Interesting - I didn't know that

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.

Republicans always trot out the slogan that they oppose big government and want to shrink the federal payroll. President Bush tells us that big government is not the answer.

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

And the spending increase isn't just tied to the war on terrorism. The Office of Management and Budget says spending at the Environmental Protection Agency is up 12 percent; it's up 14 percent at the Agriculture Department, 30 percent at the Department of the Interior; 64 percent at the Department of Labor, and 70 percent at the Department of Education.

And the pork keeps pouring out. Even the Peanut Festival in Dothan, Ala., got $200,000.

Alabama congressman Terry Everett, a Republican, got them the money. He wouldn't talk to us about it, but the locals said they like getting your money. I think it's a waste of money, but if they're going to waste money, I guess it's better to waste it here than anywhere else, one man told me.

Economist Stephen Moore, a Republican, says, We fought a war against big government and you know what? Big government won.

He noted, You look at what's happened to the government in the 10 years since the Republicans took control of Congress, the government is twice as big.

I heard this a few days ago, but since everyone only pays attention to articles in mainstream papers and TV news, thought I would post it. Could explain why Bush is acting like a brat. The pressure coming from the families, the public, and the truth movements is getting intense.

Apparently, CIA officers are buying legal insurance to cover the cost of their defense should they be indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in 9/11. They are worried that the results of an internal CIA investigation into some CIA agents� roles in 9/11 may soon become public and the public outcry would immediately lead to their arrest for murder and conspiracy among other charges.

CIA officers who are charged with something that was done in the line of duty, i.e., for something that is constitutional and legal; are defended by the largest law firm in the world; the U.S. Justice Department. However, for illegal and unconstitutional charges they are on their own. That is why this private legal insurance has suddenly become so attractive to some employees of the CIA; they know that they will not be defended by the Justice Department because what they did was so illegal and reprehensible. That is why they are busy buying private legal insurance. For a well-researched, excellent article found in the mainstream media see the Washington Post for R. Jeffrey Smith�s story titled, �CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance�

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html?nav=hcmodule

OKay, so based on your analogy.....if someone trespasses on my land with intent to do me harm and I order them off my property and remind them that it is illegal to harm me or to trespass......you imply that I am NOT allowed to mention what the law states and that it is illegal for them to harm me UNLESS I am a law enforcement officer?

You never stated a time frame for cons ordering liberals off the board, ....you stated it was never done and that suggests an indefinite period of time. Once again, pretty shoddy logic.

This was actually the first debate I watched this year. I wanted to watch the others but just missed them somehow. I will definitely be watching them from now on! I found it so interesting, and it really gave me more hope about our country's future. I just loved hearing so many great ideas for the future of America (from all of the candidates). I have been very discouraged over the last 7 years. Things just keep getting worse and worse and worse. I cannot wait to have a strong, intelligent leader running this country who can help heal our very injured nation!

I was most impressed with Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. I don't know if Richardson has what it takes, but I loved what he had to say about education being the most important thing (I agree!) and just how he presented himself and his ideas in general. Biden seems to have the experience behind him and a good solid head on his shoulders, and I really appreciated his ability to get right to the point instead of dancing around aimlessly.

Obama may not have had the strongest night (and I was not happy about how he interrupted Hillary!), but he is my favorite candidate, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt because I know where he stands on the issues more than I know any other candidate. He just needed to be much more quick and direct with some of his answers, but of course, I still think he's the man. :) I do fully expect him to learn from his mistakes and completely wow me at the next debate.

Hillary is a very impressive politician. I really find her to be extremely intelligent, extremely strong, and very likeable in general. She would indeed be an incredibly strong leader for this country. She is a great speaker. Although people keep talking about how she is being attacked, I do agree with a lot of the critism she receives on her voting record and her alliances (best word I could think of) with major corporations. That makes me a bit nervous because to me one of the biggest problems in America is that the corporations are using our politicians like their own personal puppets. However, I am really impressed with her knowledge overall and how she plans to turn this country around, and obviously we would be at least 100 times better off having her in office than Bush and the current sorry excuse for an administration! January of 2009 cannot come soon enough.

Dick Morris was an advisor to the Bill Clinton administration. He was also the campaign manager of Clinton's successful 96 re-election. He knows the Clintons inside and out. Very interesting reading (and watching).

I'm not trying to bash your opinion just making an observation about how 2 people look at the same thing and see 2 different things.

You said you felt that Bush did a good job in keeping the country safe after 9/11, etc. I look at the situation as Bush preying on our fears and using them to invade Iraq. We did a fast hit on Afghan. which was needed, but then that was it. Osama bin Laden is still at large (maybe dead for all we really know) and he was behind the whole incident. But we have torn apart Iraq for what real reason? Oil. It can be sugar coated and denied, but we all know that is what it was. It wasn't for any supposed WMD that he knew were not there.

I don't think our country can take more war, and that is what McCain has said he believes in (unless he has since changed that statement).

I believe Bush has done more hurt than good for this country, our country. BTW, I am an independent too and will be voting Democrat.

The paragraph above it (not included in chart) states Obama's plan benefits the lowest income brackets while JM's benefits the middle class (if you make $5 million or more per year- joke) or the upper class. Go to the website and read the paragraph above the chart.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C04%5C11%5Cstory_11-4-2008_pg7_32

For those who haven�t yet seen it, here is the accompanying summary of a 2003 New York Times Article:

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt � is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

... Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

��These two entities � Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � are not facing any kind of financial crisis,�� said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ��The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.��

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
��I don�t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,�� Mr. Watt said

Also, he laughed in the background and wanted extra time to talk? Does he need extra time to do everything? At least Obama respected the fact that John McCain was talking and didn't laugh and smile with an evil grin. He would gently say "you are wrong about that John" and that's pretty much it. There was no smirk that I could see.

Senator Obama was very cordial, but I thought John McCain was egotistical and trying to quote people "of importance" as if that is going to make a difference.

Again, I repeat again, he has the same old Bush way of doing things, which is the same old way for the past 8 years.

We need change and we need it for the middle class not the tycoons who are already wallowing in money one of them being John McCain and the others being all his croneys...

Someone sent me the following link. I know you die-hard Republicans will say Huffington Post is a Democrat thing. I do not know as I don't usually get my information there. Regardless, there is the printed exchange with Hannity (sp?, I don't get my news from him either). It is absolutely brilliant.....NOT. Since that is true, I know this because I heard the exchange myself from her own lipsticked mouth.

This is certainly worthy of a read and I hope some of you will wise up and see that a McCain administration is not going to be good for this country as his first major job of picking a running mate shows us he is reckless and self-centered. Palin, herself, in the oval office?? This is not scary, it is TERRIFYING!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/18/the-palin-plunge-voters-s_n_135857.html

When polls go up in Obama's favor, the stock market is taking a diving lower and lower in direct correlation with this. And in direct correlation, those everyday folks like myself who are in the stock market and everyday people all over are taking their money out DIRECTLY in relation to Obama going up in the polls. WHy? Because they know he is going to be the death of their money. These aren't the rich folks....everyday people. He will raise taxes so high on what they make in the market, their 401K, their IRA, etc., that they will be left with nothing after he is through draining them dry, all to give to those he feels have been so left out.

Obama is going to create nothing but chaos in the workforce.....Lower employee threshold.....lower family leave act. Send employees to staffing agencies, automate, move jobs offshore. Businesses will not be able to afford his garbage. These are everyday businesses, not the bigshots on wall street. These are the very people who employ you.....they will not be able to employ more, but they will have to let many go just in hopes of staying in business. He will definitely do a hatchet job on this country. Then you can wonder who will come in and take over.

�The bottom line is that Obama is not being honest about his tax and spending plans. It is impossible � impossible! � for him to finance his giveaways by taxing only those making $250,000 or more. He will have to raise taxes substantially on people making much, much less than that. If you think you are going to avoid a tax increase on Obama�s watch because you aren�t �rich,� remember this: A government that arbitrarily picks $250,000 as a dividing line can, using the same purely political considerations, pick any number as a dividing line.� � New Hampshire Union Leader

No, the American people did not listen, you're right about that. And I can only hope that he tries to follow through on what he promised. Obama has been linked to some very interesting people in Chicago. It wasn't just about the Ayers issue. I truly hope he can stand up to the tough road ahead of him. For if his own Vice President's words hold true, he will be tested here shortly.