BUSH PROPOSES LARGEST EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT SINCE TRUMAN

CNN ^ | 6/6/2002 | President

[Zon]

Yes, but that was before we started peace-keeping in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, et al. What did you want us to do? Go to war with them?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Seems you've injected a different topic into a dead discussion. Perhaps this will help you understand why -- here's the short lived discussion that we had going.

The Department of Defense is the P.C. term for the Department of War...

8 posted on 6/6/02 8:24 PM Eastern by SunStar

Until sometime early in the 1900s (I think just before or after WWI) it was called/named the Department of War.

15 posted on 6/6/02 8:28 PM Eastern by Zon

The Department of Defense was established by the National Security Act of 1947

24 posted on 6/6/02 8:32 PM Eastern by APBaer

I stand corrected. I believe (I hope I don't get it wrong again) it was the Department of War that got renamed to the Army.

41 posted on 6/6/02 8:40 PM Eastern by Zon

[UnBlinkingEye]

There is a difference in what you "believe" and what CNN said in the article. You are dishonest and up to no good.

Mr. Ficklin,

There was no CNN article. I heard President Bush giving a speech broadcast by CNN today and formed my own opinion and headline. Hence, thus and perforce I am honest and a proponent of good.

[glorygirl]

Well, God fell down on the job on 9/11, didn't he?

God didn't fall down on 9/11. It was the FBI,and the CIA, and us.

And we still don't care, and apparently, we still aren't thinking.

Many people on FR, and elsewhere, have been voicing concern about those two agencies for many, many, years. They were laughed at, and called "tinfoilers."

Now, the president has been talked into "reorganizing," by taking away people's rights, and creating a mammoth federal law enforcement agency, with two big exceptions - the FBI and the CIA..Echoes of.....well, I'll let you fill in the blanks.

This has nothing to do with expanding the government, and it really has nothing to do with "reducing bureacracy." It has to do with centralizing government, and putting REAL power into the hands of FEWER people.

It's more than scary. If Americans, Congess, and even worse, FREEPERS, give the president a pass on this, we are in real trouble.

[WhiteGuy]

As I responded to someone else, the first thread I read suggested a 40 Billion dollar price tag. That was in error, thanks for the update, I'm glad this won't add to the current government spending spree.

FYI I like bush just fine, I've got real problems with many of his actions as president, and real problems with the gopers in congress. It's not a personal thing.

[gunshy]

I didn't call you sir asshole but if that's what you want, I will.

[Jorge]

You're right. I could have explored the links and given you a more serious response.
Sorry for my sarcastic reply.

[MissAmericanPie]

I forgive you all over the place.=o)

[elcaudillo]

TIME TO RESURRECT THIS THREAD!

This past week I heard that over $500 million dollars was earmarked to buy land on which to build a building to headquarter the 200,000 bureaucrats to "manage" this ridiculous expansion of the federal government.

Homeland Security is an insidious scheme to use 911 as a mechanism to put the screws to law abiding Americans and do very little to secure our borders and eject muslim killers.

[Uncle Bill]

Bttt