# Bush Outlaws War Protests!



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

The time has come for the people of America to stand up and be heard. George Bush's last diabolical move (July 17th) has been to outlaw all forms of protest against the war in Iraq. They can take your money, house and property without so much as a trial. George Bush is committing genocide against the Iraqi people using the lives and limbs of American sons and daughters so that his family can gain control of more of the world's oil. He has ignored the entire world and put our very existence as humans on planet earth at risk by refusing to acknowledge global warming (and forcing NASA scientists to lie to the American people about the severity of global warming). He has committed crimes against the people of America, the people of Iraq and our planet earth. He needs to be stopped now and the only way that will happen is for everyone to make their voices heard. It is time to take a few moments out of your day to call, e-mail or write your representative. Demand impeachment now.
House Speaker Pelosi wants to hear your opinion on Bush/Cheney impeachment
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is conducting a phone poll -- the number is 1-202-225-0100. Just call in and say something to the effect of "I'd like to register my support for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney." If you're tired of the way things are going, take 45 seconds out of your day to make some change.

I just called the Nancy Pelosi phone # to speak out in favor of impeachment. They said it was "a bit of a rumor" that she was taking "a poll" but gladly connected me to her comment line where I left a recorded message that I had prepared ahead of time.

Also, you can sign a petition online for impeachment
http://www.impeachbush.org

Talia Rose


----------



## K&JsMaMa (May 26, 2002)

Do you have any online sites to prove this? If so, I'd love to read them. This is an outrage.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

Well, I just called and that's the right number, but they are seriously unaware of this survey.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

: I havnt heard a peep about this till now.


----------



## eco_mama (Feb 10, 2006)

signed.

off to look for more info...


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

http://altnews.com.au/drop/node/7778

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publ...cle_2218.shtml

and many more. just do an internet search. They have also been talking extensively about it on the public radio station here. In the days after, Nancy Pelosi and other house speakers were inundated with calls calling for impeachment. (they need to hear from us regardless of whether she is actually conducting a poll or not) The pressure is growing and we all need to keep writing, e-mailing, calling ect to demand inpeachment. I have a teenage son. There is no way I will send him to this war. Please, everyone, write your local state representative.


----------



## delfuego (Mar 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jörð* 
Well, I just called and that's the right number, but they are seriously unaware of this survey.


I don't know how the person you talked to could possibly be unaware. This has been going on for months. It may not have been initiated by Nancy Pelosi or her office but people have been calling and leaving recorded messages asking for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. You may want to call back and ask them if you can leave a recorded message for Ms. Pelosi.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

Oki doki


----------



## channelofpeace (Jul 14, 2005)

From the official Government website:








:


----------



## carmel23 (Jul 21, 2006)

hmm... the article states "IN IRAQ"... :
"I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability *of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people,* it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004."

The president can never 'pass' a law that would over rule the 1st Amendment of the constitution protecting freedom of speech. I'm in Berkeley almost daily and see war protests all the time, not to mention all the bumper stickers, etc.

It is not the function of the Executive branch to pass laws--that is the job of congress.

Let's look at the really weird stuff that is really going on with the Bush ties to the Justice department, we don't need to make up stuff. There is enough scary stuff going on there to get worked up over!


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *milkydoula* 
From the official Government website:








:

It's against the law to be *violent* in any war protest. Nowhere does that state that war protests themselves are outlawed.


----------



## SamuraiMom (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:

Let's look at the really weird stuff that is really going on with the Bush ties to the Justice department, we don't need to make up stuff. There is enough scary stuff going on there to get worked up over!








: Ya know, if we the opposed insist on embelishing the truth or changing the facts to make our case against the Bush administration, than we are no better than them. And in fact, we are just encouraging them to do the same.


----------



## Warda_Rose (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm not too fluent in legal-ese. Could some-one break it down into simpler terms?


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Warda_Rose* 
I'm not too fluent in legal-ese. Could some-one break it down into simpler terms?

Sure.

"I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States ..."

I, George W. Bush, a.k.a. "The Decider," have decided that because violence in Iraq threatens the U.S.'s security and its game plan for dealing with other nations, and because this violence in Iraq screws up the "peace" and the "stability" of Iraq and also throws a monkey wrench into any kinds of efforts to get Iraq's economy and government back on track, and because violence in Iraq also messes with any kind of effort to help out the Iraqi people, then we have to kick some ass and take some names. Why? Because I said we had a national emergency on May 22, 2003, which gives me the power to do this, and I expanded on what I meant before in August 28, 2003. Oh, and I also took a pinch of this one executive order in July and a dab of this one other one in November, and all together, this constitutes my ass-kicking permission slip.


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

"...any (citizen) person who undermines efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."

This is so broad that it can be interpreted and used against people in a variety of ways. Obviously, if public radio is devoting so much time to discussion of this, I am not the only one concerned about what has been done here.....


----------



## LilahsMama (Mar 16, 2007)

Read the executive order http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html

This is really vague, and I *think* it applies to here in the US, not in Iraq as someone suggested.

from the executive order:

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: *any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,*
(i) *to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:*
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;


----------



## eco_mama (Feb 10, 2006)

n/m


----------



## SageR (Jun 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carmel23* 
The president can never 'pass' a law that would over rule the 1st Amendment of the constitution protecting freedom of speech. I'm in Berkeley almost daily and see war protests all the time, not to mention all the bumper stickers, etc.

It is not the function of the Executive branch to pass laws--that is the job of congress.

Let's look at the really weird stuff that is really going on with the Bush ties to the Justice department, we don't need to make up stuff. There is enough scary stuff going on there to get worked up over!

I agree that the justice dept issue is extremely pertinent but...

I don't have the time or the inclination to list all the things the Bush administration has done that either completely ignore the balance of powers or are outright violations of the Constitution. But we all know it has happened. So to suggest that op is wrong because Bush can't do certain thing legally...um, he does what he want anyway. Repeatedly. And then lies about it or simply says he knows what the law is but since he's the president he can do what ever he wants.

I don't know if all this is true or not, but I'm not going to disbelieve it just because he's not supposed to be able to do something like this or because he's done other scary, illegal things.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LilahsMama* 
or to pose a significant risk of committing

That part makes me particularly uncomfortable.


----------



## Ambrose (Apr 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jörð* 
That part makes me particularly uncomfortable.
















:


----------



## Anuska (Nov 13, 2005)

Quote:

The time has come for the people of America to stand up and be heard. George Bush's last diabolical move (July 17th) has been to outlaw all forms of protest against the war in Iraq.

Well gosh darn they just had an Iraq war protest here at our local Airforce/Navy base. Seems there is one every few months around here.

No one was arrested accept a few men who wouldn't allow some of the sailors to board their ship. Hardly made the news.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

What base would that be at? Being a military spouse for nearly 8 years now, I can tell you that not only have I never ever seen one on an instillation but I am strongly discouraged from participating in anti-war protests of any form. Not that I care...


----------



## captivatedlife (Aug 16, 2006)

So is it only prohibiting acts of violence?

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an *act or acts of violence* that have the purpose or effect of:
<snip> (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, *such an act or acts of violence* or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
_(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order._
What is number 3? That one really







: me.


----------



## candykane (Jun 28, 2007)

As the mother of three sons, I can tell you that I destest George W. Bush. Not to mention the harm that he and Rick Perry have done to the public school system in Texas. I teach in a high school and I can tell you that the "strong arm" tactics that I have seen recruiters use in the last two years are scary. They promise poor, misled 18 year olds ANYTHING to get them to sign up for the service and then they are sent to Iraq within a year.

Honestly, if he thinks this war is so important, why doesn't he get his little brat daughters off the pages of Vogue magazine and into some fatigues and carrying a gun instead of a $4,500 Birkin bag, I'm sure his perspective of Iraq would change if there was a chance that his child might return in a flag draped casket.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

The act seems designed to freeze the assets of people who are suspected of contributing to terrorism in Iraq without having to go through due process. There is precedent here with the drug laws which can also seize property based on suspicion, not on guilt.

Of course its dangerous and horrible; so are the drug laws which have been on the books unchallenged way too long. It _could_ be used to "discipline" protesters, but I doubt he would get away with that for long. But who knows in this conservative court.


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

and as of today, they are talking about bringing back the draft.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...ml?eref=rss_us


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

For those who think this new executive order is not about us (the moms and just plain people who don't believe in this war and may actually lend thier time and energy to try to stop it) Here in Humboldt county it has been interpreted as just that.....
"HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA, DEMOCRATS MAY BE FIRST TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT BUSH ON HIS EXECUTIVE ORDERS GIVING HIM 'DICTATORIAL POWERS' IN TIMES OF NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

In what is believed to be a first in the nation, the Humboldt County, CA, Democratic Central Committee has called for bipartisan action by Congress to overturn two Executive Orders recently issued by President George Bush that the Committee believes would allow him to assume "dictatorial powers" during a national emergency and to confiscate the assets of those opposing the Iraq war at any time--both in violation of the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
A resolution approved by the Committee Wednesday night in Eureka, CA, asserts that an Executive Order issued on May 9 would override the National Emergencies Act, a federal law passed by Congress in 1976, that gives the President certain powers if he declares an emergency but provides Congress with a means to countermand the President's declaration and allows for judicial review. In addition, a July 17 Executive Order would authorize the Treasury Department to freeze and confiscate the assets of anyone even suspected of using undefined violence in opposition to the Iraq war without provision for judicial review."

And now they are talking about reinstating the draft.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...ml?eref=rss_us

First he outlaws the protesting, then he reinstates the draft. Anyone else out there a little scared?


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

War protest without violence has not been made illegal.

No one has reinstated the draft.

Aren't we supposed to be against fear mongering?


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

i didn't say they HAD reinstated the draft. but the fact that the "war czar" is recommending that reinstating the draft be our next course of action in this war most people do not approve of because they have run out of volunteers to go kill and potentially die over there scares me. i don't want to wait until the draft IS reinstated. i have a teenage son.

do you honestly think we have nothing to fear from this president? he has recently issued several executive orders that have made the impeachable, illegal offenses he has committed legal now. doesn't the fact that thousands of americans and tens of thousands of iraqis have died over this war outrage you? what if it was your child? your family? the soldiers coming back from this war are committing suicide. they are coming home sick from the chemicals they are exposed to over there. our government is not providing the help they need. they will be living on the streets tossed aside just like our vietnam vets. how can we ignore this any longer? how can we pretend it is okay?


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talia rose* 
i didn't say they HAD reinstated the draft. but the fact that the "war czar" is recommending that reinstating the draft be our next course of action in this war most people do not approve of because they have run out of volunteers to go kill and potentially die over there scares me. i don't want to wait until the draft IS reinstated. i have a teenage son.

do you honestly think we have nothing to fear from this president? he has recently issued several executive orders that have made the impeachable, illegal offenses he has committed legal now. doesn't the fact that thousands of americans and tens of thousands of iraqis have died over this war outrage you? what if it was your child? your family? the soldiers coming back from this war are committing suicide. they are coming home sick from the chemicals they are exposed to over there. our government is not providing the help they need. they will be living on the streets tossed aside just like our vietnam vets. how can we ignore this any longer? how can we pretend it is okay?


You implied that the draft had been reinstated.

You're singing to the choir, dear. You never heard me say that I thought Bush was anything but a liar and moron. And my husband is headed to Iraq for 6 months this January so I don't have the luxury of hoping right now. It _is_ my family. I have no choice but to look to the future and save my hope for election time.


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

i will keep you and your family in my prayers. and continue to write letters, show up at protests and do everything i can to help end this war and bring everyone home.


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jörð* 
War protest without violence has not been made illegal.

Um, yes, it has. Read:

Quote:

"to have committed, *or to pose a significant risk of committing*, an act or acts of violence"
In Seattle, there was a peaceful protester picked out for arrest because they were carrying an anarchist flag. Frequently anarchists are portrayed as being violent. All I would need to do at a protest is be seen as a "risk" and I could be arrested. Just like Bush had people kicked out of where he was speaking (which they paid money for) because someone didn't like a bumper-sticker on their car.

Just because it's not being enforced as widely as they COULD enforce the law, doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about it. Just like I'm not going to wait until AFTER they re-instate the draft to worry about _it_.

If you're against the war, and military, there's a movie that might interest you.


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

I feel like I'm very much between a rock and a hard place. I'm wanting very badly to stand up on a corner with signs about the cost of the war, in lives and dollars, for the sake of our future and the future of my daughter. Yet I worry that I could now be arrested and my assets seized for said action, thereby also threatening the future of my daughter. I'm a deer in the headlights.

What happened to our democracy? I want my bill of rights back.

Freeway Blogger put it so eloquently: We're all wearing the blue dress now.


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

and that is EXACTLY what bush hoped to accomplish by signing that executive order. to make people afraid to protest. so that he can go ahead and reinstate the draft, take our children to go to war so his family can make more money from oil, at the very time we should be limiting our consumption of oil and exploring other avenues of energy that will help SAVE OUR PLANET. and once the draft is reinstated, how much do want to bet he declares martial law and refuses to leave office. he was never truly elected in the first place. i for one will get out there on the street corner and wave a sign and bring every single person i can find to accompany me. i will write letters and (i even have an "impeach bush" sign in my business window on main st) because he is not coming for my son. he can take what i own and he can throw me in prison because what he is doing is WRONG. and i will not stand by and be silent.
okay that's my rant for today. I have to take the sick feeling in my belly over this and use it to try to get others to speak out. only when everyone speaks up do we have a prayer of changing what is going on.

http://www.democracynow.org/


----------



## june'smom (Nov 8, 2003)

Ok, I hate the prez and I don't agree with his misuse of the constitution. BUT his executive orders are just little slips of paper he has signed UNLESS the congress and the executive (which also includes the police and the bureaucracy) support them. The prez does not make laws. To say that this executive order, as awful as it is, is law is not the truth.

But I do support calling local and national politicians to move the impeachment process forward. He is the worst president ever. He makes Nixon look normal.


----------



## Ambrose (Apr 20, 2004)

Please look at this movie- or at least the trailor of it that should auto start when you click the link (for those of you who are on late at night so as to not wake the kids)

http://noendinsightmovie.com/


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

It is my understanding that an executive order does not need approval from anyone. Wikipedia says "Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the super majority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism."
Basically I understand that to mean it is a law unless Congress fights it and unfortunately our congress is supporting what Bush is doing. From the letters I have recieved in reply to mine, congress may not believe it is right but they will not fight him on it. That's why I think congress needs so much more pressure on them to be willing to stand up to him (them).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *june'smom* 
Ok, I hate the prez and I don't agree with his misuse of the constitution. BUT his executive orders are just little slips of paper he has signed UNLESS the congress and the executive (which also includes the police and the bureaucracy) support them. The prez does not make laws. To say that this executive order, as awful as it is, is law is not the truth.

But I do support calling local and national politicians to move the impeachment process forward. He is the worst president ever. He makes Nixon look normal.


----------



## june'smom (Nov 8, 2003)

Wikipedia is a lousy source for academic material. The constitution makes absolutely no mention of executive orders. They are only as good as the people who enforce them.
THis is from the constitution. Art. II
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

That is the length and breadth of his law making power. Just because he does it does not mean that it needs to be enforced. He can give orders to his military to seize property, but they can't really do anything in civilian matters without support from civilians themselves, EG: the police.

I know they sound awful, but his "orders" really can't change the facts of his given power. His power is not absolute, even though he may act like it is.


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *june'smom* 
Wikipedia is a lousy source for academic material. The constitution makes absolutely no mention of executive orders. They are only as good as the people who enforce them.
THis is from the constitution. Art. II
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

That is the length and breadth of his law making power. Just because he does it does not mean that it needs to be enforced. He can give orders to his military to seize property, but they can't really do anything in civilian matters without support from civilians themselves, EG: the police.

I know they sound awful, but his "orders" really can't change the facts of his given power. His power is not absolute, even though he may act like it is.

Actually they've made changes in wikipedia so it's more reliable, and a professor I had last quarter was showing us this study where they compared the error rates in Encyclopedia Britannica to those in wikipedia and it was really a minor difference. What they found was the errors that were in the encyclopedia were more likely to be concentrated in certain subjects where wikipedias were more disbursed.

We all know what Bush thinks of the Constitution, and just because EOs aren't mentioned in it, doesn't mean they won't be upheld.


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

just in case anyone doesn't know what bush thinks of the constitution:
"Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talia rose* 
just in case anyone doesn't know what bush thinks of the constitution:
"Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

Wow. Do you have a source for this? Are you the I in "I've talked to three people..."?


----------



## talia rose (Sep 9, 2004)

Doug Thompson from Capitol Hill Blue is the author....
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml


----------



## mom2snugbugs (Nov 28, 2006)




----------



## mykdsmomy (Oct 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jörð* 
War protest without violence has not been made illegal.

No one has reinstated the draft.

Aren't we supposed to be against fear mongering?

word. I agree this is scary and when you hear news bits like "a possible draft" and such, you get scared/angry etc.....but we need to keep it all in perspective. There are plenty of things to be outraged about that are actual factual truths with the Bush admin.

When you have extremists on either end of the liberal/conservative spectrum...then there will never be peace...


----------



## RileysmamaNM (May 10, 2007)

I wouldent be shocked about anything that comes out of that mans mouth now, except if he starts talking about peace and love without war lol.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talia rose* 
Doug Thompson from Capitol Hill Blue is the author....
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml











If a conservative cited a radical right site as their "proof" of anything, they'd be dismissed because it's biased and purposefully inflammatory. So forgive me if I put no more stock in this pile of BS than anything that comes out of say, Ann Coulter's mouth.

This is nothing but a sub-par radical leftist "writer" coming up with very awkward and unbelievable dialog. I am not impressed.

Every time there's a war there's talk of reinstating the draft. What exactly are we supposedly to be shocked about? Oh noes, it's such a surprise!!!!







:

And Bush might be setting up a slippery slope, but he certainly hasn't outlawed anti-war protests like you've claimed.

Seriously, this twisting and lying and fear-mongering pisses me off just as much when liberals do it as it does when conservatives do it.







:


----------



## breachaplin (Jan 19, 2007)

as a militery spouse i dont know what to say to mothers who are aposed to the war because their sons and daughters may choose to go fight in it. there is no draft and every single person who joins the militery and yes including those who die over there and my husband who will be deploying to the middle east this feb did so with the full knowlage that we are a country at war. no one forces any soldier to join up and no there is not a shortage of people willing too either, at least not in the airforce. my husband joined at age 19 right after we got married and the militery has been very good to us for nearly 4 years. we did choose the airforce because of the fact that though he deploys alot it is not to the middle of the fighting (the planes he works on are too expensive to risk and can fly over from a safe distance)i can not speak for every soldier but the ones i meet on the base where i live are proud to serve and know exactly what they are getting into when they join. when i hear anti war anything especialy from mothers who are ani join the militery for their children i think it takes away from the hard work that our militery do to keep those very mothers who are speaking out against it safe. and i think it imlplies that those "young kids" who join just out of high school are being lead blindly to their deaths. please give us some more credit than that, and talk to some militery members or spouses before you judge.

on a side note when ever i hear someone is apposed to the war and bush in general mostly because of how he handled the war i always want to ask "so what would you have done it that situation in the aftermath of 9/11" and i have never heard an answer so i would like to know what you ladies who think that things should or could have been done better would have done.


----------



## mykdsmomy (Oct 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *breachaplin* 
as a militery spouse i dont know what to say to mothers who are aposed to the war because their sons and daughters may choose to go fight in it. there is no draft and every single person who joins the militery and yes including those who die over there and my husband who will be deploying to the middle east this feb did so with the full knowlage that we are a country at war. no one forces any soldier to join up and no there is not a shortage of people willing too either, at least not in the airforce. my husband joined at age 19 right after we got married and the militery has been very good to us for nearly 4 years. we did choose the airforce because of the fact that though he deploys alot it is not to the middle of the fighting (the planes he works on are too expensive to risk and can fly over from a safe distance)i can not speak for every soldier but the ones i meet on the base where i live are proud to serve and know exactly what they are getting into when they join. when i hear anti war anything especialy from mothers who are ani join the militery for their children i think it takes away from the hard work that our militery do to keep those very mothers who are speaking out against it safe. and i think it imlplies that those "young kids" who join just out of high school are being lead blindly to their deaths. please give us some more credit than that, and talk to some militery members or spouses before you judge.

on a side note when ever i hear someone is apposed to the war and bush in general mostly because of how he handled the war i always want to ask "so what would you have done it that situation in the aftermath of 9/11" and i have never heard an answer so i would like to know what you ladies who think that things should or could have been done better would have done.

I'm very grateful to our military and those who are currently serving. I am grateful to military wives and families for all they sacrifice.

I believe that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to get into Iraq. Al Qaida (sp?) had no real presence in Iraq at that time (to my knowledge)
Our real "beef" should have been with the Taliban and terrorists in general. Saddam Hussein was a HORRIBLE person who committed unspeakable crimes but was not (in my opinion) involved in 9/11 at all. The two had no connection.

Bush (i believe) used our fear and anger from 9/11 to fuel his own agenda in Iraq.

I'm glad that we are doing some good over in Iraq. I personally know a few people who have served over there and they have helped many people and many Iraqis were grateful for their presence.

I just dont know how much good we've done towards fighting terrorism in general.

9/11 was about terrorist attacks and our vulnerability to them. I dont feel any less vulnerable now.


----------

