quade 4 #1 August 13, 2003 http://www.msnbc.com/news/943879.asp?0dm=T15SL Imagine for a minute that even 0.001% of this story is true. I don't, I'm not THAT big of a GWB basher, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. What would be the implication of having a President that believed the last book of the New Testament was about to play out within the next few years? Would that mean he would fearlessly (and foolishly) lead folks into battle because it was destined to happen? Hmmm... Like I said, I don't actually believe this story for a moment, but holy crap it's an interesting concept for a movie!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wceviper 0 #2 August 13, 2003 It will be one of those things that everyone will wonder. If he is going by the revelations section of the bible, he should be removed from office simply because he is not separating Church From State. My personal opinion. Wars happen for 2 reasons, Money, or Religion. It all depends your perspective. Saddam for religion, Bush for Money (Oil), And now maybe he is trying to fulfill the bible. -JasonYou may push me around, but you cannot win! You may throw me down, but i'll rise again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 August 13, 2003 Again, let me state that I seriously doubt this is actually happening. My best guess is that it's an attempt by Van Impe to get a little publicity.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #4 August 13, 2003 I would say listen to this... __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #5 August 13, 2003 QuoteIf he is going by the revelations section of the bible, he should be removed from office simply because he is not separating Church From State. My personal opinion. Separation of church and state in the constitution is not about beliefs or about what set of principles guide government officials. There is actually no law that uses the phrase "separation of church and state". The saying is derived from this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Therefore, as long as GWB makes no law "respecting an establishment of religion" he is fine. The fact that he is a Christian, as most of our presidents have been, and performs his job as outlined by Christian beliefs does not place him in violation of the constitution. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #6 August 13, 2003 QuoteTherefore, as long as GWB makes no law "respecting an establishment of religion" he is fine and since congress writes the laws and GWB only approves or disapproves, there's little chance of that happeningI promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 August 13, 2003 Well, there's always those pesky Executive Orders, but since the First Amendment says specifically "Congress shall make no . . ." I wonder if he could get away with doing something really wacky if he wanted to? Nawww, that's just nuts. However, currently the President can use Special Operation troops just about however he wants to without any real Congressional oversight. All kinds of really spooky things get done with that. Fortunately, again, cooler heads are trying to change that, but it's difficult to know if some of the stuff really would be dealt with better just by keeping it secret and not requiring a report to Congress. Certainly some things require a timely responce that would be eliminated if the "Cambone understanding" came into use.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #8 August 13, 2003 QuoteFortunately, again, cooler heads are trying to change that, but it's difficult to know if some of the stuff really would be dealt with better just by keeping it secret and not requiring a report to Congress. In the intelligence community there is a saying that "when congress knows, everybody knows". They are leak central. Where do you think journalists get all of their "anonymous tips" from? Congressmen with an agenda. We need congressional oversight. Congressmen who leak classified information also need their balls crushed. A few years in the pen would serve as a nice deterrent. QuoteCertainly some things require a timely responce that would be eliminated if the "Cambone understanding" came into use. They could keep it timely through the use of committees. It would also allow them to find the "leakers" quicker. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 August 13, 2003 "Cambone" calls for a Presidential "Finding" and authorization from Congress -- a pretty tough thing to put together in just a few hours, even if everyone was in town. So, we're talking days instead of hours for action against timely targets. Say Saddam was spotted going into a bunker in Syria. Ideally, you'd want to do a lot of stuff to bust up the bunker, but you probably want to put some Special Ops guys on the ground for a number of reasons. Under "Cambone", by the time you get authorization, he's probably moved on.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #10 August 14, 2003 Quote"Cambone" calls for a Presidential "Finding" and authorization from Congress Does it require authorization from a full session of Congress or would a congressional committee work? Say, the intelligence committee. You just have the members on pager and and a 2 hour string (or less if necessary). Rotate them to keep them from getting burned out. Special Ops guys rarely conduct direct action ops on targets of opportunity in a new theatre of operations (where combat ops are not already authorized). Nowdays, that is performed by attack aircraft or cruisemissiles. Special Ops mostly (not entirely) conducts recon and liaison at the beginning of major operations. The administration would whine but it would be possible to make it workable IMO. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 August 14, 2003 I actually was thinking more along the lines of recon and target designation. I think you'd also want to put troops on lines of drift out of the facility -- a little distance away, of course. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #12 August 14, 2003 Quotea couple miles out of course. Especially if the Navy is involved! "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #13 August 14, 2003 MSNBC has become such a rag of BS. During the olympics, their motto was "M.ust S.how N.othing B.ut C.urling" for crying out loud. Even if Bush was getting spiritual advice, it hardly sets any precedent. Every President has received information/advice/input in these areas. The mega-committees and task forces may sound redundant, but they talk through nearly every contingency on many issues. That may include prophetic issues on literature or scriptures which, like it or not, have a tie to 90%+ of the world's population. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must get back to building my fallout shelter and getting caught up on my vaccines for the upcoming plagues, and filling air tanks for the tidal waves to come... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
digurman 0 #14 August 14, 2003 Religion is the cancer of the people. Words aren't real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #15 August 14, 2003 Why not? Ronald Reagan regularly consulted a clairvoyant and no-one seemed to mind.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 August 14, 2003 I believe that was Nancy. In any case, people still don't seem to get the point of the thread which is what if in case of simply consulting (which again I don't think he is), but he was actually acting upon it. Would most people consider that delusional behavior and call for his removal from office?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,521 #17 August 14, 2003 The problem I have is with the possibility that he believes that with his great power (and yes, he has it), he can help God's plan along. Or at least what he thinks God's plan is. Now that's scary. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #18 August 14, 2003 Yeah, and Clinton consulted an intern. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
digurman 0 #19 August 14, 2003 You are a really famous person if someone can give you a BJ and then they become famous. Dave Chappele Words aren't real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
