Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
The "analysis" is a paper apparently written by an Air Force Major in some military class. I'm sure he got at least a Pulitzer Prize for it. I don't care what some random guy thinks about it, I care what Bush said about it. And he said absolutely zero that could be construed as advocating a one world government. And you have not shown any such words from Bush.
Mikhail Gorbachev was also advocating a "new world order" at the same time. You want to show me where Bush and Gorbachev were singing from the same sheet of music? Or is that a shite of music?
Implications mean interpretation. I don't presume to interpret Bush's words as anything other than what he said and did. Unlike some presidents I could name, I take the man at his word that he means what he says.
The historic fact is that there exists no record of Bush advocating a one world government. Amen.
|
As I figured you didn't read the paper. Nor do you have any answer for how Bush could have possibly sat on the board of directors of the CFR without signing on to their global agenda and doctrine. You have no answer for that. Neither do you have any answer to Baker's comments.
Implications form interpretation. Again read the section under "Law and Order" and "Peacekeeping". If you understood the implications to Bush's comments you would understand that he was indeed a full-fledged, CFR-approved globalist. (I can't say Bush, during his presidency, was a member because he resigned so that he could remake his public image when running for the presidency. But the fact that he nominated Baker for Secretary of State proves he was still fully on board with the CFR globalist agenda.)
Anyhow...I can explain this to you until the cows come home, and offer even more evidence, but many fools rejoice in their folly, not wanting to see the truth.
