Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Former Reagan official: Is another 9/11 is in the works?

Posted By: PK on 2006-03-23
In Reply to:

(There is NOTHING this administration could do that would surprise me. )












March 16, 2006


Is Another 9/11 in the Works?


by Paul Craig Roberts


If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?


Yes, you would.


Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.


First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.


Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.


Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.


Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.


Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.


If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?


That’s what Bush is doing.


Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.


The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.


In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.


In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.


It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.


Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.


Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some black ops group will orchestrate the attack.


One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.


Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?


Fantasy? Let’s hope so.


 


 



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Looks like it's official..............sm

What we have all been thinking for months has finally been confirmed by "the experts."  We are officially in a recession and have been for the past year.  Why did it take them so long to finally figure it out? 


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97652641&ft=1&f=1001


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27999557/


http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/nber-fell-recession-year/


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN02ELLSNA20081201?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Okay it's now official -
Your comment definitely has me thinking more vegan now.
I think it's official.....gay is the new black (sm)
It amazes me that we can take such a huge step as we did in the general election and yet at the same time take away someone else's rights.  I hope this goes to the supreme court.
Google has an official explaining for it.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html
It's now official. McCain conceding...sm
My congrats also, even though it was not my choice.


I just saw the first headline.....President Obama.


It's his night to celebrate.
It's official. HC has accepted SOS appointment.

Completed vetting process.  I think BC had to agree to withdraw from "day-to-day" involvement in his foundation to avoid conflict of interest. 

HOORAY! It's official! I feel like the US just

I propose that from here out, we all quit with the bellyachin' and become part of the solution, instead of continuing to be part of the problem.


Ron Reagan
Is great and tells it like it is.  Keep spreading the TRUTH, Ron.
Obama refuses to present an official
!1
The Official Web Site of the The U.S. Presidential Transition
FYI.

http://change.gov/

Knowledge is power.
Obama has never shown his official certificate.
nm
It's official!!! Obama has just sold this country

G-20 summit is now living proof that Obama has kissed everyone's butts and sold this county down the river.........  Now, all European socialists will make ALL regulatory rules for ALL U.S. firms................ 


 


Thanks to all the Obama lovers and fools out there who thought he was your savior!!    You better really have a savior because you're gonna need it now!!! 


SORRY..... YOU CAN'T BLAME BUSH FOR THIS ONE!!  OBAMA SWAGGERED HIS WAY THROUGH THIS ONE AND THERE WAS NO BUSH IN SIGHT!!!


 


 

Non-Reagan is an idiot. sm
He's a disgrace to his father's memory and to his living mother.  He knows nothing!  Come on people.  You can do better than this!  I would accept Alan Colmes or Dan Rather, but NON REAGAN????  Unbelievable!
And Reagan?..he armed
was fighting Iran. We were in bed with Saddam, when Reagan was president...have you forgotten that? What does that make us?
When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush

September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.

Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
Bush and Reagan....
Each had one known accusation...the woman who accused Bush had definite mental problems (see below) and the accusation against Reagan was in the 50's...one accusation. Clinton has had several of all kinds of sexual allegations made against him. Like I said, I know Juanita Broaddrick. Bottom line, Reagan and Bush had one isolated allegation against them...see below for the one against Bush. Not hardly the same thing at all. I did not say Clinton was morally bankrupt because he was a Democrat...he is a Democrat who happens to be morally bankrupt. Was and still is.

George W. Bush Rape Allegation

In 2002, Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas, a writer of Christian books, filed a pro se lawsuit against George W. Bush alleging that Bush had raped her in October 2000.[9]. The complaint also claims that she had been harassed, that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and two other men purporting to be FBI agents, that her bank account had been interfered with, and that she had been threatened and beaten. There was no substantiating evidence for any of her claims. The suit also claimed Bush raped her husband, Christopher. Christopher allegedly served a year in prison after pleading no contest to assault charges against his wife. He later filed for divorce.

Many believed Schoedinger suffered from mental disorders. Among American newspapers, Schoedinger's ordeal was covered only by the local Fort Bend Star, whose editor is said to have off-handedly opined, I had heard she was a nut case. [10]

This lady later committed suicide.
no--Reagan was generalizing
it just applied to Obama. We can learn from things that people have said in the past.
If you can't spell REAGAN, I don't want you to have a gun nm
nm
man, I left out Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related
Bush Official Arrested in Corruption Probe

Bush Official Arrested in Corruption Probe




By R. Jeffrey Smith and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; Page A01



The Bush administration's top federal procurement official resigned Friday and was arrested yesterday, accused of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government. It was the first criminal complaint filed against a government official in the ongoing corruption probe related to Abramoff's activities in Washington.


The complaint, filed by the FBI, alleges that David H. Safavian, 38, a White House procurement official involved until last week in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, made repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002.







src=http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/largerPhoto/images/enlarge_tab.gif
Procurement
Procurement chief David H. Safavian was connected to probe of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. (Melina Mara/twp - Twp)



Politics Trivia





What position did James A. Baker III, honorary chairman of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, hold during the Reagan administration?

Secretary of State
Chairman of the RNC
Secretary of Treasury
Director of the OMB













Who's Blogging?



Read what bloggers are saying about this article.







It also contends that he concealed his efforts to help Abramoff acquire control of two federally managed properties in the Washington area. Abramoff is the person identified as Lobbyist A in a 13-page affidavit unsealed in court, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe.


Until his resignation on the day the criminal complaint against him was signed, Safavian was the top administrator at the federal procurement office in the White House Office of Management and Budget, where he set purchasing policy for the entire government.


The arrest occurred at his home in Alexandria. A man who answered the phone there yesterday hung up when a reporter asked to speak to Safavian.


Abramoff was indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami last month on unrelated charges of wire fraud and conspiracy. He remains the linchpin of an 18-month probe by a federal task force that includes the Internal Revenue Service, the Interior Department and the Justice Department's fraud and public integrity units. His lawyer did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.


Abramoff's allegedly improper dealings with Indian tribes -- which netted him and an associate at least $82 million in fees -- prompted the federal probe. But investigators have found that his documents and e-mails contain a trove of information about his aggressive efforts to seek favors for clients from members of Congress and senior bureaucrats.


Accompanying Safavian and Abramoff on the 2002 trip to Scotland, for example, were Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Administration Committee, lobbyist and former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and Neil Volz, a lobbyist with Abramoff at the Washington office of Greenburg Traurig.


Like Abramoff, Safavian is a veteran Washington player. He is a former lobbying partner of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and previously worked with Abramoff at another firm. Both he and Abramoff have represented gambling clients and Indian tribes with gambling interests.


At the time of the golf trip, Safavian was chief of staff at the General Services Administration, where ethics rules flatly prohibited the receipt of a gift from any person seeking an official action by the agency. When Safavian asked GSA ethics officers for permission to go on the trip, he assured them in writing that Abramoff has no business before GSA, according to the affidavit signed by FBI special agent Jeffrey A. Reising.


Reising alleged, however, that Abramoff had by then already secretly enlisted Safavian in an effort to buy 40 acres of land that GSA managed in Silver Spring for use as the campus of a Hebrew school Abramoff founded. Safavian also allegedly tried to help Abramoff lease space for Abramoff's clients in an old post office building downtown.


On July 22, 2002, Abramoff sent Safavian an e-mail with a proposed draft letter that at least two members of Congress could send to GSA supporting the lease, according to the affidavit. Does this work, or do you want it to be longer? Abramoff asked.


Three days later, Safavian forwarded Abramoff an e-mail describing how an employee at OMB was resisting Abramoff's plan to lease space at the post office. I suspect we'll end up having to bring some Hill pressure to bear on OMB, Safavian messaged Abramoff.


On the same day Safavian discussed the golf trip with the ethics office, he sent an e-mail to Abramoff from his home computer, advising him how to lay out a case for this lease. Abramoff subsequently wrote in an e-mail to his wife and two officials of the school that Safavian had shown him a map of the property at his GSA office but had cautioned that Abramoff should not visit again given my high profile politically.


Safavian nonetheless arranged a meeting for Abramoff's wife and business partner with officials at GSA on the day before he departed for Scotland aboard Abramoff's chartered jet. The trip cost more than $120,000 and was paid for mostly by a charity founded and run by Abramoff, the Capital Athletic Foundation.


When Safavian was questioned by The Washington Post about the trip in January, he said he paid his share of the expenses and took unpaid leave. The trip was exclusively personal; I did no business there. . . . Jack is an old friend of mine, Safavian said.


But the complaint alleges that Safavian lied about his contacts with Abramoff on three occasions after his initial false pledge to the GSA ethics officer. The first was during a 2003 investigation by GSA's inspector general, who was responding to an anonymous tipster's hotline complaint; the second was in a March 17, 2005, letter to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; and the third was during an FBI interview on May 26, 2005.

Obama has NEVER released his official birth cert.
nm
He is an elected official which leaves him open for publicity -
They do not have to have his permission to run his pictures.
I agree too. Former Reagan Republican here.sm
I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Bush the first time, sorry I did. 16 years of corrupt politics, lies, and scandals is hard to deal with. Clinton turned the White House into a ho house and Bush is turning it into the Reichstag. Think the country would be better off if Larry the Cable Guy was President.
Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
Reagan's Socialist Legacy

An interesting article that expounds on several decades.......for a complete review, here's the link:  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/scheer


 


Reagan's Socialist Legacy


by:  Robert Scheer


Although gan's we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal healthcare, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe's. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don't understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.



The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama's watch is an extension of Bush's banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don't want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?

Interesting -- no elected official goes through a security clearance process ...

This is the most interesting statement from this article: 


FSM: Considering this situation we find ourselves in today, do you think presidential candidates should be vetted more before they are allowed even to run for their party's nomination?
 
BR: Well that's very difficult to say how you would do that - no elected official - senator or congressman or the vice president or president - goes through a security clearance process. The very election process itself is considered vetting.

It's official. Rahm Emanuel star of democratic party
accepts position of the O's chief of staff. 
Well, it's official my day is shot. Obama was inaugerated AND I'm getting crappy dictation!
I just can't win today! 
Michelle Obama's Official White House Portrait
See below.
Never heard of rape charges against Reagan or GW. sm
Also, Kaye Summersby, Ike's *supposed* mistress said that they were very close but never consummated anything. 
and when Ronald Reagan was prez, NANCY was
Actual entry in Reagan's diary
Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his
diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper
Collins
 
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around
this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one 
who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking
shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a
real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll
hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy
work."
 
From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

 

So, Ronald Reagan is a black liberationist
The windfall profits tax was not actually a tax on profit. Please read up on it's history. It was an excise tax which was enacted April 2, 1980, during the last year of the Carter administration. Interesting to note that it was not repealed until August 23, 1988. It stayed in effect for 7 years, 4 months and 21 days under Ronald Reagan; in other words, for 92% of his entire time in office. So does that make Ronald Reagan a Marxist/socialist black liberationist too?
Noonan (reagan speech writer) on

caught with microphone still on.  Speaking with Mike Murphy, a repub talking head about SP's qualifications.


 


http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-usnoon045828642sep04,0,1097812.story

A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate
There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.
Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm
that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.
Obama apolgizes to Nancy Reagan

We all know Obama has a sense of humor.  He's likeable and funny and I enjoy hearing him speak.  But he really should think before he speaks, and not try to make jokes.  Americans are needing issues to be solved, not seeing how funny our President elect is.  This is a very serious and grave time for America and we need some reassurance that he will do what he promised on his campaign trail.  He spoke of Hope through his campaign.  Now we need to see the hope turn into reality.  I had read a lot of articles from both liberal and conservative sources that he doesn't do well with "off the cuff" comments and I think he should stick to the speeches that are written for him. 


Like I said - I like Obama.  He's a good speaker.  But his comment about Nancy Reagan whether you like her or not was indeed making fun of her and unecessary.  He should have just said, "I've talked to the past presidents" and left it at that.  By him having to state they were alive??? The public is not so stup!d that we wouldn't know he didn't mean the "dead" Presidents.  I hope that's not what he thought.  I'm just glad he called her to apologize.


On another note I watched the press conference he gave and I would have like to have heard a little more about what he's going to do once he gets in the white house, who he is picking for his cabinet, and what are the first things he is going to do to help Americans and what promises he gave to us that he will be able to keep and work on first.  Not what kind of dog he is going to get or where his kids go to school.  That does not affect American and I like many of my friends don't care.  We care about issues that affect us.

Provide a link to the document with that title. None of the official copies I've seen use the wor
nm
special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow 
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to  president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a  question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office  worthy of respect. But it
must be asked. 
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane  Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory  response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his  director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown:  Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job. 
Is Bush a serious person? 
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to  the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear  that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is  necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe  that has
occurred on their watch. 
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's  performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and  government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage  to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away  from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees  gave
way. 
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike  would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the  city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New  Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that  the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one  can
say they didn't see it coming. 
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee,  Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day  of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know  about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the  world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a 
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in  the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is 
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the 
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance? 
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by  members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not  acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The  administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never  accountable. 
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto  accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on  global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it. 
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent  decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have  preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city  and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be  unsafe. 
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the  administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit  states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned  from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available  elsewhere across the
US. 
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to  mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for  the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions.  Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war  based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to  prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American  soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other 
equipment. 
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist  affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist  attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the  US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything. 
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared  administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic  responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans  normally live and
work together. 
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and  political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The  administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to  meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the  world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5,  2005
"There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom.
Try it..It works for me :o)
I havent read their posts for two days and its like a breath of fresh air! 
Okay, whatever works for you....
Works for me! :)
nm
That works for me.
Something in the works to get rid of them all. sm
I will probably vote for Nader or Baldwin. No write-ins allowed in my state or I would vote for Ron Paul. Barr is a neocon mole. See the new grassroots effort Voter Bomb.

Here is link:

http://www.voterbomb.com/2008/
I just tried it and it works for me....nm
nm
Here's how it works.
Your prove your own point, that is assuming you have one, other than your typical, run-of-the-mill generic smear orgy. So far, your not doing that great of a job since all you seem to know how to do is belittle. Try a direct answer to the points I hve raised about the nature of the original post, the nasty reply and your defense of it.

I have no ax to grind, no point to prove, only my side of the story to present. I prefer to leave it up to the others to draw their own conclusions.
That's the way that works - nm
xx
WHATEVER WORKS - DID THEY
CARE ABOUT US WHEN THEY FLEW PLANES INTO OUR BUILDINGS? - GET OVER IT - NEXT WEEK YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, ESPECIALLY WITH OBAMA MAN IN OFFICE!
works for me....
your hatred is ugly.
What works for you may not work
If you are a good Christian, good for you; be a shining example of your faith. But if in the process of being a good Christian you trample MY rights and/or faith, well, sorry, that isn't good. THAT is why I believe in the separation of church and state. We are all different and have different levels of development, spiritual and otherwise. God is the ONLY and ultimate judge; I believe we all come before Him to account for our lives. My relationship with God is between Him and me...no one else. I don't think it is the job of my fellow humans to judge me and and tell me, *My religion/faith is better than yours* I don't care how much YOU believe it.
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved