Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

You mean like FDR?

Pardon me if I don't quite understand, but wasn't throwing innocent
Japanese
citizens into internment camps en masse, simply because of their race, a
far
larger example of 'trashing the bill of rights' than anything Bush has
allegedly done? Why did you not protest this? What about FDR's attempts to
bypass and overthrow the judicial branch altogether?


No, throwing innocent Japanese citizens into internment camps was not
trashing the Bill of Rights, and it wasn't done because of their race it was
done because they were enemy nationals. It was also done with German and
Italian nationals. All countries do this in time of war, what else can they
do? You can't have enemy nationals freely roaming about the nation.

What FDR did that was completely wrong was the internment of US citizens of
Japanese, German, and Italian descent.



I would be interested in knowing what you think Bush did that is so
unprescidented. Fact is, Franklin Delano Rosevelt was the closest thing to
a
dictator we've ever had in this country. Don't misunderstand me; he was a
great man, and he was what the nation needed at the time. However, all of
this baseless and manufactured outrage directed at president Bush is
disgraceful, considering the relativly subtle and nuanced actions he has
taken---especially in comparison to the beloved FDR.


He was what the nation needed at what time?

Ragnar wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
Iranians. Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.

And when did that happen? March, 1988 during the war against Iran. So,
let's see, is 1988 in the 80s or the 90s? Oh......

Yes, oh. Lots of the chems were never accounted for after the Gulf War.

Assuming that you're right, so what happened to them? Where are they? Why
weren't they used against us when we invaded their country if they had them?
And since they obviously didn't have them, what in hell were we supposed to be
afraid of?

And some keeps coming back even today, like in artillery shells used as
IEDs.

And do you know why those artillery shells were and are still available to the
insurgents in Iraq? I know you won't want to believe it or accept it as truth,
but the reason is that we didn't have enough troops committed to the operation
to be able to secure the ammo dumps and prevent them from being looted.
Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind, and Rummy set forth to do it on the
cheap. We are now (and will continue indefinitely) to pay the price for that
horrible error in judgement by the administration.

To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in
the country going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none
of
the weapons we were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

As far as you know.

And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David Kay,
and
his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
President's own man,
who do you believe?

Like I said, "as far as you know".

Did you think I didn't hear you the first time?

"hear" me? Umm, this is the internet, not a telephone.

Do I have to explain to you what a figure of speech is?

In any event, I repeated it because you already admitted to not reading
everything in the thread. Just thought I'd make sure.

Based on previous posts, its obvious to me that you never read the offical
report from Kay. Perhaps you could look up the part where he said the
Iraqis weren't in compliance with UN resolutions and had programs still
running even after the inspections.

Well, what was obvious to you was, in fact, erroneous. I did in fact read the
Kay report right after it was published. Why are you ignoring the part of it
where it said that while they may have had weapons research programs operating,
his team was unable to locate any weapons produced by those programs? If our
nation's going to spend all of its days shaking in our boots because other
countries (including unfriendly ones) are doing weapons research, we're going to
need a rubber padded room in which to feel safe because, like it or not,
everybody does it and they're not going to quit just to please us and allow us
to not feel threatened.

(Snip)

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be
able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind,

Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":

Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section 3034(a) of
Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not more
than four years.


Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and ended
on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of Staff
since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office and
retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in the
past.


"hear" me? Umm, this is the internet, not a telephone.

Do I have to explain to you what a figure of speech is?

Do I have to explain to you the definition of "never"? Its in the
dictionary.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be
able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind,

Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":

Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section 3034(a) of
Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not more
than four years.


Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and ended
on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of Staff
since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office and
retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in the
past.

We were clearly at war in June 2003 and extension of Gen. Shinseki's term of
office as Army C/S was available to the government and provided for under PL
90-22. Our government chose to ignore our tradition of not changing horses in
midstream and replaced him with someone who wouldn't buck their preconceived
notions of how to run a war. The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,
and he got his retirement papers processed instead of having them placed in the
pending file simply because he differed with his civilian bosses about what
winning the war was going to take. It turns out with perfect 20-20 hindsight
that he knew what he was talking about and they (the civilians involved) did
not.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to
be
able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind,

Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":

Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section
3034(a) of
Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not
more
than four years.


Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and
ended
on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of
Staff
since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office
and
retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in
the
past.

We were clearly at war in June 2003

Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

and extension of Gen. Shinseki's term of
office as Army C/S was available to the government and provided for under
PL
90-22.

Available, yes. However, extension wasn't used during Vietnam either,
making your point less valid.

Our government chose to ignore our tradition of not changing horses in
midstream

Umm, the "tradition" seems to have been ignored for the most part when it
comes to JCS members.

and replaced him with someone who wouldn't buck their preconceived
notions of how to run a war.

The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,

Nope, fired people have to clean out their desks and get the hell out of the
building. Shinseki served his entire appointment as Chief of Staff.

and he got his retirement papers processed instead of having them placed
in the
pending file simply because he differed with his civilian bosses about
what
winning the war was going to take. It turns out with perfect 20-20
hindsight
that he knew what he was talking about and they (the civilians involved)
did
not.

George Z.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We were clearly at war in June 2003

Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has declared
war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it does not
require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if somebody
tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our troops, I'm
not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at war.

(Snip)

The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,

Nope, fired people have to clean out their desks and get the hell out of the
building. Shinseki served his entire appointment as Chief of Staff.

You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level. Try asking
any flag officer you know if I'm wrong.....I've already done that and am
satisfied that I didn't get a bum steer. I wouldn't be trying to BS the public
if I didn't know that I had it right.

Insist if you want to.....I still say he got canned for disagreeing with his
civilian bosses.
And I still say that he was right and that they were wrong. Professionals often
have a far more sanguine and realistic view of things in their areas of
expertise than do ideologues. How to secure Iraq was a perfect example of that,
and we continue to pay the price in blood and heartache every day for having
picked the wrong options.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We were clearly at war in June 2003

Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has
declared
war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it does
not
require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if
somebody
tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our troops,
I'm
not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at war.

The Constitution says that Congress is the body that declares "war". It
follows that public law says "in time of war". Clearly, the intent is a
Congressionally declared state of war.


(Snip)

The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,

Nope, fired people have to clean out their desks and get the hell out of
the
building. Shinseki served his entire appointment as Chief of Staff.

You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level.

You obviously don't have a clue about what I know. Try again.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We were clearly at war in June 2003

Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has
declared
war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it does
not
require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if
somebody
tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our troops,
I'm
not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at war.

The Constitution says that Congress is the body that declares "war". It
follows that public law says "in time of war". Clearly, the intent is a
Congressionally declared state of war.

Then, clearly, Congress has studiously ignored your version of what the
Constitution requires for the past half century. We fought the entire Korean
War without Congress declaring that a state of war existed.....not to this day a
half century or so later has such a declaration been made. But it was a war
nevertheless. Oh, and be sure to tell our VN vets that the little brouhaha they
were involved in didn't count as a war because Congress forgot to declare it.

Come to think of it, those little dust ups that passed for wars in Panama,
Granada, and Kuwait (the Gulf War) were similarly undeclared. I guess they
didn't count either.

Those Congressmen sure must be stupid to fail to recognize what they're supposed
to do before young Americans in uniform are placed in harm's way.

(Snip)

You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level.

You obviously don't have a clue about what I know. Try again.

I guess everybody's out of step but you. You're the one who doesn't seem to
know squat about the subject.

George Z.

Ragnar wrote:
Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

They came close enough for most purposes. The 18 September 2001 Joint
Resolution is effectively a declaration of war. It certainly activates the
various "in time of war" clauses in other legislation, such as the recall of
troops and so forth (though a good lawyer might argue out of a treason
charge on the technicality).

Note that Admiral Clark, the current Chief of Naval Operations, has had his
appointment extended by an additional two years (for a total of six).

Regarding Shinseki, I agree he was not fired. But he was clearly
marginalized by OSD. Rumsfeld named his preferred successor (the serving
Vice COS) over a year in advance, an unprecendented announcement. (General
Keane then declined the post, also unprecedented, IME. Then General Franks
also turned it down when offered.) Notably, no senior OSD officials
attended Shinsiki's retirement ceremony, which is rather unusual for an
outgoing service chief.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We were clearly at war in June 2003

Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has
declared
war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it
does
not
require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if
somebody
tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our
troops,
I'm
not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at
war.

The Constitution says that Congress is the body that declares "war". It
follows that public law says "in time of war". Clearly, the intent is a
Congressionally declared state of war.

Then, clearly, Congress has studiously ignored your version of what the
Constitution requires for the past half century. We fought the entire
Korean
War without Congress declaring that a state of war existed.....not to this
day a
half century or so later has such a declaration been made. But it was a
war
nevertheless. Oh, and be sure to tell our VN vets that the little
brouhaha they
were involved in didn't count as a war because Congress forgot to declare
it.

Not my fault they don't have the balls to actually call it a war.

Come to think of it, those little dust ups that passed for wars in Panama,
Granada, and Kuwait (the Gulf War) were similarly undeclared. I guess
they
didn't count either.

Finally, a right answer from you. They weren't "wars" since Congress didn't
declare them that.

Those Congressmen sure must be stupid to fail to recognize what they're
supposed
to do before young Americans in uniform are placed in harm's way.

(Snip)

You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level.

You obviously don't have a clue about what I know. Try again.

I guess everybody's out of step but you. You're the one who doesn't seem
to
know squat about the subject.

Well, lets see what I know:

1. Shinseki didn't clean out his desk.
2. Didn't leave the building.
3. Didn't lose one iota of his command authority.
4. Didn't stop attending JCS meetings.
5. Didn't stop travelling around giving speeches as the CSA.
6. Served his ENTIRE assignment period as specified under Public Law.

Yep, not "fired".