Bush considered deploying troops in the US

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Godless_Liberal
Godless_Liberal

49

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Godless_Liberal
Member since 2009 • 49 Posts

http://pubrecord.org/nation/2821/cheney-pressured-bush-military/

Sorry, i don't know how to link yet, but i amazed at what that administration did or even considered doing.

Edit: I guess it automatically links.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

Linked

I'm not that very surprised by this, especially the fact that Cheney was behind this.

Avatar image for Statutory_AP3
Statutory_AP3

1256

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Statutory_AP3
Member since 2009 • 1256 Posts
Lol Dick Cheney.
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#4 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

Invading suburban Buffalo. W. T. ...

Avatar image for Buyugold
Buyugold

1074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 Buyugold
Member since 2007 • 1074 Posts

Even though its shady news keep in mind they wouldnt deploy an actual platoon or the actual army, It was likely to be Special Forces soldiers handling the suspected terrorists

Avatar image for MoonMarvel
MoonMarvel

8249

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 MoonMarvel
Member since 2008 • 8249 Posts
So what if this is true? EVERY president has most likely condiered this.
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#7 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

I'm guessing he figured we'd be welcomed as liberators.

Avatar image for MoonMarvel
MoonMarvel

8249

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 MoonMarvel
Member since 2008 • 8249 Posts

I'm guessing he figured we'd be welcomed as liberators.

duxup
You would be in Texas. The south shall rise again!
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
Stupid posse comitatus :x
Avatar image for Ragnarok1051
Ragnarok1051

20238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Ragnarok1051
Member since 2007 • 20238 Posts

At first I was surprised, but then I got over it. It was just to get six terrorist, but I imagine he was contemplating the military because he really wanted them captured. He decided against it though so that shows something.

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
Wilfred_Owen

20964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#11 Wilfred_Owen
Member since 2005 • 20964 Posts
Dude. Its Buffalo. Hell I'd send the whole damn army.
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts

At first I was surprised, but then I got over it. It was just to get six terrorist, but I imagine he was contemplating the military because he really wanted them captured. He decided against it though so that shows something.

Ragnarok1051
Probably that the White House Counsel's Office mentioned that it would be wildly illegal
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#13 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts
[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"]

At first I was surprised, but then I got over it. It was just to get six terrorist, but I imagine he was contemplating the military because he really wanted them captured. He decided against it though so that shows something.

xaos
Probably that the White House Counsel's Office mentioned that it would be wildly illegal

Yeah well they didn't seem to have too many problems interpreting the laws how they wished anyway ;)
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#14 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts
Dude. Its Buffalo. Hell I'd send the whole damn army. Wilfred_Owen
Naw just go in during a Bills game.
Avatar image for Ragnarok1051
Ragnarok1051

20238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 Ragnarok1051
Member since 2007 • 20238 Posts
[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"]

At first I was surprised, but then I got over it. It was just to get six terrorist, but I imagine he was contemplating the military because he really wanted them captured. He decided against it though so that shows something.

xaos
Probably that the White House Counsel's Office mentioned that it would be wildly illegal

True, but wasn't there also something that made it legal under certain situations?
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"]

At first I was surprised, but then I got over it. It was just to get six terrorist, but I imagine he was contemplating the military because he really wanted them captured. He decided against it though so that shows something.

Ragnarok1051
Probably that the White House Counsel's Office mentioned that it would be wildly illegal

True, but wasn't there also something that made it legal under certain situations?

None I know of; that's why National Guard are deployed in emergencies and for situations like ensuring school integration
Avatar image for Ragnarok1051
Ragnarok1051

20238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Ragnarok1051
Member since 2007 • 20238 Posts

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"][QUOTE="xaos"] Probably that the White House Counsel's Office mentioned that it would be wildly illegalxaos
True, but wasn't there also something that made it legal under certain situations?

None I know of; that's why National Guard are deployed in emergencies and for situations like ensuring school integration

I'm not sure either, but I thought I read something about it in the yahoo article I read about this.

Avatar image for Free_Marxet
Free_Marxet

1549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Free_Marxet
Member since 2009 • 1549 Posts
If this went through I should hope someone would use their guns. Gotta love the good old second ammendment. The mere fact that Cheney thought of this means he should be behind bars.
Avatar image for k0r3aN_pR1d3
k0r3aN_pR1d3

2148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#19 k0r3aN_pR1d3
Member since 2005 • 2148 Posts

It is legal to send troops on domestic soil in the upmost case that it is for the protection of the Constution or the American people.

US Troops would be deployed in the case of a disease outbreak and granted emergency powers of quarantine and such. And in natural disasters, the National Guard is sent.

Also, the military is sent in times of social unrest such as the LA Riots when it became apparent that other people's lives were at stake.

But the government cannot just send troops willy nilly here and there with out due cause or reason. That is where the FBI or local law enforcement come in.

Avatar image for SpaceMoose
SpaceMoose

10789

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 SpaceMoose
Member since 2004 • 10789 Posts

Just skimming over the article, it looks like it was Cheney's idea and Bush was opposed to it. Hey, he has to have done a few things right at least.

Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#21 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

Just skimming over the article, it looks like it was Cheney's idea and Bush was opposed to it. Hey, he has to have done a few things right at least.

SpaceMoose
If only he had been smart enough to do the same for Iraq.
Avatar image for carrot-cake
carrot-cake

6880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 carrot-cake
Member since 2008 • 6880 Posts

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Just skimming over the article, it looks like it was Cheney's idea and Bush was opposed to it. Hey, he has to have done a few things right at least.

duxup

If only he had been smart enough to do the same for Iraq.


Hmm, could we possibly start blaming Cheney for everything?

Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#23 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Just skimming over the article, it looks like it was Cheney's idea and Bush was opposed to it. Hey, he has to have done a few things right at least.

carrot-cake

If only he had been smart enough to do the same for Iraq.


Hmm, could we possibly start blaming Cheney for everything?

Naw Bush carries plenty of blame. He was the President. That's not to say Cheney and his advisers don't carry any responsibility for their own actions too.

Avatar image for Jfisch93
Jfisch93

3557

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#24 Jfisch93
Member since 2008 • 3557 Posts

The president always gets blamed for everything. In the Depression, Hoover was the better president to fix it, but they went for FDR's charisma. Hoover did nothing wrong, yet people believed he was the cause.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

The president always gets blamed for everything. In the Depression, Hoover was the better president to fix it, but they went for FDR's charisma. Hoover did nothing wrong, yet people believed he was the cause.

Jfisch93
No, Hoover did plenty wrong. He signed Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which was absolutely moronic.
Avatar image for blackngold29
blackngold29

14137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#26 blackngold29
Member since 2004 • 14137 Posts

Just skimming over the article, it looks like it was Cheney's idea and Bush was opposed to it. Hey, he has to have done a few things right at least.

SpaceMoose
No your in OT, therefore it is Bush's fault. Even if it wasn't.
Avatar image for Jfisch93
Jfisch93

3557

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#27 Jfisch93
Member since 2008 • 3557 Posts

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

The president always gets blamed for everything. In the Depression, Hoover was the better president to fix it, but they went for FDR's charisma. Hoover did nothing wrong, yet people believed he was the cause.

-Sun_Tzu-

No, Hoover did plenty wrong. He signed Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which was absolutely moronic.

And FDR invented welfare. lol.

Avatar image for SpaceMoose
SpaceMoose

10789

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28 SpaceMoose
Member since 2004 • 10789 Posts

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Just skimming over the article, it looks like it was Cheney's idea and Bush was opposed to it. Hey, he has to have done a few things right at least.

blackngold29

No your in OT, therefore it is Bush's fault. Even if it wasn't.

Well, Bush did pick Cheney as his VP.

Which Bush though...that's the real question. :P

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

The president always gets blamed for everything. In the Depression, Hoover was the better president to fix it, but they went for FDR's charisma. Hoover did nothing wrong, yet people believed he was the cause.

Jfisch93

No, Hoover did plenty wrong. He signed Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which was absolutely moronic.

And FDR invented welfare. lol.

Yes, shame on FDR for creating programs that benefit the poor and elderly :|

Avatar image for Jfisch93
Jfisch93

3557

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#30 Jfisch93
Member since 2008 • 3557 Posts

welfare doesn't go to elderly and welfare was so poorly formed that people abuse it and the funds for it will run out soon.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

welfare doesn't go to elderly and welfare was so poorly formed that people abuse it and the funds for it will run out soon.

Jfisch93

Umm, social security is a social welfare program buddy. Moreover, welfare fraud is not as big a problem as you make it out to be. The funding for it may very well run out if no action is taken, but not because of fraud.

If you want to blame FDR for something blame him for stealing peoples gold, but don't equivocate social welfare programs to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, because the two are incomparable.

Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#32 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

welfare doesn't go to elderlyJfisch93

:o Dude.. what the?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

welfare doesn't go to elderlyduxup

:o Dude.. what the?

I wanna know where my payroll tax is going to if the elderly aren't receiving any form of financial aid. If it's not going to some old nice grandma who has a passion for baking cookies and knitting holiday sweaters I'll be pissed.