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

I didn't think you meant that for me,

Posted By: TTMT on 2008-11-04
In Reply to: TTMT, I meant that for HaHaHa, not you!! - onlyinamerica

I think she was just trying to get something going. Whatever. It think everybody is on pins and needls right now waiting to see what the results are going to be. I am just hoping to find out before I go to bed at 1:00 a.m.


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

That piece didn't look like it was meant as comedy.

If it was, I apologize.  I guess I totally missed it.  Must be my weak mind. 


I didn't realize middle class meant uneducated......
xx
meant is against abortion...didn't mean supports abortion (NM)

I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't

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.



 


What I meant was....
why can we not protect the unborn children first? Are they not as deserving as homeless, poor, etc.? That was my point. I do not see, nor do I ever expect to see, liberals exhorting us to take care of unborn children as a part of taking care of the least among us. I have seen Conservatives exhort to take care of the least among us, including unborn children. Conservatives just want to put a limit on it, and regulate it a little more closely (as far as welfare, etc.). I don't have a problem with that either. And I give privately to Christian organizations that DO take care of the least among us. It does not have to go through the government to be effective. I guess that is where we differ.
What I meant was...

He should have said "no comment" first thing when he addressed the American people - when he said the whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" thing.  At that point he was not obligated to comment, and he shouldn't have.


I am not a "Clintonite" or whatever you said.  I just think he was a more intelligent person than Bush.  Although I despise Bush, I really do like his wife Laura.  I think she seems like a very caring, very genuine person.


I do NOT plan to vote for Hilary.  I plan to vote for Barack Obama if he makes it that far.  I think he could really improve the health insurance crisis in America.  I never hear Republican candidates talking about making healthcare more affordable, and therefore I will probably vote for a Democrat.


I meant
In the last paragraph I meant to write posting "false" information, not "fall".
Not quite sure if it is a pub or a dem who meant DNC....lol nm
nm
Sorry that was meant for OP nm
x
I think you meant that some
or maybe even many Obama supporters are educated. Just like McCain supporters.
Meant I wonder......
.
Her's what I meant
Not true meant that I'm not a rabid Republican (I'm a conservative).  That's why the RINOS need to get the heck out of the RNC.  They've ruined it.  Also, they're frauds.
yes, that is what I meant
I have no idea why I typed Otis Small?? Good night GP
Not what I meant.

What I meant was that I hope he has the opportunity to serve out the full four years and/or that this election isn't contested for some reason resulting in the involvement of the Supreme Court.  For example, I see the GOP is filing a lawsuit against Obama, alleging he used campaign funds when he visited his grandmother for the last time.


I hope we can all get along and not be as divided as we have been for the past few years, and I hope that nothing happens that would cause such division. 


Again, I thought the post you wrote was very classy.  Thanks. 


I meant...
As O's father is Muslim and O's mother Christian, they had to decide how they were going to raise O.
That what I meant.
I am roman catholic.
What? Oh, you must have MEANT to say
nm
I only meant where did it come from?
WHY the OP posted it

but aren't you classy

obviously he meant that he wants
to win over the moderates and fight the terrorists with his strategy.
I believe what you meant to say was
the hard working class of people that this entire country was founded on is going by the wayside, instead being replaced by an invasion of another country and their people to add to the already overwhelmed small population of people that work to pay for those who have spent generation after generation mooching off of the working class.

If not being lazy makes me self righteous, then so be it.

That is not what I meant.

Out of all the earmarks in the bill 60% were dems and 40% were pubs.  I didn't mean the whole bill was 100% earmarks. 


Meant what I put
knew such smart people here (I) could just get ......

still going at it, thanks for the snippy response.
I meant to say..
We already have laws in place that work to protect people from being harmed or killed.
You never meant a socialist Jew! sm
What do you think they come up to you and say hi, I am a socialist Jew.  Do you know Noam Chomsky?  How about David Horowitz's parents?  How about the Rosenbergs?  Shall I go on.  Do you wonder why almost all the actors blacklisted in Hollywood way back when were almost all JEWS?!? 
I meant... NOW shoe...nm
But I know you'll stay because you need us to validate yourself. You're not at your best unless you are in your leftist/lib basher mode, eh. Keep it up, and people like you will expose the right brotherhood for what it's worth.
That isn't what he meant but there is no use debating you.

Maybe logical thought escapes you.


Wow, did I say Liar. I really meant sm
deluded liar.  Yes, that's much better.  
It was not meant as an attack, I
that it might not be the wisest idea to go to a *liberal* board and call yourself something that runs counter to their belief system, and then expect to be treated like a long-lost son.

Further, I said the Democrats frustrate me to no end, and it is precisely for the very reasons you stated. They were too afraid of being branded as **unpatriotic** and **unsupportive of the troops**, blah,blah,blah. In their defense, however, sometimes they simply have not had the votes to over ride the president's agenda. Thank goodness for people like Murtha.

I apologize if you felt I was attacking you, as I think we have found some common ground. I think the other thing that happens is that sometimes words, if not chosen extra carefully, can come off sounding what they are not.
I meant I felt like it was an act....
I believe it was theatrics. The Hollywood reference was meant to say they would be proud of the acting job...nothing to do with all of Hollywood being amoral, though I believe a good portion of it is. But that could be said for other areas as well. I am also aware of staunch conservatives in Hollywood and I think God for them.
I never meant to infer that
W should NOT have gone to VT. If that is how you read it, then you misread or I mistyped. Of course he should have been there; it is just that there was SO much publicity about this tragedy and it does not appear (to me) that there is much of that for the American soldiers in Iraq; nothing on a national level.

I also never said that conservatives did not care about the war. What I meant was that in a country where only 50% of eligible voters turn out it is not unusual that so many Americans are disconnected from this war. I remember hearing people talk about WWII and seeing movies (not valid verification but nonetheless) and it seemed that the entire country was aligned behind **the cause.** I don't see that now. I bet you the family farm that I could go down to one of the city high schools or middle schools and ask a group of teenagers what they know about this war, what do they think we should or should not do and I feel certain I would get pretty much blank stares. That is what I mean about Americans not caring...maybe that is not the correct term. Most Americans are not engaged and don't feel a connection or much of an allegiance to **the cause.** No one sacrifices anything for this war but then that is one definition of secularism I have heard **Secularism is a life without sacrifice.

You see staying in Iraq as creating some kind of democracy where the people will live a better life. I don't. I see that the longer we stay, the more people die, both Americans and Iraqis. Altho I did not agree with this war, or any war for that matter, the possibility that Iraq could have been changed for the better did probably exist 4 years ago, but not now. I really believe our being there will make no difference, aside from more death, than us not being there. It is not cut and run to me. It is cut your losses and in my opinion that would be loss of life.

As far as Clinton and Somalia; I don't know much about the details of that situation. He was concerned about bin Laden; a lot of people were for a long time. I don't think this country would have supported a war in the middle east before 9/11 happened and that played a part as well. There is quite enough blame to go around for not foreseeing (sp) 9/11.


Knew what you meant
Isn't it awful when your own relatives treat you like dirt. My sister is mormon and she actually thinks I'm on the same level with manson, dahmer, hitler, etc because I'm not mormon (we both grew up going to methodist services with 12 years of sunday school). Inlaws treated us like garbage cos we didn't go to their church when we lived near them. I am a deeply spiritual person but I am not a Christian and I count myself blessed not to be in their crowd.
Nope, exactly how I meant it
Pretty self explanatory.
You Meant to Say McCain, Right?
Obviously you've confused the 2 candidates.  It's poor Senator McCain who can't think/talk at the same time.
Meant to add "sm"
xoxoxoxo
you likely meant should "not" pay for it. nm
xx
I think what she meant by the last comment - sm

was that now McCain has nothing to say about Obama's lack of experience because Palin doesn't have much either.  I didn't take it necessarily as a bash. 


How can someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?  A life is a life right?  Most of the pro-lifers I know, have listened to have made comments about God's the only one who can take a life, well if that is someone's stand how can you be pro-death penalty.  I'm not saying that that is her reasoning, God, but just a question.


I'm all for cleaning up gov't too, including your party, but isn't what she is under investigation for a bit of gov't corruption too with the whole ex-BIL incident.  I read that somewhere too about firing the guy because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex.


meant "depressing" LOL
nm
no, no, that's not what I meant - sorry, will try to explain myself
Ok, my bad....I did not "articulate" myself well with that statement. I don't believe Obama is linked with the Iranian president, all I was saying was either side could take an off the wall statement like that and say it. I guess I used a really bad example, but the statement that if one or the other is elected we are going to have another attack on our country or this or that. Nobody knows.

I do agree with you about the religion issue. I actually believe all religions are bad in that way, but I didn't really mean that if Obama is elected they will be "out to get us" (and I don't believe that), I just used a bad example. I just thought the original post was a huge faux pas. Hope that helped explain it a little.
meant to say "know by NOW". See, now
nm
meant meek - but either way it does not fit with what I see
:)
i knew what you meant
I took no offense, but I do get a little sensitive as I would have loved to have some children when I was younger (but then I look at the Menendez brothers and my own nephew and say - what a relief- smart decision for me) HA HA. I did understand your post as you intended it that if man and woman don't unite there is no offspring, but I was just saying I believe that we can all live together. Man and woman can off their offspring they want and the others who wish to pursue an alternative way just won't have kids. I'd rather be with someone of my own gender and be truly and blissfully in love and married to her and not have any kids, rather than have kids and be married to a miserable person just because he's the other sex.
It's likely she meant ELITIST. nm

I think he meant he wanted it available to everyone -
he never said he would require you to buy what the government offered - that was more Hillary's plan. He just says he wants it available if you don't have insurance.
what I meant was, this is being said from JM crowd? (NM)
ss
Personally, I think she meant (Lou
.
i believe the unions were meant to
maybe part of the downfall is because of the lazy ones who rode on the backs of the hard workers.

that is the only part of a union that i could say i'm against. if you are not pulling your weight, enough... ya know?

regarding these MTs who cherry pick, i wish these companies would call them on it, give them notice and get rid of them... there are plenty of good MTs who would gladly take their place.

actually i have seen norma rae.. lol... it has been YEARS go though...


I knew what you meant as well.

Just like if McCain had chosen Powell.  The dems would be in an uproar because they would say he picked him because he was black, not because he has great values, experience, etc. 


Oh wait, they already did that with somebody else...


I'm sure you meant "count to four" -- know what you mean, though...sm
Heard they took him off the campaign trail today, due to his comments yesterday about a Pres. Obama being tested in the first six months of his term.


Yeesh....in our household, we call Biden "McCain's secret weapon.....the gift that keeps on giving....."


He does more for McCain almost every time he opens his mouth!!!
before anyone gets me--I meant "an"
x
oops - I meant they want us to get out - nm
x
What I meant was you don't want to fork over the
are totally against abortion or the legal right to choice.