US President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."
In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.
But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war -- World War III".
Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.
"It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives," he said.
Flight 93 crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, killing the 33 passengers, seven crew members and four hijackers, after passengers stormed the cockpit and battled the hijackers for control of the aircraft.
The president has repeatedly praised the heroism of the passengers in fighting back and so launching the first blow of what he usually calls the "war on terror".
In 2002, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explicitly declined to call the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda group and its followers "World War III."
World War III? There's rhetoric and then there's rhetoric...but World War III is way too far out there.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I knew it! That warmongering cocknocker isn't going to rest untill he destroys the world! Someone has to take him out NOW! Before he invades another sovereign nation
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Then Jeb will follow along........
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
First he tells the Hispanics to stop speaking Spanish, and now he's talking about World War III? I really think the pressure of the job is starting to break his tiny little brain...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He will try and take on God in a wrestling match next. Bah gawd!
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I just don't think he understands the power behind the rhetoric that his office commands.
Remember when he was saying we're on a crusade?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I just hope the next president charges Bush for war crimes or something.
Anyone heard about that Sheriff and his "Posse" that's rounding up illegal immigrants and putting them in jail? Sounds like the Gestapo to me.
How much longer does the world have to put up with his shinnanigans?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Until he builds the Death Star.
[Edit] I forgot to say that I was told my global issues teacher that the 9/11 report implied Flight 93 was shot down by military planes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er...I'd really have to see that myself.
I almost laughed myself into a car crash the other day when NPR had a clip of the President (this week) calling for "fiscal responsibility" regarding oil companies profits.
Holy shit, the man is the physical incarnation of hypocricy.
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
At least you guys have an inbuilt expiry dates on your Presidents (Although I admit the idea of Jeb taking over is scary). Us Brits have to put up with deranged muppet Prime Ministers trying to stay in office for as long as they possibly can, despite the rest of the country and even their own party hating their guts.
Ah, life.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
At least until Bush pulls a Palpatine and elects himself Emperor For Life of the Neo-American Empire or some such nonsense...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
With his approval numbers down in the 30's, that isn't going to happen.
Although it would be interesting to see what the American population might do if he or his surrogates were to try.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Us Brits have to put up with deranged muppet Prime Ministers trying to stay in office for as long as they possibly can, despite the rest of the country and even their own party hating their guts."
Not that I know anything about parliamentary government, but isn't the PM just the leader of the party with the most seats? And doesn't the party choose their leader? So, if the party hates him, can't they pick someone else?
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Us Brits have to put up with deranged muppet Prime Ministers trying to stay in office for as long as they possibly can, despite the rest of the country and even their own party hating their guts."
Not that I know anything about parliamentary government, but isn't the PM just the leader of the party with the most seats? And doesn't the party choose their leader? So, if the party hates him, can't they pick someone else?
You seem to know more than you think you do and are completely correct. Although it is worth pointing out that, as with so many things in British politics, it is only convention that the PM and rest of the ministers are from the party with a Parliamentry majority. If the Queen really wanted to, I believe she is within her power to pick a tramp off the street and make him PM. Whether she'd manage it is another matter, and in general it makes a lot of sense to have the PM from the most popular party. The Party can indeed pick someone else, and according to todays news some of them are trying to, but you really have to wonder what a PM is doing wrong to make his own party hate him that much. In the end it just means that all the PMs time is taken up fighting for his leadership rather than actually, you know, leading the country. On the other hand, there are those who would argue that this is the whole point of democracy, as it stops the government from cocking things up more than they have done already...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: With his approval numbers down in the 30's, that isn't going to happen.
Although it would be interesting to see what the American population might do if he or his surrogates were to try.
You have a point there. Palpatine manipulated the Senate into believing he was a great leader. Dark Side powers don't hurt either. Bush just isn't that smart.
When Bush finally gets pushed out of office and into retirement, I'm going to go TP his house.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Not Invented Here: If the Queen really wanted to, I believe she is within her power to pick a tramp off the street and make him PM. Whether she'd manage it is another matter...
I'd go out on a limb and say "no chance in hell", myself.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The monarchy only exists by the good will of Parliament anyway. I am under the impression that a law dissolving it completely would be trivially easy to draft. (That is, from a technical/legal standpoint. I don't think even dedicated British monarchists argue for its retention with an appeal to law, do they? It's all tradition and cultural heritage stuff, or so it appears to my admittedly uninformed eye.)
((The British monarchs well remember the most interesting thing about King Charles I.))
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Not Invented Here: At least you guys have an inbuilt expiry dates on your Presidents (Although I admit the idea of Jeb taking over is scary).
Jeb just got served a steaming plate of crow to gnaw on for the duration of his term. Almost all the initiaves he put forth this year have been voted down by florida voters.
Add to that, his obvious association with a President that will only become less popular over the next couple of years....
The only thing that can save the Bush dynasty is another terrorist attack.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It really is getting time for Gordon Brown to either shit or get off the pot. I'm starting to wonder if he has the nerve to actually run for the leadership at all. There's now a lot of doubt as to whether the "Agreement" decided on at the famous Granita meeting in 1994 ever guaranteed him an eventual ascension to the premiership, instead focusing on his autonomy in terms of economic policy. But surely he can't still believe that Blair is going to turn around one day and just thrown in the towel?
The problem is, Brown's loyalty has always been to the Labour Party (whereas for Blair even being Labour was just a marriage of convenience). He doesn't want to lead an open revolt and damage the Party. Sir Anthony Meyer was the stalking-horse in the first leadership challenge against Thatcher: after it failed he saw out the rest of his life (he died a coupla years ago) a virtual pariah to the Conservative party, and Michael (now Lord) Heseltine, the true power behind the attempt to unseat Maggie, was never really forgiven by the Tories either.
I'm just afraid he's going to just bide his time until there's no time left; if Blair goes for one potential goal, to equal or better Thatcher's time at No. 10, that means no change of leadership before 2008, leaving at best two years for Brown to establish himself as a viable Prime Minister with a respectable chance of winning the next election.
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: The monarchy only exists by the good will of Parliament anyway. I am under the impression that a law dissolving it completely would be trivially easy to draft. (That is, from a technical/legal standpoint. I don't think even dedicated British monarchists argue for its retention with an appeal to law, do they? It's all tradition and cultural heritage stuff, or so it appears to my admittedly uninformed eye.)
((The British monarchs well remember the most interesting thing about King Charles I.))
The bizarre thing about this is that after Cromwell died, Parliament invited the Monarchy back to take over the country. So while yes, the Monarchy only exists because of the good will of Parliament, and by extension, the people, we still asked it to be there in the first place. Perhaps no-one in Britain was quite ready for an elected head of state (Unlike the Venetians, who had a wicked-cool method of electing the Doge. And then essentially interning him in his palace so he couldn't do anything without getting permission from about 5 people first).
So yes, I don't think the Queen could ever really use her power of veto without upsetting pretty much everyone. I just wish that Blair would sometimes remember that he too is only in his job through the 'will of the people' and the will of his own party, and that both have pretty much evaporated.
Apologies to the Americans for semi-hijacking this thread to discuss British constitutional issues.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
This is what happens when you have rule by Custom rather than Constitution. As someone over at the Gaurdian's newsblog commented, the only people who actually voted for Blair are the inhabitants of his Sedgefield constituency.
I voted Lib-Dem in 1997 (because I was living in a safe Conservative seat where Labour's presence was nonexistent, leaving Lib-Dem the only viable alternative); Labour in 2001, but then my MP in London was Diane Abbott who's cool (but who was also, though not so obviously at the time, not a Blair fan); and I didn't vote last year because I missed the (unpublicised) deadline for Electoral Roll registration: I'm not sure who I'd've voted for, the Labour incumbent of my Bristol seat is a Blairite whose voting record in the Commons leaves a lot to be desired. But I've never voted for Blair, rather he and his party/policies have influenced the way I did vote each time.
Confessions of a Floating/Tactical Voter!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sad to say, I understand the backstabbing fucko Venitians far better than the current British political system: You're saying "the only people who actually voted for Blair are the inhabitants of his Sedgefield constituency"...and yet...he's your "elected leader".
How's that shit work?
I mean, we've had some potential for electoral fraud (discussed at length) but you guys seem to have completely bypassed the issue...
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: How's that shit work?
Not very well these days...
It's because, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the party with a Parliamentry Majority to be PM. As I pointed out earlier, theoretically she can actually pick anyone, but this way means that you avoid the situation that you guys can have in the US where the Legislature can be of a different party to the Administration, and so simply vote against all the Administration bills the President tries to get passed into law.
On the other hand, it results in the situation, as you've just pointed out, that the public in the UK does not actually vote for who is PM (His party does). He gets elected as the MP of his constituency, and then backstabs his way up the greasy pole until the initials swap themselves round (Or does he get to be called The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP PM? Honourable my arse). So not only do we end up with a hereditary Head of State (Queenie), we have a practically unelected Head of Government (El Blairo). Plus seen as how the PM is actually the De Facto Head of State anyway these days, score 0 for democracy.
Personally I think it's crap that our Ministers are picked from Parliament. It means that the only real way to improve your local lot is to luck your MP being made a minister, as evidenced by Alistair Darling's constituents in Scotland getting lots of lovely railways whilst he was busy cancelling new lines in England when he was Transport Secretary. I'd love to know exactly what benefits Sedgefield gets out of Blair being PM, if he's ever got enough time to visit them.
Just out of interest, how exactly does the US system work? Is Bush both Head of Government and State? Or do you have something equivalent to the 'Office' of Prime Minister?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That's an odd question. Or maybe it isn't, but of all the twisty ins and outs of American politics, the President's job (and his role as head of state and head of government, though it isn't that he does both jobs so much as they don't exist as seperate concepts here) would seem well defined at a cursory glance. I mean, we send the same guy to the big showy state dinners and tours of your nation here's national chocolate reserve as we do to the G8 summit.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I saw This On MSN. And I thought everybody liked getting mail...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"How's that shit work?"
Imagine if, instead of a president, we had a figurehead monarch, and the person with the executive power was the House majority leader. Kinda like that.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Tp put it into perspective, Bush would be Queen, and the Prime Minister would be John Boehner (and before him, Tom DeLay, aargh). We don't really have a majority leader in the House of Lords, but I guess, stretching the analogy a bit, Ted Stevens would be Lord Chancellor (or even, since the proper President of the Senate is the VP, that makes Dick Cheney Lord Chancellor?).
(on the face of it, there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, except that Michael Martin isn't 3rd in line of succession to the "throne", and Dennis Hastert is)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't know. If I were trying to describe our voting system, I wouldn't bother with the Queen. She has, from a practical point of view, nothing to do with it.
Technically, could Bush have walked out 5 minutes after being elected and another Republican run as President for the 4 years before the next election?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Actually, that's a good question - can any of the major US elections be brought forward? Or do they all have to happen at their regularly-scheduled times?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yay, research!
"Technically, could Bush have walked out 5 minutes after being elected and another Republican run as President for the 4 years before the next election?"
I'm not sure I understand this question, though. You mean, let's say in 2004, the election returns are officially certified and Bush has won, but he decides he doesn't want the office after all?
I think this falls under the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, in part:
quote:Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
In other words, in the earlier example, Cheney would then become the President (or in this case President-elect).
"can any of the major US elections be brought forward? Or do they all have to happen at their regularly-scheduled times?"
There isn't, as far as I am aware, any legislation in place dealing with delaying or postponing elections at the federal level. This was the source of fun conspiracy-minded speculation two years ago. Various regions have their own laws about local elections. (9/11 delayed the NYC mayoral election by several weeks, I think, and last year's hurricane season disrupted one in Miami.) I suspect there are local laws in place in many places about delaying (locally) the presidential election in case of major disaster. I'm not sure how that would play into the election at large, but I don't think the votes are officially delivered until January, providing some leeway, and also states have some jurisdiction over their Electoral College representatives, so I presume they could issue the necessary instructions.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Elections have (as far as I now) always been scheduled- even in extreme circumstances (death of a President) there is the line of succession wherein the Vice-President fills the role next in line.
As the VP office was for decades a "do nothing" position, this led to some seriously crappy partial term Presidents. I dont know of a time where the line of sucession went any further than the VP's office. No one's ever killed both the President and VP- usually the two are not together publicly and when they are (usually campaigning) the security is notably increased.
The current line of fuckos is:
President: George W. Bush
Dick Cheney, Vice President Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives Ted Stevens, President pro tempore of the Senate Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State John W. Snow, Secretary of the Treasury Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General At least there's some padding before we get a forced "Rumsfeld/Gonzalez" administration.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I suppose Gerald Ford is the closest example, as he was never elected (if a VP is ever really elected? Doesn't he just share the bill? Does a Presidential candidate HAVE to nominate a VP candidate?), just confirmed by the Senate as replacement VP for Nixon, I think. . . Yes, just checked, and the House confirmed it too. Prior to that he was just House Minority Leader.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...I think they have to run with a VP now. The "do nothing days" was a result of original setup for Presidential elections - the VP was the runner-up for President!
Obviously having a second in command from another political party was a bad idea (as by-partisan governing has never worked here) and (even with both positions being held by the same party) the job became a figurehead post for decades -until Eisenhower was VP and hated it snough to change the nature of the office.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Er, do you mean "until Nixon was Eisenhower's VP?"
Also, if I read the Wikipedia chart right (and if the entry is itself right), Truman never had a VP at all, and Johnson didn't have one for the remainder of Kennedy's term? Oh, I see, the 25th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1967, requiring there to be a VP?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually I meant "Teddy Rooseveldt". Duh- I watched documebteries on both men last week and my mind was a tad confused... that show "The Presidents' rocks, but a marathon will scramble your brain with information overload. Teddy hated the position of "do nothing Vice President" and almost left office because of it, but it would have killed his political aspirations.
Googling found that there has been several times with no vice-president.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Ahh, Alben Barkley. Gnarls' dad, obviously. I read the Wikichart wrong - Truman had no VP for his first term (or the remainder of Roosevelt's fourth, in actuality).
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Who went to all of the state funerals then?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If I've got this right, the fundamental difference between US and UK elections is that we vote for the party, but you vote for the person, correct?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
This will really mess you up...in the presidential race, we vote for electors who then vote for the president.
A person could win the popular vote but loose the Electoral College and loose the election.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Alben Barkley also had the best exit line ever. On 30 April 1956, Barkely was giving a speech at Washington and Lee University in Virginia. He proclaimed, "I would rather be a servant in the House of the Lord than to sit in the seats of the mighty." He then promptly had a massive coronary & keeled over dead.
In terms of presidental succession, there is no "moving up the ranks;" that is, the Speaker does not automatically become VP, the pres pro tem does not become the Speaker, etc. With a vice presidential vacancy anyone can be appointed to the job by the president, subject to congressional approval, of course. As I recall, so far the only time this has happened has been the whole Gerald Ford fiasco, where he was appointed, & then he appointed Nelson Rockefeller.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution explains the whole Electoral College thing.
quote: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
---
That that should clear things up.
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
Now I've cheered up a little from my grumpy mood at the weekend, I'd like to point out that actually, the Americans don't even vote for the electoral college.
Hmf. That article states that "The shortest President elected to office was James Madison (5'4", 1.62 m); the shortest President to originally enter the office by means other than election was Teddy Roosevelt (5'8", 1.74 m)."
Some of us know otherwise Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Monica says there's someone ELSE who should be known as "The Littlest President". Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I recall during the last Presidentail debate, one of the stupid things both parties agreed on was that neither candidate would wear risers or stand on a platform to appear taller.
Biz-arre.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
While on the subject of parallels, I read this article which contained a passage which seemed eerily familiar:
quote:Under Bush's actual management system, decision-making is concentrated in the White House political office, with Cabinet secretaries and the heads of agencies functioning as figureheads and mouthpieces.
Now, maybe I've let The Thick of It skew my vision of what it's actually like in Downing Street in the Era of Spin, but that sounds just like Blair.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)