I will be saying "Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him."

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Sen. Craig loses appeal in airport sex sting case

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) � Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has lost his latest attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting.

A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected the Republican's bid to toss out his disorderly conduct conviction.

Craig was arrested in June 2007 in a Minneapolis airport bathroom stall by an undercover officer who said the senator solicited sex.

He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor and paid a fine, but changed his mind after word of his arrest became public. Craig insisted he was innocent, but the case effectively ended his political career.

Craig's attorney argued before the appeals court this September that there was insufficient evidence for any judge to find him guilty. Prosecutors said his guilty plea should stand.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iM7VsmCI91xXDASkhgtGf3_zk__gD94V9JQ00

As terrible as it is, this attack could be miniscule if, in fact, God
continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to
give us probably what we deserve. The ACLU's got to take a lot of the
blame for this�The abortionists have got to bear some of the burden for
this because God will not be mocked�I really believe that the pagans,
and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the
lesbians�all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the
finger in their face and say, 'you helped this happen.'
- Rev. Jerry Falwell, September 13, 2001

Who can forget Jerry Falwell's infamous post-9/11 indictment of
America? 'You helped this happen,' Falwell said to the majority of
Americans, who disagree with him on a majority of issues.

Now, a conservative group called Columbia Christians for Life has
proclaimed that Hurricane Katrina was another one of God's punishments,
citing as evidence the supposed resemblance between the hurricane's
image on a weather map, and a fetus.

Trying to refute such claims from these zealots is truly an exercise in
futility. But searching for explanations after a disaster of Katrina's
magnitude is not. And if you do in fact search for those explanations,
you'll reach an unavoidable conclusion:

Hurricane Katrina may have been an act of God. But the level of death
and destruction it caused was not. That was an act of conservatism.

It is conservative policies that made this natural disaster unnaturally
catastrophic. I say to conservatives, you have blood on your hands
today. I point the finger in your face and say, You helped this
happen.

Conservative policies have led to an increase in poverty across the
nation, especially in New Orleans, one of the poorest major cities in
America. About 150,000 people in New Orleans lived below the poverty
line before Katrina, 100,000 of them in abject poverty, making less
than $8,000 a year. Their poverty left them with nowhere to go, and no
means of escape, as the hurricane bore down on their homes.

Conservative policies have led to more global warming, which scientists
agree has already begun producing more intense hurricanes and storms.
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, a former Republican Party Chairman
and longtime GOP operative, has seen his own state ravaged by Katrina.
But he was vital in helping to convince the Bush administration to
squash the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, and pushed Bush to go
back on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide. Governor
Barbour would dare express grief over the deaths that he himself
enabled.

Conservative policies have led to a war in Iraq based on lies, and tax
cuts for the rich, both of which, we know for a fact, took money
directly away from vital hurricane preparedness work in New Orleans.
On nine occasions in 2004 and 2005, The New Orleans Times-Picayune
specifically cited the cost of the Iraq War as a reason for the
shortfall in hurricane- and flood-control funds. The levees that gave
way under Katrina's pressure were supposed to be upgraded with money
that ended up in Halliburton�s coffers.

Conservative policies have also led to the National Guard's misuse and
abuse, leaving the Gulf Coast without the personnel and equipment
vital to a recovery effort of this magnitude. More people will die on
the Gulf Coast as they await their would-be saviors, who are in Iraq,
victims themselves of conservative policies.

There can be no doubt that while Hurricane Katrina was not preventable,
much of the death and destruction left in its wake was. I say to
conservatives, you have blood on your hands today. I point the finger
in your face and say, You helped this happen.

to both government and the automakers. For them to pay skilled trades a buttload of money and allow them to sit and do nothing and then retire at age 50 and live off of GM isn't right. That is GM's fault for allowing that happen. As for making big trucks and SUVs....it was what the people wanted at that time. That really wasn't a huge concern until gas prices started to skyrocket. They were making what they thought people wanted. They couldn't predict that gas would skyrocket like it did and the economy would collapse like it has.

on the past 8 years. Granted, the past 8 years weren't the greatest and some major mistakes were made, but there were some things that were going on during prior presidencies that lead to this. The problem was that no one stopped it once it got started and it just snowballed. Now we have Obama in the office and we are still snowballing. If you want to place blame, you need to go back further than Bush and include some others as well. Now it is Obama's turn and we need to keep our eye on him because he continues to spend spend spend!!!!! Yeah....that worked out so well in the past 8 years huh......

including natural disasters and including the fact that people built a city below sea level with water on all sides and was told that anything over a Cat 3 storm would wipe out the city. The city failed in adequately planning to evacuate the people in case of such an emergency. While I'm absolutely heartbroken to what is happening to people there, especially those who couldn't evacuate themselves the city has been told this would happen for years. Even if Bush had not cut some funds to the area adequate plans would have still not been in place. Everyone has said at one time or another that New Orleans was a disaster waiting for a Cat 4 or higher storm to happen. You can pin this on Bush like you do everything else that happens in this world, but Bush is hardly to blame for the devastation. Finger pointing does no good at this point. We all must dig deep and do what we can do for those in New Orleans. Arguing the political aspects of this disaster will not hydrate one dehydrated baby or feed one hungry person or build one adequate shelter.

My advice to everyone is to step away from your computer, go buy some non-perishable items and get it to a relief point tomorrow.