"- Vox Populi ?" <v…@popu.li> wrote in message <news:qk8p7.1165$%W3.312538@news.uswest.net>…
[Crossposts trimmed, somewhat]
> Cheney: Bush OK’d shootdown of rogue planes
A fact that, ironically, makes me feel, ironically, good. We need a
President, in this time of crisis and war, who is capable of making
those kinds of difficult decisions. That he was able to do so under
pressure, with only the most preliminary information, actually speaks
well of his ability to command.
I am, in spite of myself, impressed. This is not the Bush that I’ve
known.
–
9/11/2001 – Remember.
–
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins;
all of them imaginary." — H.L. Mencken, 1923
Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d60aaf8.0109162032.445e8885@posting.google.com…
> "- Vox Populi ?" <v…@popu.li> wrote in message
<news:qk8p7.1165$%W3.312538@news.uswest.net>…
> [Crossposts trimmed, somewhat]
> > Cheney: Bush OK’d shootdown of rogue planes
> A fact that, ironically, makes me feel, ironically, good. We need a
> President, in this time of crisis and war, who is capable of making
> those kinds of difficult decisions. That he was able to do so under
> pressure, with only the most preliminary information, actually speaks
> well of his ability to command.
> I am, in spite of myself, impressed. This is not the Bush that I’ve
> known.
You don’t think Bush really made the decision himself, on his own,
do you?
Think Cheney/Powell as the real Pres/VP in times of crisis.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> —
> 9/11/2001 – Remember.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Sep 2001 21:32:47 -0700, Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[Crossposts trimmed, somewhat]
>> Cheney: Bush OK’d shootdown of rogue planes
>A fact that, ironically, makes me feel, ironically, good. We need a
George W. Bush is ignorant and he is clearly scared of cameras and
reporters, but he is far from stupid. He has good instincts and a
native cunning that is clear when you examine his business dealings
(his investors lost millions in George W.’s schemes, Bush somehow came
out with millions in his own pocket).
While "Shrub" is hardly the man I wish were president in time of war,
I think he’ll do.
Some have wondered whether the WTC and Pentagon destruction is the
U.S. equivalent of the Reichstag Fire (look it up if you wish). If
John McCain or Rudy Guiliani or someone else viewed as a "strong"
personality were president, I’d be worried about it. Not so with
"Dubya", the man as far as I can tell may not have all that many
arrows in his quiver, but the ones he has, he shoots straight.
And right now, that’s exactly what the country needs.
Eric Lee Green e…@badtux.org http://www.badtux.org
GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg
*** You do not preserve freedom by destroying freedom ***
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7pYV83DrrK1kMA04RAmbKAKCApguNKtaliekx7bdiMy9pYTle/wCePQkG
U/wz3U2M6mgKNqO0mBbCGuU=
=xgzE
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Eric Lee Green wrote:
> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
> Hash: SHA1
> On 16 Sep 2001 21:32:47 -0700, Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >[Crossposts trimmed, somewhat]
> >> Cheney: Bush OK’d shootdown of rogue planes
> >A fact that, ironically, makes me feel, ironically, good. We need a
> George W. Bush is ignorant and he is clearly scared of cameras and
> reporters, but he is far from stupid. He has good instincts and a
> native cunning that is clear when you examine his business dealings
> (his investors lost millions in George W.’s schemes, Bush somehow came
> out with millions in his own pocket).
> While "Shrub" is hardly the man I wish were president in time of war,
> I think he’ll do.
> Some have wondered whether the WTC and Pentagon destruction is the
> U.S. equivalent of the Reichstag Fire (look it up if you wish).
Don’t need to. Who thinks this? You?
They said the same thing about the Murrah building, Waco, Mr. Weaver,
the first WTC bombing, voting to pay our UN dues etc.
p.s. Hoover WAS the worst civil rights violator in US history. Make
you feel better the FBI carries on in his tradition?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:26:18 GMT, Bill Bonde <stderr_inva…@mail.com>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Eric Lee Green wrote:
>> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On 16 Sep 2001 21:32:47 -0700, Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >[Crossposts trimmed, somewhat]
>> >> Cheney: Bush OK’d shootdown of rogue planes
>> >A fact that, ironically, makes me feel, ironically, good. We need a
>> George W. Bush is ignorant and he is clearly scared of cameras and
>> reporters, but he is far from stupid. He has good instincts and a
>> native cunning that is clear when you examine his business dealings
>> (his investors lost millions in George W.’s schemes, Bush somehow came
>> out with millions in his own pocket).
>> While "Shrub" is hardly the man I wish were president in time of war,
>> I think he’ll do.
>> Some have wondered whether the WTC and Pentagon destruction is the
>> U.S. equivalent of the Reichstag Fire (look it up if you wish).
>Don’t need to. Who thinks this? You?
"- Vox Populi ?" <v…@popu.li> wrote in message <news:Tifp7.14$zo4.13156@news.uswest.net>…
> Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6d60aaf8.0109162032.445e8885@posting.google.com…
> > I am, in spite of myself, impressed. This is not the Bush that I’ve
> > known.
> You don’t think Bush really made the decision himself, on his own,
> do you?
I don’t know, and I really don’t care. Right now, the only thing that
I’m concerned about, at this point in time, is results.
> Think Cheney/Powell as the real Pres/VP in times of crisis.
Bush is not only the voice of the administration, but he is going to
carry the burden of responsibility for what happens. I really don’t
give a damn if he’s the actually idea man, or if his staff is. So
long as he’s going to get the lion’s share of blame for anything that
his administration does wrong, I’m going to give him the lion’s share
of credit when his administration does right.
I will also say that this is not a time when I, personally, am going
to have much patience for partisanship. This isn’t a debate about
stem cell research, faith based initiatives, or the future of social
security. This is about our response to an act of war. So long as
our president, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, is executing his
duty faithfully — even if his name happens to be Bush, or Gore, or
Nader, or even if it were still Clinton — then he’s going to have my
support.
Now, when we return to a point where we are debating non-war related
issues, *then* I’ll go back to being a partisan Bush-basher.
–
9/11/2001 – Remember.
–
9/11/2001 — Remember.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:26:18 GMT, Bill Bonde <stderr_inva…@mail.com> wrote:
>Eric Lee Green wrote:
>> Some have wondered whether the WTC and Pentagon destruction is the
>> U.S. equivalent of the Reichstag Fire (look it up if you wish).
>Don’t need to. Who thinks this? You?
I first saw the term "Reichstag Fire" in relation to the WTC
destruction in this article at PolitechBot on 11 Sep 2001 11:39:12:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02500.html
Since then I’ve seen it referenced a few times by both Libertarians
concerned that this event will be used as an excuse to remove more
freedoms from Americans, and by left-wing liberals who mention it in
passing (I don’t know why the latter are concerned, they appear just as
willing to remove freedoms from Americans, just different ones).
Eric Lee Green e…@badtux.org http://www.badtux.org
GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg
*** You do not preserve freedom by destroying freedom ***
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7pghi3DrrK1kMA04RAlUEAJ9hntFtr6IugFZ1IEdEJTQF0vhUXACfRh0M
8D69EBBjvjQLNYZ64VBQvYo=
=MBU2
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
e…@badtux.org (Eric Lee Green) wrote in message <news:slrn9qb1bl.mb3.eric@ehome.inhouse>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
> Hash: SHA1
> On 16 Sep 2001 21:32:47 -0700, Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >[Crossposts trimmed, somewhat]
> >> Cheney: Bush OK’d shootdown of rogue planes
> >A fact that, ironically, makes me feel, ironically, good. We need a
> George W. Bush is ignorant and he is clearly scared of cameras and
> reporters, but he is far from stupid. He has good instincts and a
> native cunning that is clear when you examine his business dealings
> (his investors lost millions in George W.’s schemes, Bush somehow came
> out with millions in his own pocket).
> While "Shrub" is hardly the man I wish were president in time of war,
> I think he’ll do.
> Some have wondered whether the WTC and Pentagon destruction is the
> U.S. equivalent of the Reichstag Fire (look it up if you wish). If
> John McCain or Rudy Guiliani or someone else viewed as a "strong"
> personality were president, I’d be worried about it. Not so with
> "Dubya", the man as far as I can tell may not have all that many
> arrows in his quiver, but the ones he has, he shoots straight.
> And right now, that’s exactly what the country needs.
Very very well put. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines
to see that when Bush finally got publicly emotional last week, it
was as much a result of his decision to order the death of the enemy
as of anything else. This "compassionate conservative" drew a tough
card.
Jeff
Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d60aaf8.0109170443.16e09478@posting.google.com…
> "- Vox Populi ?" <v…@popu.li> wrote in message
<news:Tifp7.14$zo4.13156@news.uswest.net>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6d60aaf8.0109162032.445e8885@posting.google.com…
> > > I am, in spite of myself, impressed. This is not the Bush that I’ve
> > > known.
> > You don’t think Bush really made the decision himself, on his own,
> > do you?
> I don’t know, and I really don’t care. Right now, the only thing that
> I’m concerned about, at this point in time, is results.
> > Think Cheney/Powell as the real Pres/VP in times of crisis.
> Bush is not only the voice of the administration, but he is going to
> carry the burden of responsibility for what happens. I really don’t
> give a damn if he’s the actually idea man, or if his staff is. So
> long as he’s going to get the lion’s share of blame for anything that
> his administration does wrong, I’m going to give him the lion’s share
> of credit when his administration does right.
You’ve made an excellent argument for the unimportance and disposability of
the US president. No need to spend billions protecting him, as if here
were killed, the US government would continue to function
as designed, with the chain of power functioning as before.
Think of all the $$ we could save as a country if we dropped
the extreme expense and procedures designed to
protect just one figurehead, non-essential man, and spent
them elsewhere on National Security.
> I will also say that this is not a time when I, personally, am going
> to have much patience for partisanship. This isn’t a debate about
> stem cell research, faith based initiatives, or the future of social
> security. This is about our response to an act of war.
No, it was an simple act of terrorism, just extremely successful
this time. Only the pompous rhetoric of the President has
claimed it to be, absurdly, "an act of war".
> So long as
> our president, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, is executing his
> duty faithfully — even if his name happens to be Bush, or Gore, or
> Nader, or even if it were still Clinton — then he’s going to have my
> support.
That’s were rational and moral men differ, in they don’t blindly support
anyone, to any extreme, just out if "patriotism" (fear).
> Now, when we return to a point where we are debating non-war related
> issues, *then* I’ll go back to being a partisan Bush-basher.
The rest of us will keep a close eye on this collective "village idiot"
in the meantime …
–
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins;
all of them imaginary." — H.L. Mencken, 1923
"- Vox Populi ?" <v…@popu.li> wrote in message <news:Cwrp7.986$TA5.369513@news.uswest.net>…
> Andrew Lias <anrwl…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6d60aaf8.0109170443.16e09478@posting.google.com…
> > Bush is not only the voice of the administration, but he is going to
> > carry the burden of responsibility for what happens. I really don’t
> > give a damn if he’s the actually idea man, or if his staff is. So
> > long as he’s going to get the lion’s share of blame for anything that
> > his administration does wrong, I’m going to give him the lion’s share
> > of credit when his administration does right.
> You’ve made an excellent argument for the unimportance and disposability of
> the US president.
No, I haven’t. To be sure, you’ve *interpreted* my statements to be
such an argument but they were, in fact, not. Indeed, I’ve said
nothing at all about how much I think that Bush was involved in the
decision. I have merely made a factual statement, without addressing
the issue of the President’s participation in the decision, which is
that ultimate responsibility, which confers blame and praise, is the
President’s.
> No need to spend billions protecting him, as if here
> were killed, the US government would continue to function
> as designed, with the chain of power functioning as before.
Billions? Pardon me as I cock an eyebrow. Where are you drawing
these figures from, please.
> Think of all the $$ we could save as a country if we dropped
> the extreme expense and procedures designed to
> protect just one figurehead, non-essential man, and spent
> them elsewhere on National Security.
It is hardly "non-essential" for critical decisions, including
critical decisions pertaining to National Security, to devolve to a
single person. Presidents have had a cabinet of advisors from the
earliest days of the Republic, and different presidents have relied on
the advice of their cabinets to different degrees, but, when the day
is done, it is the sole responsibility of the president to decide upon
which advice to take and which to reject.
> > I will also say that this is not a time when I, personally, am going
> > to have much patience for partisanship. This isn’t a debate about
> > stem cell research, faith based initiatives, or the future of social
> > security. This is about our response to an act of war.
> No, it was an simple act of terrorism, just extremely successful
> this time. Only the pompous rhetoric of the President has
> claimed it to be, absurdly, "an act of war".
There is nothing absurd about it. A sophisticated organization killed
thousands of our citizens with weapons of mass destruction. The fact
that this organization is not (to our knowledge) a formally organized
government does not alter that it is every bit as much an act of war
as it would be if, for instance, the government of the Seychell
Islands had organized it.
It is a common assumption that acts of wars may only be declared
against nations. I would ask you to find anything the Constitution or
in any Federal laws, which pertain to declaring war, which state that
declarations of war may only be made against countries. If you do,
kindly let me know because all of the research that I’ve been doing
has been unable to turn up a stipulation. Indeed, all the information
I’ve found typically defines war as a state of conflict carried on
between nations, states, or PARTIES. [emphasis added] Some state that
the conflict must be open (e.g., not a conflict of spies), however,
I’d suggest that attempting to drive four jumbo jets into various
targets, including military and civilian targets, certainly seems like
an example of open conflict sufficient, at least, to draft a
declaration of war.
Be that as it may, if you can find such a rule, I’ll gladly eat my
words, on this point.
> > So long as
> > our president, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, is executing his
> > duty faithfully — even if his name happens to be Bush, or Gore, or
> > Nader, or even if it were still Clinton — then he’s going to have my
> > support.
> That’s were rational and moral men differ, in they don’t blindly support
> anyone, to any extreme, just out if "patriotism" (fear).
Where did I say anything about blind support? I specifically stated a
conditional: that so long as he is *faithfully* executing his *duty*,
THEN he is going to have my support. Now, if that confuses you,
perhaps you might ask me what I mean by his duty, and what I mean when
I refer to the faithful execution of it; however, in the meanwhile, I
will kindly ask you to stop assigning positions and arguments to me.
I quite capable of stating them, for myself, thank you.
I would also dispute your equivocation of patriotism and fear. The
common defition is simply that patriotism is "love and devotion to
one’s country" with no additional qualifiers. While the source of that
love and devotion may well be fear, I see no reason to assume that it
is fear-based, much less that patriotism, itself, is fear (unless, of
course, I’m misinterpreting your parenthetical).
> > Now, when we return to a point where we are debating non-war related
> > issues, *then* I’ll go back to being a partisan Bush-basher.
> The rest of us will keep a close eye on this collective "village idiot"
> in the meantime …
<Shrug>
That’s your perogative, of course.
In article <3ba51342.347593…@news.charter.net>, wo…@charter.net (Woden) wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:56:44 -0600, "- Vox Populi ©" <v…@popu.li> wrote:
>>Cheney: Bush OK’d shootdown of rogue planes
>>September 16, 2001 Posted: 11:42 AM EDT (1542 GMT)
bulk of article deleted
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>>The vice president acknowledged that it was "a horrendous decision to make"
> because the
>>plane was full of "civilians captured by terrorists and — are you going to
> shoot it down
>>and kill all those Americans on board?"
>Did they really have much choice?
>>–
>>"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
>>hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins;
>>all of them imaginary." — H.L. Mencken, 1923
>I like this sig.
So do I. Unfortunately, it is the ONLY thing about Pox Pimplii I do like.
"Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats."
Howard Aiken
On 17 Sep 2001 05:43:47 -0700, anrwl…@hotmail.com (Andrew Lias)
posted in alt.atheism:
It’s a bit long, but it says it all.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Bush is not only the voice of the administration, but he is going to
>carry the burden of responsibility for what happens. I really don’t
>give a damn if he’s the actually idea man, or if his staff is. So
>long as he’s going to get the lion’s share of blame for anything that
>his administration does wrong, I’m going to give him the lion’s share
>of credit when his administration does right.
>I will also say that this is not a time when I, personally, am going
>to have much patience for partisanship. This isn’t a debate about
>stem cell research, faith based initiatives, or the future of social
>security. This is about our response to an act of war. So long as
>our president, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, is executing his
>duty faithfully — even if his name happens to be Bush, or Gore, or
>Nader, or even if it were still Clinton — then he’s going to have my
>support.
>Now, when we return to a point where we are debating non-war related
>issues, *then* I’ll go back to being a partisan Bush-basher.
–
Those not willing to fight for freedom don’t deserve freedom.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, not peace talks with a madman.
NEVER FORGET THE WTC AND THE PENTAGON!
Al – rukbat at optonline dot net