Deranged, Disconnected, and Dangerous

The point is KenH he has to do it without a professing spirit but rather a politically contrived way...you are missing the point and trying to derail it ..because your fixation on an
aisle it is more than that..it was his attitude and silver spoon in his mouth mentality of I am not like the others ...I am a King so I must have special privileges.


Dragoon you have no idea of my fellowship it is not like your fundy ways...so keep any judgement of my fellowship up your bees wax ..Mr. Bushbot
he has hurt this nation and you just keep shilling for him and sucking up to him ..the ultimate apple polisher..he loves people like you
because he knows he can escape accountability again...and again ...and again ..and again.

 

It isn't only this administration that is responsible for violating the constitution. JFK violated it when he signed the EXO creating FEMA, Clinton violated it when he signed EXO 13107 not to mention the fact that the Federal Reserve a private bank is a gross violation of the constitution. Now we have a congress that will go along with warrantless searches and spying on American citizens. I'm not sure how you classify a violation of rights Hillclimber, but building up a militarized police complete with private corporate mercenaries and making the fourth amendment practically null and void seems kind of a radical approach to protecting constitutional rights to me.

 

President Bush hasn't hurt this nation one little bit and he isn't being blindly followed or even followed at all. He was freely elected to serve the nation and that's what he's doing. Some of us happen to respect him for the good job he's doing with some very difficult situations. We don't like everything that's happened and we wish for more than we knew he could accomplish. We'd like to see a lot of changes in government but we don't single out and blame one man for the situation that has developed over years of government growth and intrusion into our lives. Unlike some, such as you, we don't find any gratification in an endless game of blaming him for every evil, every failure, every fault, and every trouble this nation endures.

Very well said, wish I'd said it this way.

 

You didn't answer any of the questions did you? You're right back to your name calling and host of silly accusations aren't you?

Regarding "fellowship", the question wasn't about your fellowship - I'm not questioning that or particularly interested in - but whether you believe Christians like yourself should exclude the President from fellowship and treat him as if he were not a "real" Christian but, rather, an imposter. That seems to be the line you keep advancing by your questioning the President's salvation, claiming he's a "baby" Christian, associating his character with evilness, and things such as that. Is that the truth or not? I'm asking but you tell us what you're really thinking!

What do you mean by "fundy" ways? I figure it's some kind of insult but I'm not sure what.

 

President Bush hasn't hurt this nation one little bit ...

Very well said, wish I'd said it this way. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks!

 

The problem is, hillclimber, there isn't a war on terror. If he really believed there is a war on terror going on, he would've gone all out to defend and protect our borders since 09/11 and his State Dept wouldn't be dumping Muslim Somalians in rural towns all across the US of A
(remember Black Hawk Down), PLUS he wouldn't be all for letting a Communist country company be in charge of detecting nuclear devices for goods coming into our country, PLUS, he would round up and deport illegal aliens, PLUS, he wouldn't have turned his back on Israel and come up with the Road Map giving land away to terrorists, PLUS...a whole lot more. There is no war on terror. If this country ever has the guts to REALLY fight a war on terror, it would be fought differently than the way this Administration has done it. </font>[/QUOTE]I admit you are right on these issues. But for now he has conducted a just war. I see no electable alternative on the horizon. His penchant for allowing illegal Mexicans in and the stupidity of the UAE and now the Chi-com defensive issue is baffling, and I offer no defense, other than perhaps his misguided trust of everyone.

Just what would you do differently, and what would you call this if it's not a war on terror?

 

One commentator noted that declaring war on "terrorism" is bizarre as terrorism is a method of fighting, not a nation or even a defined group.

 

Neither do I, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is not fighting a war on terror.

I would have NOT, post-09/11 allowed the bin Laden family to leave collectively from the different states on their private jets, while all air traffic in the United States was grounded. I would NOT have allowed a Muslim imam (known, documented terrorist supporter who has called for the overthrow of America) to conduct prayers to a false god at the National Cathedral at the 09/11 Memorial Service. I would not be promoting that islam is a religion of peace and that all people worship the same god.

I would have cancelled all visas (especially the educational visas) and conducted a manhunt for illegal aliens, door-to-door, if need be. I would have immediately taken down all terror sites from the Internet running from US servers. I would have profiled, I would have placed the military/national guard on our borders to defend and protect it with orders to shoot on sight, if need be. I would have frozen all assets of islamic charities until it could be documented without question that funds were not being transferred to terror organizations, I would have made all nuclear power plants permanently no-fly zones for all aircraft, I would have investigated all foreign workers in this country and conducted background checks.

I would have gone to Afghanistan, but I would not have allowed a cease fire to allow Pakistani aircraft to land in Afghanistan and take anyone out. I would have not paid $200,000 each to Afghani tribal chieftans, I would have destroyed all the poppy fields, I would have gathered multinationial forces with enough manpower to take total control of that country and not diverted our military and resources to another military theater (Iraq) until the task in Afghanistan was completed and secured. The last thing I would have allowed (as conquerer) would be the creation of an islamic state, especially since that nation used to have diverse religions before the spread of islam by the sword.

If you are referring to Iraq, I would call it removal of a dictator and a delusion carefully crafted, created to coerce American blood and treasury to continually expand global accumulation of wealth for his family and friends. Except it isn't exactly working out the way his planners hoped. They always had the option of taking out Saddam at some future point, but in the haste to acquire more wealth and under the spell of greed, judgment often gets clouded. Especially if those being paid for intelligence at the tune of several hundred thousands of dollars a month have something to gain, which they apparently did. BTW, there has never been an accounting for the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that got misplaced over in Iraq and seems to have vanished in thin air under Paul Bremmer. To this very day.

 

Wonder why the "liberal media" isn't jumping all over Bremmer and the Pentagon for "losing" billions of dollars? I mean if they hate Bush so much and want to destroy his presidency like all the so called conservatives claim it just seems like they would be hammering this issue pretty hard.

 

LE...lol! What is he fighting then? Public opinion? My, my it seems time for a vacation from the internet for you.

 

Eric Haney, founding member of Delta Force.
SOURCE

 

Eric Haney, founding member of Delta Force.
SOURCE </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for sharing this story, Poncho!

CSM Haney is a former professional soldier who provided a life time of service to this nation and some of those years were during some very difficult and evolutionary times for the military. He's completely entitled to his opinions as is any one else. He can certainly speak with credibility about those things he experienced as could many others. There's a whole lot of history behind his story! I respect men like this a great deal.

Present USSOCOM leaders - who aren't writing books or starting television series - have fully accepted the challenges given them and will carry them out as a part of the total military force just like CSM Haney, and his fellow soldier of his time, did. USSOCOM, and it's subordinate commands are not an army - meaning, in this case, all the services - within an army but an integral part of the whole that puts forth its resources in ways that support the missions given it. They are active right now in the war on terrorism doing the things they do best but they can't do it all by themselves. They, like every other component, support one another for the total mission.

The military doesn't decide national policy - it's executes it. The military's duty is often to do the "impossible". They figure out how to get done what the President wants done. The President is the Commander in Chief and he represents the will of the people.

Many believe the military is stretched and from my own armchair view it sure seems that way at times. A lot of troops are on their third deployment. Yet, in every way that's been the case. We've always been caught short, surprised, and failed some before we succeeded. Some past deployments were for the duration of the war and lasted longer than this one has. One thing - one of many - that makes America's fighting forces the best is their resourcefulness to innovate, adapt, preserver, etc. when the challenge is difficult and seemingly impossible. They've always managed to meet those challenges even if after some temporary set backs. This trait is extant in all areas of all services and not something possessed merely by one small group of it.

There's no such thing as one solution for every fight. Forces are tailored to the fight based on what's needed and what's available. Right now the mission on Iraq seems heavily focused on training and supporting the Iraqi police and military forces as they assume the primary role for security and defense of their country. This isn't easy work for a fighting force but they're doing a great job of it from top to bottom. All this is what senior leaders - far above even men like CSM Haney - get paid to do figure out how to do and, when exceptions here and there, they've done a fine job of it over the course of our nation's history. Others talk about it while they get the job done. I respect men and women like this a great deal.

Events in Iraq has there ups and downs but, overall, there's been a lot of very positive progress made in that country. No one can say for certain exactly how it will all end up. I hope and pray the predictions of some that it will disintegrate to civil war do not come true. A big part of what happens will depend, not on us, but on what Iraqis do with the opportunity given to them by our efforts and theirs combined thus far. It's a difficult time for them yet, potentially, the beginning of a much better era than they've known for generations. Many of them want representative government and civil order to prevail over tyranny and terrorism. Despite the daily bad news a lot of good things are happening in Iraq. We can thank a lot of people for that not the least of whom are our own troops and their leaders.

We just need to hang with the challenge just like we expect - and demand - that our military do.

 

No problem Dragoon, I'm happy to share things. You are correct the military doesn't write the policy, but then neither do those in government they only write whats dictated to them. Here's what some of the real policy makers are saying.

Three State Solution CFR

The Future Of Iraq: A Debate CFR

The militaries first duty is to protect the U.S. constitution, not the president's honor or good name especially when he violates his first duty. I was only following orders sounds like, well you know what it sounds like.

George Bush can get in front of the cameras make show and pretend he's the big cheese all he wants if it makes him and his supporters feel better about themselves and their actions but the truth is he's only a figure head for more powerful interests and I'm not talking about the American people either.

 

Really, If he represents the will of the people then why are the borders still open? 80+ % of the people will them to be secured and immgration laws enforced, the president otoh would rather sign treaties that abolishs the borders and sets up NGO's in power over our republican form of government guaranteed by the U.S. constitution and giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.

No Dragoon, the president does not represent the will of the people he represents the will of world government and the big business and banking interests that are behind it.

 

There's nothing unlawful about the President's orders to the military and therefore they'd best follow them. The last thing we need is to start a trend of military coups because the military doesn't like the orders given it.

 

As long as he's been freely elected by the people according to the law and hasn't been impeached by the Congress for not following the law, then he is the President and he does represent the will of the people. He is the Commander in Chief of our military and he gives the orders which we expect them to follow.

 

Who, Dragoon, in Congress is going to impeach him? Congress isn't really concerned about what the American people want. They are only concerned with lining of their own pockets.

 

Then those who want him removed from office by impeachment need to elect different people to represent them in Congress.

 

Has anyone considered the following verse?

Act 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

In those days the High priest was effectively in the same seat as Our President...

And, before you say well he's not the High priest he's just a man...

Check this out...

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Granted speaking evil is different than asking honest questions or even being an arm chair quarterback...

But, when we accuse the President of being or doing evil... Then we violate these passages...

And, note, Paul's statement and apology came after he said truth...

What he accused the High Priest of was absolutely true...

But, he still gasped at his gaff...

Mike Sr.
One finger points out...
Four point back...

 

Well, using that logic, SMM, speaking ill of Hitler or Saddam is taboo.