Palin, so much to hate! I didn't see the message sm

• Her message....not mine..(sm) - Just the big bad
  • Not to worry, her own party won't have her... sm - Mrs. M
  • I think there were statements to the illusion.... sm - m
    • It's "allusion" not "illusion" when used like this - Can repubs not spell at all?
  • You really need to see a doc about your hatred addiction to this woman...sm - sm
    • Uhhh, again this is HER message.... - Just the big bad
    • Palin, so much to hate! I didn't see the message sm - Mrs. M
      • Hatred some of you have towards her is obsessive - and ridiculous. Worry about OBAMA for now!.nm
      • That is really out line and distasteful - shelly
        • Distasteful? (sm) - Just the big bad
          • That congressman is comparing him to Hitler - Donna
            • What everyone is forgetting here is s/m - anon
            • Yeah, and she went a step further earlier and said...(sm) - Just the big bad

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

Okay if you looked anyway, you have to admit this is funny.  Last night Jon Stewart (the comedian) said about Palin returning to Alaska, "she has been tagged and sent back into the wild."

Sorry, I just thought that was hilarious. 

--- take a long, deep breath, and before you get too excited, REMEMBER THIS:

When she talked about increasing or cutting "YOUR" taxes, don't forget that she, as a Republican, was NOT speaking to YOU, she was speaking to the RICH.  And the tobacco industry.  And the oil industry.  And yes, probably to the fat-cat owners of major MTSOs.  If you vote Republican, you're just voting to shoulder more and more of the load, while the rich sip mint juleps on their big fat verandas.

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.

Reading these posts I am trying to understand why Gov. Palin is hated so much.  I'd like to know facts (not rumors or lies).  Can you provide me with answers as to why.  I just don't understand it.

The conversative republicans on this board are not coming out with hate towards Obama/Biden, and I really don't see much hate towards McCain, but the actual hate is seeping out and infiltrating all of your thoughts with Gov. Palin and I cannot understand why.  I've seen her interviewed.  She doesn't seem too bad.  She's knowledgeable about the issues and answers questions with confidence.  I've also seen Obama, Biden and McCain interviewed too and I just don't understand what it is towards Gov. Palin but not the others. 

Please provide facts too.  Everything I am reading on this board are rumors and lies, so if you could just tell me.  Even if you say you don't like her because she's pretty, or she decided to have a baby instead of aborting him, etc I don't mind answers like that because they will be truthful, but please don't tell me you hate her because of something manufacted, or for something she is not personally involved in.

Just trying to understand.

I think there are a few bone fide nut jobs on this post that got a whole lot of people sucked into their delusions.  Fooled me twice. Later!

going to happen (talking about issues). There are too many new ones on here now and all they want to do is name calling, pick fights, and won't try to find the truth and, sadly, it's also the way of the country nowadays.  I have been appalled at the reaction lately and even ones who have been on here a long time and always posted decently are turning into the negative posters, too.

Unless the posters start following the rules of this board, I doubt it will ever change.

but these hicks that you talk about using food stamps to buy food are the same people who will benefit from Obama's presidency.  It won't be hard working individuals like ourselves.  This type of irresponsible behavior will be rewarded by government assistant programs at the expense of the working Americans who pay for them and who is pushing for more government programs.....why I do believe it is Barrack Obama....is it not?

As for Sarah Palin, she has done very well running Alaska and has worked her way up from the bottom to the top in her state.  She wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth.  If Sarah Palin was as ugly as Hillary Clinton is and was pro-choice, you all would be drooling over her.  But because she is an attractive woman who is conservative, you ladies would rather say she has no brains because she is pretty. 

How smart are we?  Our country elects a man who has no experience whatsoever and when it comes to writing bills, he hands the everything over to Pelosi.

Please continue to tell me how stupid Palin is when Obama runs our country into the ground because I'm sure that will make sense to everything ignorant Obama is doing right now. 

but taking control away from the taliban and giving it back to the country the taliban is trying to take over is about our freedom.  The more control the taliban gets, the more power they get and the more ability they have to attack us on our own soil.

As for why we are still there....I do believe it was Obama who extended the timeline for the troops in Iraq while sending troops into Afghan.  So it appears that Obama's pulling out of the troops and running back home plan didn't work out so well when he actually got into the White House and saw what was really going on.

As for the "torture" accusations, I hate to break it to ya but terrorists and pirates do not fall under protection of the Geneva Convention.  We broke no law as they are terrorists and I would rather "torture" a terrorist to try and save American lives.  We will never know the full story on this until all the information is released.

As for Pelosi, she is so high and mighty.  If you are going to stand there and point the blame on everyone else but yourself when others claimed that you knew and did nothing.....well.....of course Pelosi is now under fire and she should be.  If she truly knew about it....she is just as guilty for allowing it and not saying a word and then lying about it to make her look all pure and innocent.

However, I still say this whole thing shouldn't have happened.  Those original memos should not have been released to begin with and that was something the liberal loons wanted so they could start their witch hunts on the Bush administration.  If Obama really wanted to move forward he would have just said what is in the past is in the past.  We can't change what happened but we move forward and will not do so again.  Instead we are belittling our CIA and our troops and putting ourselves in danger while giving terrorists more power to recruit more psychotic people to their cause.