I didn't say anything about Fox news!!!

• ARE WE THERE YET? - Mythbuster
  • You are most definitely correct - - me
  • That's false; Jefferson didn't say that. sm - ever heard of Snopes.com?
    • Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc - me
      • Interesting that you provide a link - that
        • Looks like I have to repeat AGAIN - - me
          • It looks like you are the one that does not - get it.
            • Okay, here we go again...just one more time here. - me
              • Post just ONE example, with links, backing up your assertions. nm - one - just one
                • here ya go - me
                  • Asked for proof, suddenly she's too busy. LOL. Figures. nm - ha
                    • you can look up the proof yourself - its there - me
              • I read real slow. - I get it.
                • It's like trying to discuss Dante's Inferno with someone stuck in My Little Red Reader. nm - don't waste your time
            • To paraphrase, you can lead a horse to the facts, but you can't make it think. nm - I gave up
              • I prefer the Dorothy Parker version - Mythbuster
                • Sure you can: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think. sm - TechSupport
                  • LOL!!! - Marmann
                  • This was a test.... - Mythbuster
                • I think horticulture is a fine word. :-) - no problem
                  • HA! - Mythbuster
      • Okay, so only Fox News tells the truth. I see where you're coming from. nm - fair and balanced LOL
        • Aha!, quite obviously you know where - MTfromLA
        • I didn't say anything about Fox news!!! - me
          • You're obvious willingness to believe utter crap said it. nm - that said it all
            • Let me repeat myself - me
              • oops - meant fool, not food. HA HA - me
              • You're so easy to wind up. LOL. nm - You're so much fun
      • You give a link that supposedly exposes snopes.com yet SM - Can you not read???
        • I did read the whole link and - me
        • Thank you! - Marmann
      • typo - meant cite things as hoax, not "site" things - me
    • Actually, he did say most of them. sm - TechSupport
      • Well, if some dead person said it, it must be true. NM - remember I am not a crook?
        • Idjit! - Deep sigh
    • Whether or not Jefferson - A.Nonymous
    • If you (and Snopes) take issue - Mythbuster
  • On second thought, - Mythbuster

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

his own personal reasons.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

A propanganda machine for repubs.  No one is obligated to appear on that network.  There are plenty of other media outlets. Fox's ratings are dropping and MSNC's are climbing.  Fox disguises these facts by including their entertainment ratings in with their "news" ratings.  As far as ALL OTHER MEDIA being liberal, that is a transparent technique to keep viewers from getting opinions from ANY OTHER source than Fox.  I certainly wouldn't fall for that bunko.  I also notice that they concentrate on certain sites such as Media Matters and NY Times specifically because those sites are excellent at presenting the truth about distorted information disseminated by the propaganda machine. To each his own.

Sorry, I'm conservative, but have to ask why you would go down that road when you can find those answers yourself.

Might I suggest worldnetdaily.com, townhall.com, drudgereport.com, breitbart.com, talk radio (and the hosts' web sites, including Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Savage, Levin, Michelle Malkin, Rush, etc.).  There are countless news stories that never make the mainstream media.

Another thing to consider is who a person keeps for company.  When questionable names keep coming up (Pflager, Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, etc.), that would concern me if I were considering any kind of relationship with someone, but that's just me.

Those who support Obama get their news from MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and so on.  Those networks alone have been proven repeatedly to be biased.  All the times that McCain went abroad, where were Couric, Gibson, and Williams?  Why would any American think that the Democrats, who are determined to reinstate Fairness Doctrine, think that it won't come back and bite them?  Why should any American be silenced just because one group disagrees with another?

Do you know what is posted on blogs like the DailyKos and HuffingtonPost? 

Lastly, a couple more stats.  The #1 most liberal Senator is Obama.  Kennedy is #2, Biden is #3.  Even the moderate Democrats are distancing themselves from him.  This info is documented and not fiction.

That's rather left of left, I would say.

I'm already looking for my fire extinguisher, but the truth hurts sometimes.

Trust your own gut.

You have more options now than anytime in history to gather information.  You can gather information from both sides of the issue and verify the facts and then make your own decision based on your personal values.

Israel is getting ready to invade Gaza and is already in the process of bombing raids.  Meanwhile the current US administration (aka Bush/Condi/Cheney/etc) is perpetuating the lies about Gaza, such as who is the real terrorist, ignoring a legitimate democratically elected council, etc.  The OP explains all this.  Bottom line is that the US is giving Israel a green light, which to some of us (as well as a large portion of the world) is condoning genocide. 

And Americans wonder why the rest of the world has such a bad opinion of us. 

nm

I'm not responsible for that.  Having said that though I do think that as a whole people are more tolerant (I wouldn't go so far as to say accepting).  However, that doesn't diminish the fact that violence against homosexuals is still a prevalent crime.

I actually do wish more people would teach their children as you described above.  If that were happening, none of this would be an issue and there would be no need to take it to the schools. 

Let's take Patty, for example.  She has already said that yes, she does call homosexuals names in front of her kids.  She does this at the same time that she's spouting out references to the Bible.  So what do you think her kids think?  Maybe that it's God's will that they call homosexuals names?  I don't know what they're supposed to think or how they are supposed to act given her example.  Do you think she's teaching tolerance?  If not, who will if not the schools?

wednesday, june 29, 2005

Army Exceeds Recruitment Goals

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers announced tonight that the Army has exceeded its recruitment goals for the month of June: Army reverses series of recruitment shortfalls. (Hat tip: Ethel.)

PENTAGON—After months of declining enlistment, the Army has more than met its recruitment goals for the month of June.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers announced the turnaround during a “town hall” meeting this afternoon at the Pentagon.

Myers did not provide numbers, nor did he indicate how far above the recruitment target the enlistment number is.

The investigation is still happening.  How can it be old news?

it's kinda to pre-record live news coverage.  Probably nothing major will happen today, but who knows?  Your scraping the bottom by criticizing a live news channel for having live coverage.

Using the term living in ignorance is not calling a name.  If you are that sensitive, political boards are not for you.