( Dec. 11th, 2002 10:39 am)
Correctly me if I'm wrong, but doesn't our first strike policy state that we cannot use nuclear weapons unless we have been attacked first with nuclear weapons? According to the Bush administration, we can use them if biological or chemical weapons are used against us. Any weapon of mass destruction can call down our nuclear arsenal. WTF???

U.S. warns potential enemies: Retaliation could include nukes

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is issuing a reminder of its policy that warns any nation using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies that it will face massive retaliation, perhaps with nuclear weapons.

Read more


A few days ago I read an article in the Denver Post where World War II was accidentally typo-ed as WWIII. I'm wondering if it wasn't just a Fruedian slip =P
( Dec. 11th, 2002 11:04 am)
Whatever the answer is to that, he better watch his ass. . . This is an AP article from the Denver Post:

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (AP) --A man who made a remark about a "burning Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls was sentenced Friday to 37 months in prison.

Richard Humphreys of Portland, Oregon was convicted in September of threatening to kill or harm the president and said he plans to appeal. He has said the comment was a prophecy protected under his right to free speech.

Humphreys said he got into a bar-room discussion in nearby Watertown with a truck driver. A bartender who overheard the conversation realized the president was to visit Sioux Falls the next day and told police Humphreys talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone pouring a flammable liquid on Bush and lighting it.

"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," Humphreys testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was funny."


Sorry, I can't link this, you need a paid subscription =P
.

Profile

catscradle

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags