Revelations, King James Version
Posted By: no message on 2008-02-14
In Reply to: What does Nostradamus have to do with the bible? sm - Am I missing something?
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
I love to study Revelations
I have read many, many commentaries on Revelations but I also enjoy researching and studying myself. There are some, some I know personally, who sincerely believe McCain is the anti-Christ. I don't believe that. I do believe the anti-Christ is alive in the world today. According to the Bible, even we believers will be deceived if it were possible. We are to watch and wait. Jesus tells us not to be afraid. I'm here to tell ya I expect the Rapture at any minute and I also believe that some preachers will still be in the pulpits preaching, politicians will be politicing and they'll all be trying to figure out what happened to all those people. I would urge everyone to accept the free insurance policy offered by Jesus Christ. If I understand anything in Revelations, it is that the end times are going to be so far worse than anything we can imagine, I sure wouldn't want to be left behind. Anyone can't help but see if reading the New Testament through and seeking understanding, that the very end times are even now beginning to be played out and this is only the beginning. This could not have possibly been prophysized 2000 years ago without divine intervention.......that makes total sense to me.
I used to didn't think so but I am beginning to think the U.S. will play some kind of major role in the end times, either that or we will all be brought to our knees. EVERY knee shall bow..............the thing is, will Jesus be our defense lawyer when we stand before God or will He be our prosecuting attorney? It'll be one or the other. My heart breaks for those who hear and refuse to believe.
The book of Revelations was written thousands of years ago.
Why do you think it pertains in any way to our time and not to the time in which it was written? Why do people think it is some sort of prophecy for their particular lifetime? Does no one study the history of the bible anymore? I am so saddened and appalled by the lack of theological and historical education in churches. If people don't even understand the documents of their own faiths,then there is never any hope for understand people of another faith.
Sounds like you libs....can hardly wait for Monday revelations....
.
James Dean? No way!
Did not know that
Charley James is racist.
Obsurd to post someone else's trash. I notice that is happening a lot here lately.
Like James Carvell (sp?) said, most of the people there
was in the age range of 72.4 years and white. I saw no diversity in the tea party myself, the few minutes I switched to Fox (that was the only channel I could get that was showing anything about it, not CNN, MSNBC or the local channels) just a bunch of hate mongers going under the disguse of taxation woes. More like anti-Obama group with all those horrible signs I saw on line.
Here are a few quotes from James Cone's book...
the author of Black Liberation Theology...you were not looking at the black liberation theology practiced at Trinity...James Cone is central to that, says so on their website, unless they have taken it down.
Here are a couple of direct quotes:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
"Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it... While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. " Excuse me...WHAT??
That is the racist part.
Here is the Marxist part:
One of the pillars of Obama’s home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America’s economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).
Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
James Montgomery, Esq. is holding a press
conference. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is "candidate #5" and he thinks Blagojevich should step aside and resign and let the Lt. Gov. take over. He states JJ, Jr. is qualified for the position.
He states JJ, Jr. is not guity of anything. He is not worried about any consequences of this except the media frenzy that is being created by this. If the meeting between the Gov. and JJ, Jr. was taped, they have no concern over it.
He (JJ, Jr.) will be speaking with the investigators on Friday or Monday. He will be holding a press conference in 15-16 minutes.
I don't understand. Who do you think planted James T Harris
He's a radio talk show host in Milwaukee.
Rick James died in 2004
of a heart attack. That was too bad. I loved Superfreak.
Sean Penn...Jeremiah Wright...James Carville...to name
X
Miers: Margaret Carlson & James Dobson know. Why doesn't Bush?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=ajuZsQQbuwl4#
With Miers, Bush Gets Fifth Vote Against Roe: Margaret Carlson
Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- What if former President Bill Clinton had nominated his White House counsel, Bernie Nussbaum, to the Supreme Court? I can hear Bill Frist now. What does Slick Willy think he's doing -- filling a job at FEMA?
At first glance, there seems to be no other reason for Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court other than that she is President George W. Bush's Bernie Nussbaum. The notion that a careerist corporate lawyer would have risen to the top of Bush's list if she weren't down the hall is preposterous.
Unlike famous self-selector Dick Cheney, no one suspects the modest Miers looked in the mirror and saw the best replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor staring back at her. Only Bush could see the ``heart'' and ``character'' in Miers that made her the perfect selection. She's been his consigliore, fixer and confidante for more than two decades, and she thinks the way he does.
The fact that Miers is a woman helps enormously. It looks as if Bush listened to wife Laura, who publicly suggested he should replace a woman with a woman. It's far more likely that Laura publicly suggested it because he already had decided to do so. The choice prompts automatic praise from some liberals, excites Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and placates Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Bush's Wants
And notice how tongue-tied a potential critic, Senator Edward Kennedy, was two days ago trying to criticize her.
Miers satisfies a number of Bush's proclivities: his inability to distinguish an insider job from an outside one (White House counsel is the most partisan legal job in government), his desire to reward loyalty and his love of surprise.
Ambitious Republicans should be on notice that the best way to get ahead in the Bush years is to work anonymously inside. It was only because the White House floated Miers's name that she was on anyone's list.
This is not to say that Miers isn't a decent, competent (she may be a crony, but she's no Michael Brown) and respected person. She's devoted to her mother and brothers, a regular churchgoer, an early riser, an avid celebrator of birthdays.
Up the Ladder
In Dallas, she broke the glass ceiling for female lawyers (although she lived the life of a nun to get there). After meeting Bush in 1989, she represented him in matters ranging from his purchase of a fishing cottage in East Texas to questions about his National Guard service.
At the same time, she climbed a steep corporate ladder, becoming co-manager of a huge Dallas firm and chairwoman of the Texas Bar Association, specializing in commercial transactions for large corporations.
She served on the Dallas City Council and headed the Texas Lottery, where, some say, she cleaned up Powerball. She moved with the president to the White House, where the only complaint against her was that she lingered over paperwork too long.
She became counsel to the president when Alberto Gonzales was promoted to attorney general. Gonzales is another loyalist who proved himself to Governor Bush by speed-reading through death row appeals in Texas and redefining torture in the White House for purposes of allowing more of it in Iraq. With her nomination, Miers has gotten an even bigger promotion than her predecessor.
Shocked Conservatives
Some conservatives are loudly shocked that Bush ignored the long list of known quantities among conservative jurists in the mold of his favorites, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It depressed Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Rush Limbaugh was so agitated Cheney gave him an interview to calm his listeners.
What those conservatives are missing is what Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice, see in Miers: a fifth vote for overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush even got Dobson's approval beforehand.
Like Bush, Miers had a late-in-life born-again moment, joining a conservative evangelical church in Dallas where she taught Sunday School.
In an interview in yesterday's Dallas Morning News, Miers's former campaign manager, Lorlee Bartos, said Miers told her when running for city council in 1989 that she had been ``pro-choice in her youth.'' Then, according to Bartos, Miers said she underwent ``a born-again, profound experience'' that caused her to change her mind and oppose abortion.
Keeping the Promise
That conversion fits with her $150 contribution to Texans United for Life in 1989 and her successful effort to get the American Bar Association to move from support for abortion rights to neutral in 1991. After the ABA switched back to a pro- abortion-rights position, Miers in 1993 failed in a bid to have the endorsement put to a vote of the full membership.
At his press conference yesterday, Bush claimed that in all the years he's known Miers he never learned her view on abortion. Dobson and Sekulow will have their hands full reassuring the base about that comment. It's one thing for Chuck Schumer to be left in the dark, quite another for Bush to say he purposely kept himself there.
Didn't he promise the base he'd turn the light on and give them a selection sure to reverse Roe?
I think he has. This time he's tricking Harry Reid.
I used to think the younger Bush was like his dad on abortion -- pro-life for purposes of getting elected, pro-choice otherwise. But I now see him as a victim of Stockholm syndrome, adopting as his own view that of his right-wing captors. My money is on Dobson knowing what Bush claims not to. Assuming Miers is confirmed, it won't be long before we all know.
To contact the writer of this column:
Margaret Carlson at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 5, 2005 00:16 EDT
Here's a better version
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=i2naSzb1psU&feature=related
so your version
of freedom of speech is to allow anonymous people to go on and on and on and on about rumours and innuendos and twisty plots, but when someone expresses a thought that disagrees with yours, they are condemned as drug users. Whole lotta gaul, there binky.
O is just a younger version of the....sm
good ol' boys club, really. Young and vital, yeah, okay. Clever, no.
If he was really clever, and had something of value to offer me, I'd be voting for him.
We should start calling Obama, O'Same.
Anon's version is better.
Gee, I posted the pub version of this
a couple of weeks ago and nobody saw the humor.
My take on the subject, the short version.
Every country has some form of socialized medicine. Ours is comprised of the poor, the elderly, and those giving service to our country (military and political of which number in the millions) both past and present that encompasses their family members as well through different benefit packages depending on where they fall within the system. I believe the major argument is about extending those benefits in a social manner outside of what is already in place.
Reader's Digest version....
Nancy Pelosi is Catholic, Joe Biden is Catholic. Nancy Pelosi made some comment about the Catholic Church being vague on the issue of abortion (those are not her exact words, the jist of it). Anyway, immediately one of the Catholic Church hierarchy said there was nothing vague about the stand of the Catholic Church (and printed what the stand is) and said if a Catholic supported abortion they should not take Communion. It was mentioned again in Denver when someone asked the Archbishop of Denver about it, as Joe Biden does profess to be Catholic, and the Archbishop said that the Catholic Church believes abortion to be wrong and he would speak to Mr. Biden personally. Bottom line, the Catholic Church defines life begins at conception, they are against abortion, and these Catholic higher-ups are saying that if you publically support abortion you should not take Communion. If you Google Pelosi abortion catholic church you can find a lot of it.
I am not Catholic, by the way. Just answering the question. So I can't get into a shouting match with people about what the Catholic church believes or what they should or should not do. I do agree with them, however, that life begins at conception.
And with that, I will finish.
So I guess what the article meant was that the last thing the Obama campaign wants to have to answer is abortion questions when his veep is catholic and the speaker of the house is catholic and they are being spanked by the church over abortion stance? That would be my take on it. I guess now we will see if Biden will throw his catholicism under the bus too?
Here's a funny (and quieter) version:
 Maybe the commercials should all be done by mimes, as well. Then you wouldn't have to hit "MUTE" on your remote every time one of them came on TV. And it might even be interesting!
Reader's Digest version....
where do you think the dirt on Joe came from? a background check instigated by the governor of Ohio. Which tramples all over Joe's civil rights.
Now let's make that pertinent to you. If YOU went to a John McCain rally and placed yourself at a rope line for the sole purpose of asking a "hard" question...and you did ask the hard question...which he answered...and then his answer was not becoming so to do damage control the governor of the state launched a background check of you and made all the information from that public...would YOU not be angry and sue? I darned sure would. As big as liberals are on civil rights, and the ACLU is not in sight, and you certainly aren't defending Joe's civil rights either are you?
I guess that only matters to you when a liberal's civil rights are violated?
sorry came out off center. Fixed version.
I decided to post this at the top since things get lost in the shuffle so quickly here.
Right now there are single, low income mothers (and fathers I would assume) who by the time they get the earned income credit and claim head of household do not owe taxes and actually get back more than they paid in to begin with. So why haven't you been carrying on about that all along? (And when people without children are contributing to this with their tax money, why isn't that considered socialism?)
I don't get all the chaos over this issue.
Your version of the truth is skewed.
The Lebanese militia executed the people in the camps, though Israel took the blame for it. Why don't you go whine about the Lebanese, instead of transposing all your vitriol on Israel? Like most of the world, you seem to have given the Lebanese Phalangists a free pass. If you were so 'outraged' about S&S, why don't you actually hold the people who did the killing accountable?
Or are you unsure of the difference between Israel and Lebanon?
And isn't it odd that hardly anyone in the Arab world gave a rip about Sabra and Shatila? While in Israel there were protests and the Israeli government itself conducted an inquiry. (Which proved that, at most, we were only guilty of not forseeing the potential for the LEBANESE MILITARY to do what they did.)
And 3000 is ridiculous. The Lebanese reports were 450 or something, and the Israeli inquest reported 800 (of which I think 35 were non-soldiers). But it sounds better for your propaganda to make it THOUSANDS, so knock yourself out.
And let's not forget that the S&S massacre, by the Lebanese militia, was in retaliation for the murder of the president of Lebanon. Once again, the Pakistani brought wrath down on themselves and then claimed to be the victims.
And I noticed you didn't mention the ྑ attacks on Palestinian refugee camps.
Why? Oh, I know.
Because those were carried out by Muslims, and that just doesn't suit your cause, does it? So the PLO (Palestinias!) can massacre 2000 people and you're fine with that.
But Israel defends itself by returning fire on the Palestinian enemy and you condemn them.
Curious, don't you think?
nope not referring...but Bob's version is better.........NM
x
I was thinking too, that the right wing version of Christianity...sm
does not necessary practice much *tolerance* much less acceptance or embracing of other religions and/or cultures itself. They should expect to get as good as they give.
Loved the "TV guide" version
Thanks for the countdown to Hillary's speech. Put some comedy into this which is what is needed. I also loved the other post that said a whole Xanax affords you a 2-hour nap. I'm gonna have to get me some of that.
I have learned a few things during this "race". Hillary is driven by power and greed and she won't stop at anything. I've never liked her. Well actually I used to like her when she and Bill were campaigning before he was elected the first time, and I liked her for about a month after she became first lady. Then her true self started to come out and DH and I would be mystified saying, wait a minute...this is not the same lady. I also heard that whenever they hosted dinners at the white house they would tell everyone to be there at a certain time and then they would purposely wait one hour and have everyone gather at the bottom of the steps so they could make their grand entrance for everyone to watch. They seemed to forget they were living in America and the were the president and first lady, not living in England being the King and Queen. So looks like her attitude hasn't changed much. Hillary has always been after uniting the world into a one-world government (or at least Mexico, US & Canada being one country) with her being the leader. Nothing less. I never expected her to end her campaign. After all you never know when such tragedy will hit and she needs to be standing there ready to sleeze in. In the beginning I listened to her because I wanted to know what her plans were if she were to be elected, and it seemed to be more of the same socialist programs she has been trying to pass since being first lady. So I have learned the best way to avoid the stress of listening to her drone on is to hit the mute button as soon as her face "graces" my TV. Now I'm pretty good and can usually hit the channel changer first before a sound from her is even uttered.
Anyway...loved your post. and yes, grilled peach salad doesn't sound too good.
I prefer the Dorothy Parker version
(Look it up, they prolly would not let me use the words here....)
Stimulus plan...the short version....no one talks about....
Obama: I'm going to give you a one-time $500 tax rebate check.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
You're going to owe the govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package.
Stimulus plan...the short version....no one talks about....
Obama: My trillion dollar stimulus package, very dire, we must do something NOW, right now, before it gets worse. Therefore I'm going to......
I'm going to give you a one-time $500 check.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
You're going to owe the U.S. govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package.
When you have a bipartisan version of the bill to view...please enlighten us. nm
x
Site with the latest version of the stimulus bill. sm
Here is the link to the bill:
http://appropriations.house.gov/
Apparently, they are not going to have enough time to read it before the final vote. It is 1,071 pages long and Ms. Pelosi is going on vacation somewhere for eight days.
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478
Maybe we should have a king instead.
Stimulus plan...the short version (fine print)....no one talks about....
Obama: My trillion dollar stimulus package, very dire, we must do something NOW, right now, before it gets worse. (I can sell anything...just tell me what to say.....) Therefore I'm going to......
I'm going to give you a one-time $500 check.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
Each one of you taxpayers are going to owe the U.S. govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package. (2 years down the line or so.....when we have to become fiscally responsible)
One stubborn King.
Looks like we're stuck in Iraq, folks. But wait a minute, you mean there is no connection between between Iraq and 9/11? And I thought the insurgency was in its final throes a year ago? Oh right, it's the *suiciders*. A God-fearing Christian war king wouldn't lie, right? Uh, kind of, uh, I guess, uh, duh, I would surmise, uh, uh.
Bush Tells Press U.S. Won't Leave Iraq While He Is President -- And Says He Won't Campaign in Connecticut
By E&P Staff
Published: August 21, 2006 11:55 AM ET
NEW YORK At a press conference this morning in Washington, D.C., President Bush declared, We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake.” Bush leaves office in January 2009.
He also said, in response to a question about backing the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut --against Democrat Ned Lamont and Independent Joe Lieberman -- that he is going to stay out of Connecticut.
Reminded that a reporter that this was his native state (he was born there), Bush replied, to laughter, Shhh.
He explained further, And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Bush also tied Iraq to 9/11, and then backed off, when asked about the effects of the U.S. invasion as witnessed today.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the 'stir up the hornet's nest' theory, Bush said. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Asked by a reporter what Iraq had to do with 9/11, Bush replied, Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Also on Iraq, Bush explained, The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve the objectives and dreams which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy. The tactics — now — either you say yes it’s important we stay there and get it done or we leave. We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know terrible, signal to reformers across the region. It would say we’ve abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror.
Bush also said at the news conference -- held at the temporary press quarters while the old White House briefing room is being rebuilt -- that if the government in Iraq fails, it could turn the country into a safe haven for terrorists and extremists and give them revenues from oil sales.
He said he agrees with a top military commander that if the U.S. were to do so, the terrorists will follow us here. Bush added those who want an immediate pullout from Iraq are absolutely wrong. He says it takes time to defeat the extremists, but that the U.S. is going to stand with the government of Iraq, and with reformers across the region.
Despite all the grim news, Bush often acted in a very jocular manner. He also had a rare exchange with reporter Helen Thomas on the Lebanon conflict.
Asked by another reporter if he was frustrated by lack of progress in Iraq he replied: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that.
You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists.
A partial transcript follows. To watch a full video of the President's press conference, click here
***
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month -- the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?
BUSH: No, I -- I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of. And therefore we have a plan to help them -- them, the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives.
Part of the plan is political; that is, to help the Maliki government work on reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community.
The other part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they needed to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes, you know, a very robust security plan for Baghdad. We -- you may or not know, Terry -- have moved troops from Mosul Stryker Brigade into Baghdad, all aiming to help the Iraqi government succeed.
You know, the -- I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm -- I'm concerned about that, of course. And I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country, and that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the extremists and the radicals and al Qaeda, and that the security forces remain united behind the government. And one thing that's clear, the Iraqi people are showing incredible courage.
The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century.
You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people -- saying withdrawal now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself and listen to the -- and answer to the will of the people....
Helen?
Q: (Chuckles.)
BUSH: What's so funny about me saying Helen? (Laughter.)
Q: Israel --
BUSH: It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.
Q: Israel broke its word twice on the truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah rockets, but it's Israeli bombs that destroyed Lebanon. Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on view on breaking of your oath for a truce?
BUSH: Hm. Yeah. Thank you.
I -- I'd like to remind people about how this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which -- which -- which bothers me, began; what caused this.
Q: Why drop bombs on -- (off mike)?
BUSH: Wait, let me finish. Let -- let -- may I -- let me -- may I -- please, let me finish the question. It was a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway....I know you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath.
(Laughs.) There you go.
It's -- this never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how she defends herself. Israel is a democratically elected government. They make decisions on their own sovereignty. It's their decision making that is what leads to the attacks they chose. And -- but the world must understand that now is the time to come together to address the root cause of the problem, and the problem is you had a state within a state. You had people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.
And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who are involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon to help the Lebanese government achieve some objectives. One is their ability to exert control over the entire country. Secondly is to make sure that the Hezbollah forces don't rearm, don't get armed from Syria, or Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.
Let's see. We'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be patient.
Q: Thank you.
BUSH: It's kind of like dancing together, isn't it? (Laughter.)
Q: Yeah, kind of.
BUSH: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery, I'll call on you. (Laughter.)
Q: Mr. --
BUSH: Yeah. By the way, seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody gets it. (Laughter.) Never mind.
Q: It's the summertime east Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.)
BUSH: (Laughs.) Yes. Yes, Martha. Sorry.
Q: That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You have continually cited the elections, the new government as progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You have to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?
BUSH: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon; you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.
Q: I'm talking about the strategy.
BUSH: Well, the strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy.
The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, it's important that we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know, terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists. No, we're not leaving. ...
Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete, and we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I -- I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.
And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with plan Baghdad, and that's when we move troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replace them with a Stryker Brigade so we're not -- we increase troops during this time of instability.
Q: Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy is --
BUSH: Sounded like the question to me.
Q: You -- you keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave, but is your strategy to win working, even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before. These things have happened before.
BUSH: If I didn't think it would work, I would change the -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy.
They believe it'll work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government's been in power for, you know, less than six months. And, yeah, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- of -- the reason I've cited it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really -- it's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.
And, you know, obviously I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But incredibly enough, they showed great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.
And this is the campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now. Vote for me. I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they're trying to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It were to be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq....
Q: Good morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the violence in Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals and then al Qaeda. It seems that al Qaeda and foreign fighters are much less of a problem there and that it really is Iraqis versus Iraqis. And when we heard about your meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some of the reporting out of that said you were frustrated, you were surprised, and your spokesman said, Nope, you're determined.
But frustration seems like a very real emotion. Why wouldn't you be frustrated, sir, by what's happening?
BUSH: I'm not -- I do remember the meeting; I don't remember being surprised. I'm not sure what they meant by that.
Q: About the lack of gratitude among the Iraqi people.
BUSH: Oh. No, I think -- yeah -- first of all, to the first part of your question, you know, if you look back at the words of Zarqawi before he was brought to justice, he made it clear that the intent of their tactics in Iraq was to create civil strife. In other words, if you -- look at what he said. He said let's kill Shi'a to get Shi'a to seek revenge and therefore to create this kind of hopefully cycle of violence. Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that the -- at least the evidence indicates that the bombing of the shrine was an al Qaeda plot, all intending to create sectarian violence.
Now, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the more -- I would guess, I would surmise that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda suiciders. No question there's sectarian violence as well. And the challenge is to provide a security plan such that a political process can go forward. And you know, I know -- I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million Iraqis voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society. That's what that means, see. And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long term is to defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one that -- where government, you know, responds to the will of the people. And that's really the fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this 21st century is whether or not we believe as a nation and others believe it is possible to defeat this ideology.
Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically -- but I strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology, they have tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a huge mistake for the United States to leave the region, to concede territory to the terrorists, to not confront them.
And -- and the best way to confront them is to help those who want to leave in free society. Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their government succeed.
Q: But are you frustrated, sir?
BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the -- the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's -- that's -- that's the question.
And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future generations to do so....
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier Do you agree with those in your party, including the vice president, who said or implied Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and the message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad.
BUSH: What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world. That's what we're saying. And it's an honest debate and it's an important debate for Americans to listen to and to be engaged in.
In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are unacceptable. I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself, A -- you know, chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region.
Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged or cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job would done would be -- send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job was done would be a disaster. And that's what we're saying. I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.
It's like the other day I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion, and that's why we're appealing it. And I have no -- you know, look, I understand how democracy works. Quite a little bit of criticism in it, which is fine. That's fine. It's part of the process. But I have every right, as do my administration, to make it clear what the consequences would be of policy, and if we think somebody is wrong or doesn't see the world the way it is, we will continue to point that out to people. And therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply don't see the world the way we do. They say it maybe kind of isolated incidents. These aren't isolated instances; they're tied together. There is a global war going on.
And you know, somebody said, well, this is law enforcement. No, this isn't law enforcement in my judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, you know, singular response to the problem. This is a global war on terror. We're facing, you know, extremists that believe something and they want to achieve objectives. And therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and we must work with others to defeat this enemy.
That's -- that's the call. And we -- in the short run, we got to stop them from attacking us. That's why I give the Tony Blair government great credit and their intelligence officers, and our own government credit for working with the Brits to stop this attack.
But you know something? It's an amazing town, and -- you know, where they say on the one hand, you can't have the tools necessary -- we herald the fact that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the people, and sure enough, a(n) attack would occur and say, how come you don't have the tools necessary to defend the people? That's the way -- that's the way we think around this town. And so, you know, we'll -- Jim, we'll continue to speak out in a respectful way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their -- their strategies or their -- their point of view.
And, you know, for those who say that, well, all they're trying to say is we're not patriotic simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they? What -- what matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different points of view, and there are a lot of people in the Democrat party who believe that the best of course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period, and they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done. But I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation as far as I'm concerned.
Q: And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?
BUSH: I'm going to say out of Connecticut. (Laughter.)
Q: It's your native state, Mr. President! You were born there!
BUSH: Shhh! (Laughter.)
Q: How can you stay --
BUSH: (Chuckles.) I may be the only person -- the only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born.
Do you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched that and dropped it out for everybody to see, particularly since I dissed that just ridiculous-looking outfit. (Laughter.)
Q: Your mother raised you better than that, Mr. President....
BUSH: And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Q: Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy, and people will change their mind about it? Or is the kind of thing you're doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain public support for it?
BUSH: Thank you. Yeah, look -- look, I mean, presidents care about whether people support their policies. I don't -- (inaudible) -- think that I don't care. Of course I care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq. I can understand that. There is -- we live in, you know, a world in which people hope things happen quickly. And this is a situation where things don't happen quickly because there's, you know, a very tough group of people using tactics, mainly the killing of innocent people, to achieve their objective, and they're skillful about how they do this and they also know the impact of what it means on the conscienceness of those of us who live in the free world. They know that. And so I care. I really do. I wish -- you know, and so therefore I must spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can, you know, why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq. And --
Q: A quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mention for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the stir up the hornet's nest theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --
Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.
Now, I said going into Iraq we got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialized. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world was better off without him. Now, the question is, how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS | REPRINTS
SUBSCRIBE TO EDITOR & PUBLISHER »
Related Articles
Former CIA Officer Defends 'Wash Post' Op-Ed in Online Chat
Jan 10, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
Gallup: 55% Now Call Iraq War a 'Mistake'
Feb 22, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Military Times' Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War
Jan 2, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Stars and Stripes' to Launch Weekly U.S. Edition: A Military 'Parade'?
Aug 29, 2005 – Editor and Publisher
Small Oregon Paper Leads Reporting On Missing Local Soldier
Jun 19, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
hroes? Why have I been so badly misinformed?
GWB is the king of big government
US Government has grown 27% under Bush - really O can't be much worse than that!
King of Pork!
And the King is...... Robert Byrd - D-WVA
60 earmarks for a total of 122 million.....
LOL! He was the BUMBLING King!
.
King Obama? sm
I got this in email today and checked out the links. It certainly looks legit.
House Considers Repealing 22nd Amendment
Earlier this year, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. introduced H. J. Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment which prohibits a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama president for life. Not surprisingly, the corporate media currently caught up in Obama-mania has not covered this story.
“Will George W. Bush end up being the last true U.S. President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, ‘once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization ACORN nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.”
See the proof on any of these websites.
Or go to Google and do your own search by typing in H. J. Res. 5.
More:
Why did the 9/11 commission give King
Yet again, you continue to miss the point. He acted ILLEGALLY. For all your blabbing about *intelligence* you have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps it's okay with you that your civil rights are violated all in the name of *protecting the country*. Why is it so hard to get the required permission from judges?
The madness of King George
Here's another example of King George's *work*
Bush Quietly Says No Need Follow Patriot Act Oversight Measure
White House Says Signing Statement Is Normal and Constitutional
Analysis
By GEORGE SANCHEZ
March 24, 2006 — - When President Bush renewed the revised USA Patriot Act on March 9, Congress added oversight measures intended to keep the federal government from abusing the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize documents.
The additional provisions require law enforcement officials to safeguard all Americans' civil liberties and mandate that the Justice Department keep closer track of how often and in what situations the FBI could use the new powers, and that the administration regularly provide the information to Congress.
However, it was not known at the time that the White House added an addendum stating that the president didn't need to adhere to requirements that he inform members of Congress about how the FBI was using the Patriot Act's expanded police powers.
After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discreetly issued a ''signing statement, an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.
Presidential Power in Question
In doing so, it appears the president once again cited his constitutional authority to bypass the law under certain circumstances.
For example, after The New York Times reported last year that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, the president said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.
When Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in U.S. custody, Bush signed off on it but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Bush's actions have provoked increased grumbling in Congress from both parties. Lawmakers have pointed out that the Constitution gave the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute them.
On Thursday Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, took issue with Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act. He said it represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.
''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, Leahy said. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. Leahy voted against renewing the Patriot Act this year after sponsoring the bill back in 2001.
The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required.
''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven inspector general reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act's renewal was viewed as a rare victory for the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives approved the measure by a vote of 280-138 after the Senate passed the controversial bill 89-10.
JM was scheduled for Larry King the
other night but he got upset because they were asking questions about SP.....
Rush...the new pub king....ROFL (sm)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/phil-gingrey-gop-congress_n_161964.html
LOL! Why aren't you upset with King George?
Oh, I forgot. It's the neocon MO to bash the messenger and defend the actor.
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227238 Mary Carey to Dine with President Bush By: Chip Baker Posted: 1:15 pm PDT 5-18-2005 LOS ANGELES - Porn star and former gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey will be joining her boss, Kick Ass Pictures president Mark Kulkis, in attending a dinner with President Bush in Washington, D.C. on June 14.
Coretta King Rejected War (period).
We must remember it was Coretta's funeral, so sentiments were made in HER honor, NOT SUGAR COATED FOR THE BUSHES.
|
|
|
|
Coretta King Rejected War |
Editorial |
|
President Bush may have tried to claim a little bit of the legacy of Coretta Scott King with a warm and generous reference to her at the opening of his State of the Union address this week, but it should be remembered that King was a foe of this president and a frequent critic of his abuses of power.
On the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, King celebrated the anniversary of the birth of her late husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., by recalling that the slain civil rights leader had been outspoken in his opposition to unnecessary and unwise wars.
We commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. as a great champion of peace who warned us that war was a poor chisel for carving out a peaceful tomorrow. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. Martin said, 'True peace is not just the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice,' Coretta King told a crowd that had gathered at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church. She continued, May his challenge and his example guide and inspire us to seek peaceful alternatives to a war with Iraq and military conflict in the Middle East.
Coretta King continued to speak out against the Bush administration's policy of pre-emptive war-making, and she always make it clear that she disagreed passionately with this president.
Coretta Scott King ponders a reporter's question in front of a painting of her late husband, civil-rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., in this Jan. 14, 2003 file photo from Atlanta.
When Bush showed up to lay a wreath at the Rev. King's grave in January 2004, Coretta King was polite but pointed in her remarks. Before greeting Bush, she said at another event at Ebenezer Baptist that she sided with those who opposed the war rather than supported it, and she lamented the fact that those people are not in charge of making the policies of their nations. If they were, she added, I think we would have more peace and more justice.
There will be many celebrations of Coretta Scott King's brave and inspiring life, as well as her rich legacy of activism.
But none will be so appropriate as those that recall her absolute opposition to this president's illegal and immoral war-making.
© 2006 The Capital Times |
|
|
The anniversary of Martin Luther King's...
"I have a dream" speech. And it was not condescending. He was being honest. It is a historic day. On this day in 1963 is when King delivered that speech, and today the first African American man will accept the nomination of a major party for President of the United States. It is historical and McCain was taking the high road.
By any chance, you catch Larry King?
To begin with, I was a pregnant teen and most definitively will be voting for Obama. The other unwed mother poster is voting for Obama too in case you hadn't noticed. Bully, fear and threat tactics are not effective.
His candidacy is alive and well and has nothing to do with this issue and how it is going to play out. Tonight, Larry King's panel were talking this subject up one side and down the other. Every single issue that was raised today in these posts on this board were touched upon....every single one. SP is in the political arena now. Unfortunately, she has put her daughter there too. The issues surrounding this will be politicized. You can't stop this train.
Yah remember the Rodney King riots? (sm)
The original OJ not-guilty verdict because the jury was too afraid of another Rodney King-like riot were he actually convicted?
I just hope Biden is qualified to be president. I honestly don't see Obama actually becoming president or maybe that's just wishful thinking, take it however you want.
Who watched Larry King last night?
They were talking about the idea of implementing a stimulus package for (in particular) the auto industry. Well, turns out that they have already been trying to pass a stimulus package and I'll give you one guess as to who's blocking that. In the meantime if the auto industry goes down that's another 2-3 million jobs. Nice going Bush!
Martin Luther King was a republican, Mrs. M
nm
No tank you - sofa king wee todd id
|
