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

And you think that terrorist attack was planned in just a few months during his presidency?

Posted By: nm on 2008-12-21
In Reply to: credit for safety = credit for 9/11 - Bushwacked

nm


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

You must mean a terrorIST attack, because sm
We are attacked by people who call themselves terrorists. Unless of course, you have terror attacks like some people have panic attacks.
Why do you feel the desperate need to attack, attack, attack....
what IS it about Obama that inspires this kind of thing? I guess you don't get it when someone is being facetious do you? Read the whole thread...including the part about celestial choirs, which was said by one of Obama's supporters.

The smoke machines and strobe lights was definitely a joke, one can only hope they would not do something so ridiculous but who knows....Britney Spears' set designer designed that set.

So much for no celebrity status. LOL.
US, Israel planned ME war

Why does none of this surprise me?















'US, Israel planned ME war'
13/08/2006 11:06  - (SA)  



New York - The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday.

But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.

Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings.

The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said.

If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes.

Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington to get a green light for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and to find out how much the United States would bear.

The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits, the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.

US government officials have denied the charges.

Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.

There is no way that (defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this, the report quotes the former official as saying. When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.


 


which was planned under CLINTON
what is it with people that choose to ignore the facts!!



which was planned under CLINTON
what is it with people that choose to ignore these tiny little issues...



Planned Parenthood's "take"

So it's your business, right?  If it is, fine.  Then tell that to all the libs who shove that "choice" called Planned Parenthood down every taxpayers throat.  To me, that's no different than paying for someone's poor choice of drinking MD20/20 or something.


PP is a huge business.  But apparently the bulk of those here who watch the mainstream media just gobble up all they say, and don't seek other sources for their information.


Yes, but the Planned Parenthood you keep referring to
it has to have funding from somewhere or it will cease to exist and those counting on it would be left behind. Not even talking teens here, but adults, too, who can't afford high OB/GYN bills often use Planned Parenthood services. Some people use birth control for reasons other than just birth control, too, which every MT should certainly know. It's been used to help migraines, dysmenorrhea, etc. I was a teen who took BCP not because I was sexually active (I wasn't), but because the doctor tried everything else for my debilitating cramps and nothing worked. The BCP was the only thing that kept it in check so I could actually attend school for those 5-7 days each month. I guess that's why I don't necessarily feel it's the gov't's place to step in and control this. Anyone who would've seen me taking BCP would've surely jumped to the conclusion it was because I was promiscuous even though there was another explanation entirely.
Do u honestly think that was planned overnight?
it would be while Clinton was in office, when he had bin laden handed to him on a silver platter along with other terrorists and didn't take them out THEN.......

You can thank Clinton for that one......the butt kisser
Well....if Planned Parenthood spent as much time and money....
offering contraception as they do abortion, it might make a difference. They make a killing...pun intended...on abortions. Millions of dollars. And can't afford to keep a clinic open 7 days a week??? Where is all that money going? I love their clinic rules...we will take a check for any service EXCEPT abortion. Cash up front for that one.

It was, in fact, the Memphis Planned Parenthood clinic site I was looking at.

I went to check on Memphis to see if planned parenthood had an office there....
because of what you said about offices not being open to service people, and sure enough, it was planned parenthood they were talking about...the hours of the memphis clinic the same as what you quoted. What I am saying is, if they got 200+ million in grant money from the feds, and make over 6 mill in profits, don't you think they could extend their hours and spend a little more on making sure people had access to birth control, if they really CARED about getting birth control out there? Economics 101...restrict access to birth control = more unwanted pregnancies = more abortions = more profits. Abortion is the only service they ask for cash up front, no check. Does that not tell you ANYthing? Does it not bother you AT all that they make the kind of profts they make and they get 200+ mill grants from the feds as well?? It bothers me!
What would an Obama Presidency Mean?

What Would an Obama Presidency Mean?


by Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.


The Democrat Party has for years given lip service to the African-American community. They have talked about prominence without fulfilling the promise. They patronize without empowering. Worst of all, this unholy bond has done more to decimate and deplete our community than slavery and Jim Crow laws ever could have accomplished. This allegiance has destroyed millions of our children; children created but denied access to the American dream, children aborted.


The Democrat Party has been a major contributor to the African American slippery slide down the slope of depravity. It has caused our community to deny the God of our Fathers and ignore the counsel of His Word. This Word brought us up and out of Egypt. This Word broke the chains of a terrible bondage and established us in the path of upward mobility and prosperity.


Our loyalty to this political regime has vexed our leaders and organizations. Institutions that were birthed to advance the causes of Afro-Americans, now in their ignorance, lobby for our decline. NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Rainbow Coalition, Urban League, the list goes on and on. All of these were once heralded groups with anoble past and great historic accomplishment. Today, they are stymied by this ungodly tie. Rev. Jessie Jackson, AL Sharpton, Julian Bond, Joseph Lowery are all allied in party and, in the process, have lost their souls. What happened to the God of Dr. Martin Luther King?


Despite this deplorable behavior of our perceived leadership, the winds of change have begun to blow. Pastors and leaders in the Black community have begun to remember their roots and realize they are chained to mediocrity and complacency. There has been a consistent flow of Afro-Americans making their way back to freedom. This has sent shock waves through the present Democrat leadership. While we are yet somewhat in a vacuum of solid Afro-American leadership with true integrity (there are many on the horizon not yet recognized), we are once again being wooed by the oppressor’s ploys to stay on the plantation. Staying where there is little reward and where our lives and votes are taken for granted. Once again it is someone of our own ethnicity, our own race being used. The Democrats have deployed a new pied piper in a desperate attempt topreserve their self serving party.


New face, same tune. The song being played is from the movie “The Culture of Death.” The goal is to fill the seats with Afro-Americans in the theater of apostasy. Why? Because if the current trend continues the Democrat party could soon be performing in their final act.


Enter Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill), who is truly turning out to be one of the greatest performers of all times. Obama’s biggest act is that he calls himself a Christian.


Howard Dean, Chair of the Democrat National Committee, scripted most of the scenes in this production starring Obama. Dean outlined an approach that will emphasize outreach to evangelicals. He said, “People of faith are in the Democratic Party including me.”


Listen to this line. Obama stated, “As I travel around this state, I don’t get asked about gay marriage, I don’t get asked about abortion, I get asked ‘How can I find a job that allows me to support my family?’ I get asked, ‘How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy.’” (Taken from a reply to questions asked during the Ill. Senate campaign)



We are deeply troubled, but not surprised at the Senator’s remarks. One would only have to look at Obama’s consistent support and advocacy for the gay agenda and the abortion industry to understand. As a longtime activist for children in the womb (the most discriminated against segment of our society) and proponent for family values, I am horrified at this man’s voting record. Anytime Planned Parenthood gives you a 100% rating, all Americans should cringe in fear because they are the leading abortion provider in the nation.


Each day, 1452 African Americans are murdered by abortion, 4,000 children over all.


There have been over 15 million African American children dismembered in the womb by the abortion holocaust and as many women victimized.


As an elected official, should anyone have to ask you about abortion to make it your concern?


Marriage, since the 1970s, is down 17% in America and in the African Community it’s down 34%, which is twice the national average.


Should Barack Hussein Obama again have to wait until someone asks him about the fundamental building block of all society? Shouldn’t he protect the sanctity of marriage? The truth is, someone has asked and how he has answered the question wasabysmal.


The question was asked of Obama, should the heinous act of partial birth abortion be outlawed in America? Twice Sen. Obama answered no! When he was asked if a child, who might miraculously survive the sentence of death by abortion, be protected from an abortion doctor after surviving? Sen. Obama said no! (See Born Alive Victims Protection Law.) Has he no conscience? Is he misinformed on the facts of these barbaric practices? His response to these questions is not indicative of the Black community’s beliefs, and certainly shows a low degree of conscience and moral fiber.


These six things the lord hates, yea seven are an abomination unto him, a proud look, a lying tongue and hands that shed innocent blood. (Proverbs 6:17)


There is no candidate running for the office of the presidency with a worse record than Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. His hands have aided and abetted the abortion industry’s slaughter of the innocent and no other community is affected by it more than the African American community. It’s an industry that targets Afro-Americans for profit at the expense of our children’s lives and the pain of Black women.


This charade has been quite a production. It is now playing and coming to a theater near you!


Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his letter from a Birmingham jail, “The early church put an end to such evils as infanticide (infant killing).”


From a jail in Birmingham, AL, without any other source of reference but his heart and the Bible, Martin wrote to some Bishops and Pastors who were not in favor of the demonstrations he was leading. They felt that it was counter productive and not in the best interest of the Negro people. Martin Luther King, Jr. felt quite differently, he chided church leaders for their reluctance to join him in the struggle for freedom. King’s reference to infanticide pointed to the legality of infant killing under Roman law in the first century. Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed to the practice of Christians to rescue babies left on the side of the road to die, because their parents did not like their complexion, eye color, hair color or viewed the child as an inconvenience (sound familiar?) First century Christians rescued those babies and raised them as their own children.


The early Church defied unjust laws even when the consequences could have meant their own death for doing so. Oh, if that kind of love and courage could be demonstrated today by our leadership, it would begin to heal our land.


Sen. Obama has written, “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters ashospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex – nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the sermon on the mount.”


Sen. Obama, did you say obscure? That would tend to lead unlearned listeners to believe that the Bible is vague or obscure on the subject of homosexuality.


Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly half of the 32 verses in the first chapter of the New Testament book of Romans were dedicated to warning the early church about sexual perversion. The Apostle Paul warned that perverse thinking and the habits they create were due to the fact that “they did not want to retain God in their knowledge.” That verse truly reflects much of the cast in the Democrat Party.


I would like to ask Sen. Obama the question, “How obscure is this verse?”


Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman kind: it is an abomination.


That sounds pretty definitive to me.


It would appear to me that Sen. Obama as well as many others shun and ignore the obvious and cloak the true causes of our problems.


African Americans make up 12% of the population, but account for over 50% of all new cases of HIV. African American women account for a staggering 68% of all newly diagnosed HIV positive women in the United States. These women primarily contracted HIV from heterosexual sex. Now, with that said, 60% of all new AIDs cases in America will be the result of the violation of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:27 (men having sex with men).


Martin Luther King, Jr., who never marched one step for “Gay Rights,” said, “The contemporary church is often a weak ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power of the average community is consoled by the churches silent and often vocal sanctions of things as they are.”


You have heard my review of this masterful political production concerning Sen. Obama and a few of his cast. There is undoubtedly more to come.


Suffice it to say, the prospect of Sen. Barack Hussein Obama becoming President of the United States poses a real threat to African Americans.


Cathy Cohen, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, conducted a survey tracking the attitudes of nearly 1,600 young people of all races nationwide. The professor did one of the most comprehensive studies with the focus on African Americans 15-25 ever performed.


The survey shows that young African-Americans are more conservative than their white counterparts when it is comes to same-sex marriage and abortion. There has been consistent data that shows African-Americans are pro-life and oppose same-sex marriage. An Obama presidency would certainly not reflect Afro-American youth or the nation he’d be leading. In fact, his position on these issues would be ensuring their present destructive trend.


Black Enterprise magazinedid a survey in which 58% of its participants viewed the NAACP’s pro-choice stance as wrong. As a role model, Barack Hussein Obama would be stirring the cauldron of confusion and mixed emotion. Many people would be happy for his success, because he is black, but vexed by his immoral position on the critical issues.


Obama’s use of the presidential bully pulpit would be a boost for the culture of death and the homosexual agenda.


As President, there would also always be the threat of a veto of any significant pro-life or pro-family legislation. Additionally, Obama would undoubtedly nominate pro-abortion justices to the US Supreme Court, which could etch Roe v. Wade into stone for generations.


Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Any success achieved at the expense of our children is no success.” I and many other African-Americans long to see the day of an African-American President, but not at the expense of our children and our values.


Remember, all significant social change which empowered and eradicated injustice has come from the Church not congress, from Pastors not the president. Politicians often join in the cause later, but social reform always starts in the Church. To keep this better in mind I will close with another quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from a Birmingham Jail:


There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced as they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.


God help us to be a thermostat.


Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. is the Senior Pastor of New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, NJ. He hosts “The Urban Prophet” which takes the pro-life, pro-family message into the urban areas.


Rev. Childress is the author of “No Shepherd’s Cry.” Pastor Childress and his book were recently featured on the 700 Club hosted by CBN’s Pat Robertson.


Pastor Childress is joyously married to Regina Childress and has four children: Clenard, Thomas, Tonya and Tia.


One heartbeat away from the presidency.,,,,,,,,
Very scary indeed for a candidate with a 4-year degree in journalism
Democrat hasn't won the presidency yet.
Mostly because I can't wait to see what you all have to say when the country is still in shambles with a Democrat behind the wheel. I can't believe you all actually think a Dem in office will help. Entire Congress is Dem right now. What has it done lately?
Senator versus presidency
Sure, I can see where a lot of this would be overlooked while running for a senate position versus president of our country. The higher the position, the more you look into someone's history and that is what separates the boys from the men....
Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency.....sm


Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency
Written by John F. McManus
Wednesday, 26 November 2008 00:40




Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's own records and agendas show the direction they have in mind for the nation.

Without doubt, the election of Barack Obama is historic because he is the first Black American selected by voters for the highest office in the land. Indeed, the election of an African-American to the presidency by a nation with a majority white population may be unprecedented, and the fact that this is possible should be a source of pride for all of us, regardless of whether Obama himself was a good or bad choice.

An articulate and confident young man, Obama's presence in the White House will be welcomed by many. Along with his oratorical skills and appealing vitality, his family will remind older Americans of the John F. Kennedy era when a telegenic and appealing wife and two charming youngsters accompanied the newly elected president into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What will the Obama presidency be like? Throughout a campaign stretching back for almost two years, the Illinois senator regularly employed the word "change," and the word even morphed into "change we can believe in." The posters, oratory, television ads, and pronouncements of several Obama staffers repeatedly issued unspecified pledges that this new and different candidate would alter the course America was following.

"Blueprint for Change"

But how would America's course be altered? Even though the American people could have read online what an Obama-Biden administration promised, most failed to do so. Much of the agenda, albeit without a lot of detail, is contained in Blueprint for Change, the 83-page document subtitled "Plan for America" issued by the Obama-Biden team. As we shall see, the "change" envisioned by the Blueprint includes more government at home and a continuation of our interventionist foreign policy abroad.

Of course, America has been moving in the direction of more and bigger government for decades, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat has been in the White House. Obama hopes to move us even further in the big-government direction. What kind of change is that?

Even many Americans who recognize that Obama will push for more government at home believe that he will end our interventionist foreign policy because of the opposition he has expressed to the Iraq War. But this conclusion flies in the face of his proposal to transfer troops to Afghanistan (in essence transferring the Iraq War to a different theater) and his support for international arrangements, including expansion of NATO.

Please consider the following positions as they appear in the pages of the revealing "blueprint" document and judge for yourself how much change there will be and whether the recommended "change" would be a good thing. (Comments following each quoted item are ours.)

• "Emergency Economic Plan to Inject Immediate Relief into the Economy." Both Obama and Biden voted for the $700 billion bailout (along with John McCain). More bailouts will likely follow.

• "Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families." Government giving money to everyone, as was done with the 2008 rebate, doesn't solve any problems. These funds either have to be printed (the root cause of inflation) or borrowed, likely from China, which puts our nation's neck in a noose. The interest that is compounding on our already enormous debt is a toxic time bomb. The government will eventually resort to massive inflation to pay the debt or collateralize the debt with American assets; in which case, those now holding our bonds will end up owning America.

• "Invest in the Manufacturing Sector." America's manufacturers need relief from the stifling array of taxes and regulations, and from the steady erosion of the dollar brought on by debilitating inflation, not government handouts that are always followed by government control. A 2006 study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute entitled "Ten Thousand Commandments" found that the federal regulatory burden on U.S. businesses amounted to $1.13 trillion. This burden is killing American businesses, productivity, innovation, and jobs.

• "Create 5 Million New Green Jobs." This will be done, says the Blueprint, by investing "$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy," etc. In other words, politicians and bureaucrats would create government jobs and subsidize private-sector jobs that should be financed by the private sector (and would be if they were economically viable). Government should get out of the way and let free Americans create jobs.

• "Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank." This promise includes an infusion of $60 billion more in federal spending.

• "Give the Federal Reserve Greater Supervisory Authority." The Federal Reserve, which already wields enormous, unconstitutional powers, is a destructive engine of inflation and should hardly be given greater authority. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has recommended, it should be abolished, not enhanced.

• "Pressure the World Trade Organization to Enforce Trade Agreements." Granting the UN's WTO even more authority is another step toward global governance. The WTO is already exercising judicial jurisdiction over sovereign nations, overruling national laws and legislatures, including the laws and the Congress of the United States. Congress and President Bush have weakly protested these usurpations — and then meekly accepted them.

• "Guarantee Affordable, Accessible Health Care for Every American." Healthcare costs have risen dramatically because of already existing government intervention. A national healthcare system would swell the cost while making healthcare hard to obtain, as such plans have done everywhere they have been instituted.

• "Barack Obama has fought for comprehensive immigration reform." Ultimately, what this means is amnesty for as many as 20 million illegal aliens in our nation.

• "High Quality Zero-to-Five Education." The Obama plan actually calls for "early care and education for infants in a Zero to 5 Plan," more government for K-12, federal support for afterschool programs, and more grants for those who move on to college.

• "Double our annual investment in foreign assistance ... to $50 billion.... Invest at least $50 billion [annually] by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS." With record deficits and a soaring National Debt, America is, in effect, giving away borrowed money.

The above constitute only a sampling of the pledges for more programs, more spending, and more government powers contained in the 83 pages of the Blueprint for Change. And the official Obama-Biden Internet website provides several hundred more pages of details, all pointing toward plans for a vast expansion of the federal government. Less than a week after the election, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun (R) told an audience in his district the president-elect shows "signs of being a Marxist." Perhaps Broun had read the Obama-Biden Blueprint, a rather obvious call for socialism in the United States. And perhaps Broun knows that, in addition to Marx's well-publicized association with communism, Karl Marx is also the godfather of socialism.

Although he didn't mention his own party, we should point out that Rep. Broun's criticism of Obama's apparent Marxist bent applies also to many Republicans. In fact, in October, President Bush and many Republican members of Congress rolled out the Socialist Express to push through the bailout package. Take it from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist, who congratulated Bush for joining the socialist club, and then chided him and his allies for applying a double standard. "How many times have they criticized me for nationalizing the phone company?" he asked. "They say, 'The state shouldn't get involved in that.' But now they don't criticize Bush for having nationalize[d] ... the biggest banks in the world. Comrade Bush, how are you?"

Expanding the UN

The United Nations Association of the United States is the most determined promoter of the UN within our nation. Early in 2008, its leaders sent a questionnaire to all presidential candidates. Barack Obama displayed his strong commitment to the world body and to its various sovereignty-compromising programs in his responses, some of which follow:

• "No country has a greater stake in a strong United Nations than the United States."

• "I have pledged to create a [UN-promoted] cap on carbon emissions in the United States."

• "I fully support the [UN] Millennium Development Goals."

In the year 2000, the 189 member nations of the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals, a program of eight goals to aid developing countries. Our share of funding these goals could total hundreds of billions of dollars in just a few years. Senator Barack Obama introduced S. 2433 in 2007. Labeled the "Global Poverty Act," this proposal seeks to require our nation to "achieve the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of the people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than one dollar per day." Five months later, Senator Biden offered minor amendments to the bill as he co-signed it. Obviously, these two senators — and the handful of others they have enlisted to back their proposal — believe the American people should pony up enormous sums of money sought by the UN in another program that would empower the world body and further enrich corrupt foreign dictators while doing little to improve the plight of the world's poor.

Based on their stated positions and track records, it is reasonable to expect that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the team they will select to staff the new administration won't even consider less government and a mind-your-own-business foreign policy to be options. Their agenda, if implemented, would speed the growth of the federal government, accelerate the surrender of America's independence, and hasten our nation down the path toward submergence in what internationalists euphemistically refer to as "global governance" by various supranational institutions, of which the UN, the WTO, and the IMF are among the most noteworthy. For more information about the power brokers who have helped formulate Obama's agenda and who will be running the Obama-Biden administration, see "Behind the Obama Agenda."





http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/543-looking-ahead-to-the-obama-presidency
Celebrate Obama's presidency!

In "celebration" of this stimulus and a month of his presidency, let's see if Obama has lived up to his promises. I will let you score your president.


Here are the 7 promises.


1. Make government open and transparent.


2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.


3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

4. No more secrecy.


5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.


6. You’ll know what’s in it.


7. We will put every pork barrel project online.


Obama is rich in his own right - not just the presidency -
he can spend money any way he pleases. Believe me, if I had that kind of money, I would be going to broadway too!
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency

Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.

Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because I'm the decider and I decide what's best. He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: I'm the Daddy, that's why.

This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.

Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.

Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.

Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until nothing [is] left but the shell of the office. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.

Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.

The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.

Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.

George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.

Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.

And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.

Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.

The Danger of the Active/Negative President Facing A Congressional Rout

Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is I must.

Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions, Barber writes. He continues, Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end.

Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.

He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.

For the whole article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html


"The wisdom of the Clinton Presidency..."
ohhhhh to quote reville guffaw guffaw GUFFAW guffaw lol
Excuse me....the Presidency is an executive position...
Palin is the only one of the four who has executive appearance. She is as ready to lead right now as Obama is. Obama has zero international experience other than one trip to talk to the Germans in a political speech.

And I would think the fact that your #1 has less experience than McCain's #2 you would stay away from the experience thing...?

He picked her because she shares his ideals..wants change in washington. Obama wants that too. McCain picked a REAL Washington outsider. Obama didn't. Soooo..they are saying some of the same things Obama is saying, but when Obama says it is good, when they say it, it is bad?

Hello President McCain, and VP Palin!
your msg. "American Presidency is an exec. role"
nm
What is the one thing you want an Obama presidency to accomplish?

Mine is curbing illegal immigration.


Bush Presidency - eight years in eight minutes

I watch Olbermann.  Sometimes I agree with him.  Sometimes I don't.


However, last night he hit it into the park with his attempt to review what Bush did in the last eight years into eight minutes; he ran over time a little bit because there was so much to say.


I would strongly urge anyone who is not too busy whining, moaning, groaning, hating and raging about Obama -- anyone who is truly interested in the future of America -- to watch this, from beginning to end -- especially at the end (since this is done chronologically, not by matter of importance).


THESE are the reasons people voted for Obama.  THESE are the reasons that Obama supporters cannot understand why Bush worshippers still support him and reject the man who might undo the wreckage of Bush.


BUSH is the man who claimed to have a direct line to GOD.  Obama never claimed anything of the sort; if he had, I probably would not have voted for him for that very reason -- because it creeped me out so much when Bush did it.  So the assertion that Obama supporters are "worshippers" is ridiculous, when, in fact, it seems that those who still support Bush (the closest thing to the Anti-Christ that I'VE ever seen) are the ones who seem to think Bush is some sort of god.


Please watch every single SECOND of this video.  It will give you just a taste of the grueling task ahead of Obama in trying to correct all the damage that Bush has done.  We may, in fact, never know the full extent of the damage because Bush (as is mentioned in the video) has "exempted" himself from the Presidential Records Act.


THIS is why every truly honest, patriotic, honorable American who voted for Obama is so relieved he won.  Not so much "happy" -- but RELIEVED -- hoping (yes, HOPING) that our country may once again resemble the USA that once held respect throughout the world, the USA where hard work was once rewarded, the USA where families could afford to feed their children, and the USA where one's ability to obtain something as basic as healthcare wasn't only limited to the wealthy.  I'm not naive enough to believe this can all be fixed in four (or even eight) years, because Bush has been like a four-year-old sociopath that was armed with Daddy's credit card, an AXE and an arrogant giggle, each of which he used to its full capacity, and that's a LOT to clean up.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28699663


 


This will be a very effective presidency! This is GREAT !!! read more sm
President Obama just announced that the pay of top White House employees is being frozen. The Associated Press says it will affect those in positions paying more than $100,000 a year.

"All of you are committed to building a more responsible government," Obama told top staff at a meeting now underway at the White House.

"Families are tightening their belts and so should Washington," Obama added.

The president also announced he's about to sign new ethics rules designed to restrict lobbying by current staff after they leave the administration.

Update at 2:55 p.m. ET: The White House just put out this statement about the actions the president took today.

Update at 1:31 pm. ET: "What a moment we are in," Obama also said. "What an opportunity we have to change this country."

Update at 1:28 p.m. ET: The AP adds that about 100 White House aides will be affected.

Update at 1:25 p.m. ET: Obama also announced he is directing federal agencies to be more open, in part by returning to pre-Bush administration policies regarding the Freedom of Information Act.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," he said.
I'm just voting for him because he is the lesser of the two evils who are running for presidency
x
Well you can *know* what ever about terrorist, but you can't
preach about and demand change in the corruption in other countries and then not even be interested in the corruption in your own country.
no, not a lie. He is not a terrorist
but he certainly has ties to, and support from, some very very questionable people, and yes from terrorists. That makes him lacking in judgment at best, and certainly of questionable motives and character.
They don't care how terrorist's think...
They'd have to read what Middle Eastern experts - you know, people who have lived in or are from the Middle East would have to say.  That would involve critical THINKING.  Bush flaunted repeatedly the fact that he never consulted anyone about the situation in the Middle East before going to war.  The only folks he consulted were...you guessed it - Rummy, Wolfy and the gang. 
Terrorist Bush
 Bush Told Blair of 'Going beyond Iraq'
    By Richard Norton-Taylor
    The Guardian UK

    Saturday 15 October 2005


    George Bush told Tony Blair shortly before the invasion of Iraq that he intended to target other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which, he implied, planned to acquire weapons of mass destruction.


    Mr Bush said he wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men on January 30 2003.


    The note is quoted in the US edition, published next week, of Lawless World, America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, by the British international lawyer Philippe Sands. The memo was drawn up by one of the prime minister's foreign policy advisers in Downing Street and passed to the Foreign Office, according to Mr Sands.


    It is not surprising that Mr Bush referred to Iran and North Korea, or even Pakistan - at the time suspected of spreading nuclear know-how, but now one of America's closest allies in the war on terror. What is significant is the mention of Saudi Arabia.

    In Washington, the neo-cons in particular were hostile to the Saudi royal family and did not think they were doing enough to quell Islamist extremists - 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers were Saudis. But the Bush administration did not in public express concern about any Saudi nuclear ambitions.


    In September 2003, the Guardian reported that Saudi Arabia had embarked on a strategic review that included acquiring nuclear weapons. Until then, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella despite the worsening relationship between Riyadh and Washington.


    It is not clear how Mr Blair responded to Mr Bush's remarks during the telephone conversation, which took place on the eve of a trip to Washington for talks with the US president.


    In his book, Blair's Wars, John Kampfner says that at the meeting the two leaders agreed to concentrate not just on Iraq ... but also the Middle East. But that was taken to be a reference to Palestine. Mr Blair wanted Mr Bush to express concern about the plight of the Palestinians to appease the Labour party.


    Mr Blair at the time was careful to avoid any suggestion that the Bush administration intended to target other countries after the invasion of Iraq. However, for the first time he suggested there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.


    After the invasion, Washington adopted a calmer approach towards Iran, leaving it to Britain, France, and Germany to pursue a diplomatic course.


    Despite hard evidence that Pakistan was deeply involved in exporting nuclear technology, the Bush administration embraced President Pervez Musharraf as an ally against al-Qaida. Washington's relations with Saudi Arabia remain cool. Mr Sands does not shed further light on the issue.


Bush the terrorist
I see the world and the majority of America realizing, finally, that Bush is incompetent, a fool, not to be trusted and as much a terrorist as Osama..OMG, even conservative republicans are speaking out against Bush..Time to stop defending a fool, if you ask me..these next months/years will show the reasons for war were all lies, this whole administration is corrupt..These are great times for honest law abiding hard working Americans who did not drink the Kool-Aid..
They obviously believe there's only one terrorist in the world
I just don't understand why they think Bin Laden is the only terrorists. There are several major terror cells in the world all bent on destroying Western culture and Israel. I personally think Bin Laden is dead anyway.
Terrorist links
Can you PROVE beyond a shadow of DOUBT that this is TRUE?? sheesh!!
How exactly is it that a terrorist dresses? n/m
x
Don't forget a son of a terrorist.
x
The terrorist's best friend.
Is the Taliban on your Christmas card list as well?

You seem to have swallowed the leftist lies hook, line, and sinker.

Let's not forget to honor those hard-working, industrious Nazis while we're at it.

And the Sudanese guerrilas.

And the lonely, struggling serial killers and child molesters and suicide bombers.
We have had plenty of terrorist
AND after 9/11.

- USS Cole.
- 2000 New Year attack attempt at Los Angeles Airport, but stopped at Port Angeles, WA ferry terminal during Clinton.
- New York Bomb Subway in 1997 with Clinton in office.

My gosh, there is a whole list of terrorist attack attempts.
Now I am known as a terrorist and an extremist?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/protest-grows-report-right-wing-radicalization/


The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran.


That's what House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday in response to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of the rise of right-wing extremist groups.


Smith, who said the report on "right-wing extremism" amounts to "political profiling," said that DHS is "using people's political views to assess an individual's susceptibility to terror recruitment." He joins a growing chorus of protest from irate conservative groups that are protesting the report's findings.


The report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," released last week by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis, said while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, it suggests acts of violence could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and it singles out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.


A senior Republican Judiciary Committee aide tells FOX News that the Obama administration "should immediately retract the report and apologize," saying that according to the report, pro-lifers, anyone who lost their jobs or are one of the thousands of military veterans who have fought to prevent another 9/11 could be suspect.


DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report Wednesday, saying it is part of an ongoing series of assessments to provide information to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on "violent radicalization" in the United States.


"Let me be clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Napolitano said in a statement. "We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."


The report follows a similar report released in January by DHS that detailed left-wing threats, focusing on cyberattacks and radical "eco-terrorist" groups like Earth Liberation Front, accused of firebombing construction sites, logging companies, car dealerships and food science labs. The report notes that left-wing extremists prefer economic damage on businesses to get the message across.


"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights," said Smith. "That's like saying if you love puppies you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."


U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-FL, told FOX News he was "offended" by the report's suggestion that returning troops could be potential targets for extremist groups.


"I am very offended and really disturbed that they would even say our military veterans, our returning war heroes would be capable of committing any terrorist acts," he said. "Where do they get off doing that? I demand an apology from [Napolitano] and even the President of the United States."


Veterans' groups are also taking issue with the report, which says disgruntled vets are considered coveted recruits for groups looking for "combat skills and experience."


"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists," the report reads. "[DHS] is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."


Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, said the report represents a "gross misunderstanding and oversimplification" of the country's service members.


"It's amazing they would single out veterans as a threat to this country," said Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq. "It underscores a pervasive belief that some are trying to spread that veterans are victims and we're coming home as damaged goods that need to be coddled instead of celebrated."


The report prompted a harsh and swift reaction for the American Legion on Tuesday. In a letter to Napolitano, American Legion National Commander David Rehbein blasted the report as incomplete and politically-biased.


"The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," Rehbein wrote. "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."


Napolitano said in her statement on Wednesday that she was aware of the letter, and plans to meet with Rehbein sometime next week.


"I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary."


"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not nor will we ever monitor ideology or political beliefs," read Napolitano's statement. "We take seriously our responsibility to protect civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."


Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said DHS' latest report "clearly appears to censor right-wing opinion," while its earlier assessment of left-wing extremists does not.


"I must say it's chilling, it worries me a great deal," London said. "I never have encountered a time in American life when condemnation of a president is not permitted. This really did strike me as odd, indeed."


London called on President Obama to repudiate the right-wing report.


"What is the message here? That conservative organizations are not permitted to engage in any language that might be described as unfavorable to the president," London said. "Keep in mind this is entirely subjective to begin with."


What is YOUR definition of a terrorist? nm
x
Or one might think you are an Islamofascist terrorist sympathizer. nm

The answer is, there is no terrorist threat. sm

That sums it up. 


Occupation is the ultimate terrorist act.
Let's get something straight here. Israel is the occupier and Palestine is the occupied. Steal their land, blockade their supplies, invade them, kill and maim them, impose a police state, sabotage their economy and THEN call them the terrorists...self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever heard one. You have not one leg to stand on here. Terrorism breeds terrorism. Israel has not only cornered the marked on chaos in Palestine, but throughout the region as well. Bloodshed is their middle name. They wrote the book on savagery.

No dear. Perhaps massacres turn you on, but they certainly do not make me giddy. Nobody twisted my arm when I formulated my opinions on this issue, since it is based on my own life experiences, just like yours are. Wanna talk monsters? From where I sit, those would be the Israeli population who sits idly by in their complicity and turn a blind eye to the moral outrage on which they base their nationalism. That's the only thing that burns me.

Israel kicks the holy heck out of itself every time it goes on another one of its bloody rampages. The whole rest of the world, with the exception of the US (whose motives are none too clean either) abhors this behavior and no amount of self-righteous indignation is going to change that fact. My other post already addressed the sheer folly of your suicide bomber reference.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the objective of Hamas missile fire is to bring attention of the world back to Palestine, the long forgotten and ignored, but as long as they are occupied, it is not that difficult to understand why they would like to blow Israel off the face of the earth. Since you are not in charge of Hamas militia, you hardly can pretend to be able to predict their future operations, except to parrot the endless propaganda you hear on US mainstream media.

As far as the Stone Age is concerned, Israel would like to think of itself as being all modern and civilized, but they can never join those ranks as long as they remain the occupying war criminals they have been since day one.

HAMAS is a terrorist group
nm
Santa protecting children from a terrorist

what's wrong with that?


and just where is the terrorist going to put that TNT--in the manager? 


I guess if you were Santa you'd just try to give the terrorist a big ole hug...


You know it's pretty darn sad that Christmas is so darn political this year.  This is a neutral statement because it's happening on both sides, liberal and conservative


 


Iraqi terrorist training camps?
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon.  There was never any real proof of training camps in Iraq.  As far as terrorists having been in Iraq at one time or another....it's a middle eastern country.....they were way down toward the bottom of the list of terrorist hang-outs.
In my opinion, McCain is just as bad as the terrorist people because he obviously just wants to get
x
Towel-headed terrorist? Is that how you see ALL Moslems
a young man visiting his Kenyan relatives in search of his roots who is paying respect to his family and his host nation by donning traditional Dashiki and head gear. I also see a sense of pride in his expression...something that he is entitled to have. When in Rome...

McCain? A soldier who served his country with honor, came home and dumped his crippled wife and mother of his children, traded her in for a younger model, then turned around years later and exploited his POW status for political gain.
Where do you see this domestic terrorist stuff? I'd be interested in sm
viewing your list of what "they" (and who are "they"?) are classifying as dom terrorists?

As for Reagan, there was a good-sized depression in the early 1980s (which you proby don't remember, being of the Iraqi war vet age) - his policies were good for the rich but nobody else.
And this was only a few months ago
:?
About 2 to 3 months ago, someone tried
to break into my house with me home working.  They purposely tried to scare me.  They went around my house banging on the walls and windows.  As we live in the country, I do have a gun in my office.  As I was calling 911, they were trying to get in the front door.  I yelled at them that if they went any further, I was going to shoot and the police were on their way.  Thankfully, this did stop them.   But if they would have come through the door, I really believe I would have shot them.  I still have problems sleeping!
The longer this goes on, the bigger terrorist breading ground sm
Iraq becomes. This is getting past ridiculous. Now, I don't think we should just pull out, but I think we need to let them have it, and there will be more US casualties, and get out ASAP.
Are there any good books on *the radical terrorist mind*? sm
and whose the author?