn't shooting upward be better?
[13:57] “KuwaitGuy”: well after the big show of force they usually get on the ground
[13:57] “Me”: oh, ok, gotcha
[13:57] “KuwaitGuy”: they realize hey oh ***** guns and americans
[13:57] “Me”: well, wouldn't you get on the ground of some dude just blasted your door open with five of his buddies carrying assult rifles
[13:57] “KuwaitGuy”: hell yeah i would
[13:57] “KuwaitGuy”: i would freak out dude
Tell me if this happened time and time again in your neighborhood, you wouldn't want harbor ill will towards Americans. And sorry for the long chat log, but I think it adds to the conversation quite a bit. - Neiby, on 10/11/2007, -4/+34"Let's be honest. If this was Clinton in the White House (or Gore, Pelosi, or Reid), would you leftists be complaining as much?"
I hated Clinton, but he didn't scare me nearly as much as George W. Bush does. - omnithought, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24If there's one lesson anyone should learn about our government, regardless of the party in power, it is this:
If a power can be abused, it will be. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23If bush doesn't leave when his time in office is done there will be open revolt and I'll surely be a part of it.
- andshewas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21People, people - why is it that when the United States government does something completely heinous and frightening, such as the subject of this digg post - do you all start pointing your "republican" and "democrat" fingers at one another?
PLEASE for the sake of all that's worth saving...stop making this an argument between "parties!" This is a NATIONAL emergency...not a conservative or liberal one.
Don't you understand that our little "parties" are put into place to make us argue amongst each other? We could never organize together based on our partisan differences! That's what the government wants...and what we ALL do not want....no matter which "side" we tend to fall on.
Wake up - this is a crisis...nothing to argue about. - beachgoer4fun, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24There's a constitutional crises in USA and but not enough people seem to notice or even worse - not care.
People notice and care, but I think are limited in their understanding of what action they can take. When was the last time you read an article outlining "ten steps to civil disobedience, or "revolution"? - RBasil, on 10/11/2007, -25/+44"always dependable WorldNetDaily.com news source"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh, it's been a long day. - chronusmcgee, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22This pretty much tells me three things:
1. They know something really bad is about to happen.
2. They are powerless or unmotivated to prevent it.
3. They want to be in charge when the smoke clears. - axel2k1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23I agree that we should be concerned. The problem isn't "this government," however. We must change the way we think about government in general...
To speak of certain government and establishment institutions as "the system" is to speak correctly, since these organizations are founded upon the same structural conceptual relationships as any real system. They are sustained by structural relationships even when they have lost all other meaning and purpose. People arrive at a factory and perform a totally meaningless task from eight to five without question because the structure demands that it be that way. There's no villain, no "mean guy" who wants them to live meaningless lives, it's just that the structure, the system demands it and no one is willing to take on the formidable task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless.
But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There's so much talk about the system. And so little understanding. - postal21, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22My dad is extremely conservative and has this same view.
But seriously, put yourself in their shoes.
Imagine living in an occupied country. Having to comply to any directive from the soliders. Constantly being searched and bullied into doing whatever the occupying forces want you to do.
Think about your neighbors and yourselves being potential terrorist threats. Your next door neighbors house gets raided for weapons... Or suddenly one day your neighbors house is a suspected insurgent cell and gets laser-guided bombed.
Occupying and killing people isnt going to make them like us more. You have to give them the means to defend themselves, and if that leads them to being so socially-inept that they start a civil war between each other, So be it. But we cant fight their civil war for them... we just cant. - countrygirl31, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19According to the outline in White House press release on the whitehouse.gov website, we wouldn't even have to go through a mass nuke attack in order for the president to take over.
"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
Which could mean, a riot, a rising of the people of the US against the government, or a Katrina like event. All which fall in the category of "disruption severely affecting the US population".
Also "regardless of location" could mean something that doesn't even have to take place on our soil. It could take place hypothetically in Iraq and it is claimed to disrupt the US population.
The definitions in place in that order have a lot of loopholes, anything could fit that definition. - CCoburn3, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22Yes, it appears that President Bush sees himself as Cesar. Let us hope that he doesn't meet the same fate. We need no assassinations.
More and more people are beginning to believe that Jefferson's tree is in need of watering. Let us have no more loose talk about such things -- it gets you put on lists you don't want to be on. Besides, it makes no sense to talk about something that will not happen.
The nation (indeed the world) is on the verge of economic collapse. Our government has overspent & over-promised. The bills are about to come due & there is simply no way to pay them. When that happens, the US will dissolve -- though the government will try to use force to keep us together. (That is the probable purpose of this Executive Order. Politicians see internal unrest as a bigger threat than terrorism.)
This collapse cannot be postponed long. The dollar is about to lose its place as the world's reserve currency. (The best theory I've heard about the origins of the Iraq war is that Iraq was going to stop accepting dollars for oil. That would sound the death-knell of the US economy.) When the US dollar loses its place of primacy, the national economy will collapse and along with it, the national government.
So instead of planning for a revolution, you should plan for the collapse & what will come after. - Nodaki, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21The more you tighten your grip Bush, the more states will slip through your fingers.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -13/+29@sultantravi
"He's not out to take over the entire nation and turn it into some sort of fascist state."
He's not out to do it because he already did. :P - starry59, on 10/11/2007, -11/+27RON PAUL 2008! He'll give all these presidential powers back. No other candidate will.
- jmgregory, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15"If this was Clinton in the White House (or Gore, Pelosi, or Reid), would *you leftists* be complaining as much?"
As a Swede, I find it funny that you call the democrats "leftists". You obviously never saw a real leftist. Your left party (the Democrats) is about equal to our right-wing Moderate party. On the left side, we have the "Left Party" that have a leader that until quite recently called himself a communist. He is still a communist, but he won't use that word, since it upsets some people (he thinks that it is important what you call yourself, not what you are). Of course, we have five additional mainstream parties, but those are pretty much in between those two on the political scale, even if the christian democrats compete with the Moderates on being most right-wing in some issues. - Halbermunken, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20I know the left bears responsibility but what has happened during Bush 43 years is unparalled, Clinton simply couldn't match. The more people tend to know the more they leave the repubs and dems and become independent or libertarian and hope that a person like Ron Paul would become the president, no matter how unrealistic that is, since the media pretty much have downsized him already. I believe Kucinich and Gravel would both reinstitute many parts of the constitution as well, although with Kucinich the second amandment might be in some danger, but not erased for sure.
There's a constitutional crises in USA and but not enough people seem to notice or even worse - not care. - 4chin8, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Schnep97-
I also read the EO and the part where Bush gets to appoint his national continuity coordinator, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism, bothers me. An appointed, proselytized underling will not give oversight. It is not encouraging that the Legislative and Judicial branches will work out their continuity plan independently in the same manner. There is no checks & balances. - THE4IRON, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16@sultantravi
Dude, we're already there.
The politicians bring the paranoia upon themselves when they say things like (not literally) "Candidate x has no idea how to handle terrorism. Elect me an we will be safe."
Nice way to use terrorism to fight terrorism. You can't blame the public for being a little edgy with crap like that. - thezeke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I am so glad to be Canadian right now.
Any diggers looking to get out of America can crash at my place. - tidu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12The thing is, so much of the population is controlled by the media that it's REALLY hard to make huge changes. Writing your representative doesn't do ***** anymore, since they are all controlled by their special interests or party interests. Something needs to happen, and fast. Because the longer we wait, the more likely a violent revolution becomes.
Has anyone pondered how the internet could be used to get a message across? This is really the easiest way to push an agenda to a mass audience without the media's discretion. Think about spamming Youtube with a political video, or just putting propoganda (for lack of a better word, and I use this word in a positive sense) on the most trafficked sites... I really think the Internet is the best choice. - init100, on 10/11/2007, -13/+25@michaelbradley
"Bush is on his way to starting WW3"
As a way to stay in office I guess. Just before the election, he'll attack Iran and declare a national emergency. Then he can stay in office the rest of his life, as the new dictator of the newly formed UFSA, the United Fascist States of America. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15"If the President isn't going to enforce the laws passed by Congress..."
Congress does not pass laws. Congress passes bills. Bills get sent to the President. A bill only becomes law if the President signs it, or if Congress overrides his veto with a 2/3 majority.
Didn't you ever see Schoolhouse Rock? Or, like, read the Constitution or anything? No? - shableep, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13wow... it seems that somehow the US has been successfully bated into doing everything it shouldn't.
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I can't believe people are still in denial.
The president calls the constitution "a god damn piece of paper". Detention centres are being built, habeas corpus removed. The security forces no longer need a warrant from a judge to spy on you. The constitution is ignored. The powers that be continuously lie about the reason to go to war. Official inquiries are shambolic and only leave more questions unanswered. An administration that condones torture and conducts CoIntelPro campaigns. AND THEN YOU SAY,
"Honestly, when the end of the world doesn't come, will some of you please come back..."
JUST BECAUSE ITS NOT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM YET DOESN'T MEAN ITS NOT ALREADY HAPPENING!
Millions of law abiding Iraqis have already fled their homes and country. Opium production is up 600% since the invasion in Afghanistan as the US brand of Taliban is installed. Hundreds of thousands of innocents have already been killed. The lives of millions ruined because of GREED. The consumer lifestyle of America is doomed. Anyway you cut it - THERE AINT ENOUGH WORLD IN THE WORLD TO CONTINUE YOUR CONSUMER LIFESTYLES. Where do you think those $2 T-shirts in walmart come from. Why do you think Nike makes so much. Sweatshops with people working in terrible conditions for terrible pay so you can sweat less when you go for KFC. The cost of you living your lifestyle is the misery of billions. All this is happening now. Globalisation and externalising costs means people in 3rd world countries are made serfs on what used to be their own land. It might not be the end of the world right now for you but your world is built on a propped up dollar and is getting smaller and smaller all the time.
And the icing is Egoist saying "we still have the constitution!" If temporary power can be handed to one person then the constitution means nothing. Who said Hitler's rise to power was all about the Reichstag? But it was the point at which total power was within grasp. The Whitehouse is now hinting it just needs "another Reichstag" just like it once said it needed "another Pearl Harbour". Now that is an unconvenient truth.
Its a generation of spoilt children grown up that cannot see beyond their own selfish horizons. Fine - kid yourself this is my delusion as you eat your way to diabetes on the back of child labour. It doesn't change the fact that its not sustainable and that it has to stop somewhere. - jonpotz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13@ilyag
I thought the same thing.
Up until this article right here, I could have sworn that WorldNetDaily was a mouthpiece for the neo-con movement.
After this article, I don't know what to think.
What is really amusing is that the infamous CHUCK NORRIS writes for World Net Daily! No joke! - flygirl62, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Do you have a link or something where we can watch it?
- hmmdar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I have 0 doubt that Bush is posturing for a full out assault on Iran.
1.) Large battle group moved into the area.
2.) Second serge is suppose to be heading to Iraq, (200k +, is what i read), (IMO this is to make our ground forces closers to Iran)
I don't think the White House fully realizes the problems that would be caused by attacking Iran with out cause. (also Bush could use the 'Iran War' as reason to stay in office, no I don't have the exact text from the law, but I'm pretty sure I read some where that the President will stay in office even after an election in the event of a major war, or catastrophe) Also a lot of the refugees from Iran would run to China and thats really going to piss China off at the US.
If there really is a such thing as an Apocalypse, good old W will be the one to bring it on. - omnithought, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12We're just never going to learn from history, are we?
- skoles, on 10/11/2007, -12/+22It could be written up because they expect an attack and will allow it to happen to put such powers into play. Thus giving the Administration total control.
This, of course, is just a conspiracy theory. - Depraved, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Hail Caesar! ...err...Bush.
Anyone else remember that Caesar never gave up his "emergency powers" after the crisis was over? -
Show 51 - 100 of 530 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is