NationStates Jolt Archive

From GW of course. He IS after all, the king.

Then:
Even though experts say "diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent" Bush "said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest." He said, "A lot of people don't need [the water], but when you head South and West, we do need it."


- AP, 7/19/01; Bush statement, 7/18/01
(source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010718.html)



Now, in an attempt to discredit his opponent:
"We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin. (Applause.) You might remember what my opponent said earlier this year about Great Lakes water diversion. He said it would be a delicate balancing act. It sounds just like him. My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water."


- President Bush, 8/16/04
(source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040816-4.html)



OK George. As long as your position is..... clear. :rolleyes:

:p:p:p
more proff that GWB is an idiot

Sadly, all the evidence in the world will not remove the 'flip-flopper' label from Kerry, or be put onto Bush for that matter.

lol

We should divert media attention from local interest news stories about lost kittens to Bush's flipflops

Wow, so in three years he changed his mind. That is a plus for a kerry supporter, (or Canadian with little knowledge of the US.)

Kerry flip-flops weekly. or weakly.\


Thursday, Aug. 19, 2004 10:07 a.m. EDT
Kerry Backed Korea, Europe Troop Reductions Three Weeks Ago

Sen. John Kerry is blasting President Bush for his plan to withdraw 70,000 troops from South Korea and Germany. But less than three weeks ago the top Democrat said he thought such troop reductions were a good idea, specifically naming Europe and Korea.

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 1.


"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."
Addressing a VFW convention on Wednesday, however, Kerry bashed Bush for taking his advice, charging that cutting our forces in Korea "is clearly the wrong signal to send" at this time.

As noted by the Weekly Standard, which unearthed the Aug 1 Kerry quotes on its web site Thursday, "Who knows what Sen. Kerry believes? Does Sen. Kerry even know?"


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/477hcuso.asp

John Kerry Doesn't Know His Own Mind
What does the senator believe about American troops abroad?
by William Kristol


THE PROBLEM with being an opportunist is that you can easily forget what you've recently said.

On Monday, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, President Bush announced that he intends to modify the configuration of American forces in both South Korea and Europe. On Wednesday, Sen. Kerry, speaking before the same audience, sharply criticized the president's decision.

Appearing on ABC's This Week on August 1, however, Sen. Kerry responded to a question by host George Stephanopoulos on Iraq. Stephanopoulos asked Kerry whether, as president, he could "promise that American troops will be home by the end of your first term?" Kerry's answer:


I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. . . . I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination.

Apparently, Sen. Kerry wanted to appeal to the "get-the-boys-back-home" sentiment in the country when he spoke on This Week. Yesterday, addressing a convention of veterans, Kerry was busy burnishing his credentials as a hawk by suggesting that cutting our forces in Korea "is clearly the wrong signal to send" at this time.

Who knows what Sen. Kerry believes? Does Sen. Kerry even know?

Ha. Ha. Ha. One flip-flop. That makes him the king? Where do you get your news; Kerry is the king of flip-flops.

Wow, this post makes me sound dumb.

Ha. Ha. Ha. One flip-flop. That makes him the king? Where do you get your news; Kerry is the king of flip-flops.

Wow, this post makes me sound dumb.

Check the links in my signature.

How come i cant see my sig it shows in preview post but not when i look through the topic can everyone else see it?

Ha. Ha. Ha. One flip-flop. That makes him the king? Where do you get your news; Kerry is the king of flip-flops.

Wow, this post makes me sound dumb.
Your right though, Kerry is the only flip-flopper. Democraps say it is "nuanced decision making", but he is a political waether vane. John "Silver Star, Bronze Star, Three Purple Hearts" Kerry has nothing to run on but lies about his war record and flip-flops galore.

Wow, so in three years he changed his mind. That is a plus for a kerry supporter, (or Canadian with little knowledge of the US.)

Snip: *blah blah blah*


Awww, you just can't debate without getting personal can ya Bill?


Or did you forget my list of other GW flip-flops?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855



But, just so we're clear. It's OK for Bush to change his mind in three years, but not OK for Kery to change his in 30?


incidentally from your own comments:
"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."

Addressing a VFW convention on Wednesday, however, Kerry bashed Bush for taking his advice, charging that cutting our forces in Korea "is clearly the wrong signal to send" at this time.



Reading Kerry's quote about changing deployments in the Korean peninsula, I don't see him neccessarily talking about reducing the pressence there as GW did. He does not specify that this would be a reduction in that instance. It is a general statement about areas that might be affected by redeployments without specifics as to where troops get pulled and where they get added.


Can you see where he states that troops should be removed from the Korean Peninsula?


I can't.

Your right though, Kerry is the only flip-flopper. Democraps say it is "nuanced decision making", but he is a political waether vane. John "Silver Star, Bronze Star, Three Purple Hearts" Kerry has nothing to run on but lies about his war record and flip-flops galore.


Here you go Friend of Satan: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855 - Read it and weep.

And do you want to prove that his war record are lies or do you just want to keep spewing your verbal diarreah without any basis whatsoever. Yep... thats what I thought.

Awww, you just can't debate without getting personal can ya Bill?


Or did you forget my list of other GW flip-flops?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855



But, just so we're clear. It's OK for Bush to change his mind in three years, but not OK for Kery to change his in 30?


incidentally from your own comments:



Reading Kerry's quote about changing deployments in the Korean peninsula, I don't see him neccessarily talking about reducing the pressence there as GW did. He does not specify that this would be a reduction in that instance. It is a general statement about areas that might be affected by redeployments without specifics as to where troops get pulled and where they get added.


Can you see where he states that troops should be removed from the Korean Peninsula?


I can't.
Yeah, I can because what else could he possibly be atlking about? Wow, you are worse that Moore at selectivly quoting people.

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 1.


"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."


Since I give Moore no credibilty, and you pulled one of his tricks, what little respect I had for you was flusshed like the Johns.

That was really pathetic, Zep

-F-

Yeah, I can because what else could he possibly be atlking about? Wow, you are worse that Moore at selectivly quoting people.

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 1.


"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."


Since I give Moore no credibilty, and you pulled one of his tricks, what little respect I had for you was flusshed like the Johns.



So.... "changing the deplyment of troops" can ONLY be implied to be cutting troop levels?


Interesting.

Unlike you, I am NOT making assumptions on intent (i.e. placing context on a quote). You are the one doing that.

Nice try though.


But have no fear, your respect for me (or lack therof) doesn't exacly worry me one bit.

Your right though, Kerry is the only flip-flopper. Democraps say it is "nuanced decision making", but he is a political waether vane. John "Silver Star, Bronze Star, Three Purple Hearts" Kerry has nothing to run on but lies about his war record and flip-flops galore.
quote 3 relevant, indisputable, unrefutable kerry flip flops, i dare you

Yeah, I can because what else could he possibly be atlking about? Wow, you are worse that Moore at selectivly quoting people.

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 1.


"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."


Since I give Moore no credibilty, and you pulled one of his tricks, what little respect I had for you was flusshed like the Johns.
i think the pot just left a message on the kettle's answering machine calling him black...


lets play use quotes in context shall we?


"In interviews on television talk shows, the Democratic presidential nominee said that he saw no reason to send more troops to Iraq and that he would seek allied support to draw down U.S. forces there. "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," he said on ABC's "This Week.""


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32898-2004Aug1.html


"In a series of side-by-side interviews on the Sunday talk-show circuit, the Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees faced questions about their plans for Iraq, about their charge that Bush has misled the American people, and on whether Edwards has the seasoning to be vice president, and potentially, president... Asked whether he would promise to have US troops home from Iraq by the end of his first term, Kerry replied: ''I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, and certainly in the region. If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world -- in the Korean Peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps." "

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/02/kerry_edwards_defend_their_agenda/

"STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you promise that American troops will be home [from Iraq] by the end of your first term?

KERRY: I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, and certainly in the region. If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in the world, in the Korean peninsula, perhaps, in Europe, perhaps"

ABC's "This Week" 8/1/04

wow, your taking of quotes out of context and splicing them in with other quotes to make up a ad hominem attack on kerry would make michael moore very proud.

How the hell can you people use the word "flip-flop" with a straight face?

Who knows what Sen. Kerry believes? Does Sen. Kerry even know?

That's a good question.

At the moment, the meat of his policies are a mystery to me and, sadly, I have done my research. To this point, Mr. Kerry has been running on blind faith that he can fix certain problems. While he throws out the results of his winning the election, he does not add to it the factors that lead to these results.

Such as, where is he going to pull these jobs out from? Is Heinz going to hire millions of workers? Petition congress to increase the number of government jobs? Where?!

How is increased commercial taxes along with dually increased taxes on companies who outsource unskilled labor going to allow companies to hire more Americans?

Will he fight for UN reforms, since he still seems to believe the UN is a "good thing" and not a completely corrupt cesspool of political bullcrap that doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the plight of real starving, persecuted people that are swiftly being destroyed in an ethnic cleansing...effectively laughing in the face of its own sworn duty? Each time it happens (yes, that is "happens" with an "s") any official response is so utterly slow the deathtoll has already reached into the thousands, and so pathetically weak that the terrible people involved are fully capable of ignoring the UN resolutions and continuing the slaughter. It normally takes certain countries ignoring the UN's authority entirely to get the job done, but by then it's already too late for so many people...and the countries involved just get flack for their lack of apathy toward people beyond their borders from domestic sources and abroad.

Where's he going to get all the money he's going to spend?

Just how, exactly, is he going to improve our national image with other countries?

What are these "reforms" he wants to implement on the intelligence agencies, and how is his team going to implement them?

How, Mr. Kerry? Throw it out there step by step and be decisive. That's what I want to know. And if I like how you'll do things, I'll definitely give thought to the idea of voting democrat this time around.

Ugh...I need a drink.

"Flip-flopping"? Is that another word for 'being able to change your opinion/stance after receiving new information/insights'?

Zaad, since you don't seem to know what "the meat of" Kerry's policies are, do you know what Bush's are to similar questions? I'm just curious.

How is Bush planning to create new jobs? And I don't mean the janitor or fast-food type...I'm talking real, good paying, decent jobs.

Who has been helped the most by Bush's tax cuts? Have companies been hiring more Americans with those tax breaks? Are American salaries keeping up with increased bills like energy, gas, insurance? How will Bush solve that?

Has Bush fought for UN reforms? How is violating the UN charter in the name of "enforcing" UN resolutions supposed to encourage UN reform? Of ethnic cleansing, how active is the US in stopping it in Africa? Have we been pushing the UN to stop it or ignoring it?

Where is Bush going to get all the money he plans to spend?

How is Bush improving our national image?

What are Bush's plans to improve intelligence? I'm also keeping in mind the VP is still going around saying Iraq and al-Qaida were in league with each other despite what his own intelligence guys are telling him....but thats a different topic...

V.P: says Kerry is unfit for the job of president because he wants to fight a "sensitive" war

Bush: says we need to take the war "sensitively"

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Your right though, Kerry is the only flip-flopper. Democraps say it is "nuanced decision making", but he is a political waether vane. John "Silver Star, Bronze Star, Three Purple Hearts" Kerry has nothing to run on but lies about his war record and flip-flops galore.

George Bush has nothing even that good to run on, unless you count a thousand dead Americans and six thousand wounded. They tried to impeach Clinton for ruining one dress, they don't when Bush ruins seven thousand uniforms.

:p:p:p
more proff that GWB is an idiot
Just wait until you actually find proof!

why does any one care? They both are flip-floppers, after all its about the votes. And if you examine anyone close enough you can find this.

I can see why he changed his mind. The West has been in a severe drought for the past five years. Lake Mead is down 60ft since 2000. During the campaign, no one could even foresee that this was long term. Besides, I have a feeling that this is motivated by an anger for those living near the Great Lakes, as Zeppistan lives in Ottawa. I also live near Lake Ontario, and they sure do need the water. We have too much of it, anyhow.

why does any one care? They both are flip-floppers, after all its about the votes. And if you examine anyone close enough you can find this.
So your goin for the negative outlook. Fine with me[/shrug]

Wow, this post makes me sound dumb.
Nah, ya think?

How the hell can you people use the word "flip-flop" with a straight face?
Easy! Its politics! Not that there is anything wrong with polititcs, that is.

So.... "changing the deplyment of troops" can ONLY be implied to be cutting troop levels?


Interesting.

Unlike you, I am NOT making assumptions on intent (i.e. placing context on a quote). You are the one doing that.

Nice try though.


But have no fear, your respect for me (or lack therof) doesn't exacly worry me one bit.

Try and follow along.

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 1.
"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."

All said in the same breath. One sentance followed the other. Same paragraph, same interview. He said he will reduce the force, than mentioned IRAQ, KOREAN PENINSULA, AND EUROPE! All said at the same time. There is no room for assumption (which you try to make by infering he meant only Iraq) nice try though, you almost had me convinced. :D

Try and follow along.

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 1.
"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."

All said in the same breath. One sentance followed the other. Same paragraph, same interview. He said he will reduce the force, than mentioned IRAQ, KOREAN PENINSULA, AND EUROPE! All said at the same time. There is no room for assumption (which you try to make by infering he meant only Iraq) nice try though, you almost had me convinced. :D
hasty generalization fallacy BS, you assume he will by reducing troops in europe and korea when he ONLY said they would be reduced in IRAQ, he said the deployment would be changed in other places, changed can be negative o positive

hasty generalization fallacy BS, you assume he will by reducing troops in europe and korea when he ONLY said they would be reduced in IRAQ, he said the deployment would be changed in other places, changed can be negative o positive

Are you actually suggesting that there's even a remote possibility that John Kerry would want to increase troop numbers in Europe and Korea?

Ok, Kerry may flip-flop (what a stupid term), but at least he isn't inherently evil.

hasty generalization fallacy BS, you assume he will by reducing troops in europe and korea when he ONLY said they would be reduced in IRAQ, he said the deployment would be changed in other places, changed can be negative o positive
Ignorant interpretation of what was said, you convince yourself, though, that is all that matters.

Your right though, Kerry is the only flip-flopper. Democraps say it is "nuanced decision making", but he is a political waether vane. John "Silver Star, Bronze Star, Three Purple Hearts" Kerry has nothing to run on but lies about his war record and flip-flops galore. Psychologists call what you are doing “projecting”. You right wing kooks have done nothing but lie about people’s military records. You lied about McCain’s. You lie about Cleland’s. And now you lie about Kerry’s.

Military Records Contradict Kerry's Critic:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082004Z.shtml

Here’s Ann Coulter’s (typical) slander against Cleland:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_021604A.shtml

The Republican War Against Vietnam Veterans:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081804C.shtml

You loons are incapable of a single honest thought or utterance. You want to talk about flip-flops? Just watch GW Bush debate GW Bush on nation building on the Daily Show:

http://www.comedycentral.com/includes/smilros.jhtml?vidclip=dailyshow/stewart/jon_7131_300.rm

And, yes, a nuanced position on some issues is called for when they are complicated. But I would hardly expect a conservative to understand anything complicated:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17231

Are you guys saying that your stances on a few minor issues won't change over the course of three years?

Ok, Kerry may flip-flop (what a stupid term), but at least he isn't inherently evil.

"Inherently evil" is a pretty difficult charge to prove. Perhaps you should consider using somewhat more moderate terms to describe our President.

lol all of you

I love how many of the Kerry supporters call bush Inherently Evil. It's just such a bush thing to do, really. y'know, all his "For us or Against us" talk about the evils of terrorism. I just thought that someone would have noticed the duelism of the parties by now. but then again, why would anyone do that? it would spoil all the fun in the debates.

Ok, so here's what i think. Can you remember what you wanted and cared about sixteen years ago? (i know that alot of you are only twelve, so the answer is no)
How about five years ago?

In class once, my professor mentioned that Three Kings was a "Daring" film, because it opposed war as recently as 1999. But really, was that daring in 1999? who wasn't opposed to war in '99?

If you say, "Of course i wanted a war in '99" that only means that you were 12 in '99.

The people flip flop all the time. Kerry's job right now is to oppose the president, and that he will do, at any cost. Even GW's good descisions will be hounded and made suspect.

The Gop's job is just the opposite. He wants you to support all of his descisions, even the bad ones look ok in the right light.

I just find it so funny that you support your party's current stance so vehemently. I've heard a republican friend of mine say that all of the democrats who opposed the war in iraq should be shot for treason, and a democrate friend of mine talk about how GW should get the chair (same charges)

What do I think? Both Bush and Kerry are inherently evil, but not as evil as Cthulhu who would make a great president in '04

George Bush has nothing even that good to run on, unless you count a thousand dead Americans and six thousand wounded. They tried to impeach Clinton for ruining one dress, they don't when Bush ruins seven thousand uniforms.Conservatives don't care about honesty or consistency of any kind. They thought Clinton was the Anti-Christ when got a blow job and lied about it; but Reagan is still the Second Coming despite selling weapons to terrorists and lying about it. They don't really care about terrorism or lying; they just hate freedom.

John "Silver Star, Bronze Star, Three Purple Hearts" Kerry has nothing to run on but lies about his war record and flip-flops galore.
This is an odd strategy for the Bush supporters, it seems, to insist that Kerry is running entirely on his war record. I don't really get what you're going for. The real shortcoming of NS is that fence sitters don't apply, only the entrenched, so I don't know what effect this is having--but this rabid insistance...I just don't get it.

Don't bother to respond with "Dude, he totally is..." I don't buy it-I've heard the speeches and seen some of the platform and I don't buy it (and frankly, I haven't been trying all that hard). Without trying--Outsourcing, tax cuts. Just off the top of my head. So, maybe we can stop hearing that Bush bakers want to hear the issues, because everytime someone brings them up, they keep shouting 'Vietnam record, Vietnam record, Vietnam record!!!!'

Try this, you don't bring it up. See how long it will take for the Kerry supporters to. Having to defend himself from attacks is hardly running on it.

...Will he fight for UN reforms, since he still seems to believe the UN is a "good thing" and not a completely corrupt cesspool of political bullcrap that doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the plight of real starving, persecuted people that are swiftly being destroyed in an ethnic cleansing...effectively laughing in the face of its own sworn duty?...sounds like a milder version of the Republican position on the issue. Republicans harshly criticized and still criticize Bill Clinton for refusing to assist the Sudanese terrorists with their genocide. Every time a Bush supporter accuses Clinton of turning down an offer from Sudan to deport someone who we thought might someday become a terrorist leader to Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan, remember that the term of the offer was support for the genocide

I'd like to point out that, for the record, Cthulhu is not evil, merely incomprehensible to the simple human mind.

now what polotician is not incomprehensible to any real human mind?

Y'see? Cthulhu is PERFECT!

Are you actually suggesting that there's even a remote possibility that John Kerry would want to increase troop numbers in Europe and Korea?
They know he meant to pull out of Korea and Europe.

Kerry Fled

now what polotician is not incomprehensible to any real human mind?

Y'see? Cthulhu is PERFECT!"Why settle for the lesser evil? Cthulhu '04"

Kerry imo is pretty much an oportunist. He's trying to see where a majority of peoples decisions lie so he can gain that vote. He knew there were alot of people who arent kosher with bushes idea of bringin troops home and moving them around, so he makes an issue out of it.

Tell me, why is moving tens of thousands of troops out of germany bad? are we still afraid of germany? why do we need a presence there?

If were trying to not have north korea flip out and blow south korea up, then why is it so bad to take some of the troops out of there and take a little pressure off of them?

I believe this whole troop deployment thing is great. I believe kerry is just looking for something to be against.

The reason why i may vote for bush is because i want to vote for a democrat after bushes 8 years, but a good democrat, someone like obama :D

If were trying to not have north korea flip out and blow south korea up, then why is it so bad to take some of the troops out of there and take a little pressure off of them?

I believe this whole troop deployment thing is great. I believe kerry is just looking for something to be against.

Of course Kerry is looking for things to be against, being the rival candidate to the current president. If the situation was reversed, Bush would be doing the same thing. What if both Bush and Kerry were pro-choice? One has to present alternatives to what the other is doing. Just your normal politics at work.

The S. Koreans actually view the US as a bigger threat than N. Korea. I think their mentality is at least N. Korea is the devil they know.

Hmm..I see Zaad never responded to my earlier post...

If were trying to not have north korea flip out and blow south korea up, then why is it so bad to take some of the troops out of there and take a little pressure off of them?
That is what I don't get. Why is the US slacking pressure on his North Korea?
They are the one who are developping a nuclear bomb. They are the one who can target the US homeland. The troops there are to make sure they don't invade South Korea. How is taking troops away going to help South Korea?They don't need less troops to watch them, they need more.

Are you actually suggesting that there's even a remote possibility that John Kerry would want to increase troop numbers in Europe and Korea?
thats EXACTLY what im suggesting, he said change troop deployment, the ONLY definate he gave was reduce US troop deployment in iraq.

he could increase deployment in europe oand korea, or reduce it in korea and europe, or raise it in europe and decrease in korea, or raise in korea and reduce in europe.

try using your brains occasionally people

Ignorant interpretation of what was said, you convince yourself, though, that is all that matters.
wrong, what you pulled was a hasty generalization at best. you assumed since he said he was reducing troops in iraq and said he would change deployment in korea and europe you ASSUMED that he would also reduce deployment in korea and europe, you used that ASSUMPTION to falsely accuse kerry of flip-flopping when he never gave a definate

The conspiracy theorist in me is pretty scared that Bush is bringing lots and lots of troops back to "protect" the homeland. I mean, a president already bent on taking away rights of the people who believes he rules by divine mandate suddenly decides to start bringing lots of troops back to the states - what am I supposed to think?

hehe