Roosevelt is the reason we're in this mess
Posted By: I do know history 101,,,, sm on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: American history 101. FDR. Remember him? - No amount of insult will change the fact that
xx
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You're a mess. nm
nm
They're busy trying to fix the mess the House Of Greed
You're right. I wouldn't attempt to reason this through with anyone...nm
x
Yeah, and you're ALWAYS the voice of reason
Oh brother!
Let me try this again. You're demanding that I comment about France for some reason.
Have it your way, though. I certainly have better things to do. Our side of this conversation is over. I'll continue to discuss this with others who don't have a "French fixation" though.
And Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his sm
grave about the so-called Republicans nowdays...
omg. Lincoln and roosevelt. Nuff said. nm
nm
Maybe because she is not Teddy Roosevelt and it isn't 1900?
How Obama is like Teddy Roosevelt.
1. Attended both Harvard and Columbia.
2. Shared interest in and promotion of civil service.
3. As an author: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors "Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition."
4. Candidate of change/reform. http://obama4usa.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/major-endorsements-for-barack-obama/October 19, 2008, Bryan College Station Texas Eagle newspaper endorsement: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan — these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be. Barack Obama is such a leader.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/331720/barack_obama_following_the_foot_steps.html?page=2&cat=8 "Barack Obama Following the Foot Steps of Theodore Roosevelt Who was a Reformer"
5. Champion of worker's rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements#Labor_unions to check out Labor union and union leadership endorsements. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_wrights.cfm to find a nifty summary of Obama's initiatives and policies on worker's rights.
6. Advocate of "ordinary citizen." Obama's appeal to the middle class is legendary and the current bone of contention on the McCain Joe the Plumber campaign trail. 'Nuff said.
7. Obama on Trustbusting: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/aai-%20Presidential%20campaign%20-%20Obama%209-07_092720071759.pdf
8. On corporate corruption: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
9. On regulation: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-27-economy-speech_N.htm "Fix Markets Regulations." Specifically relative to interstate commerce, the following are bills either sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama: Senate Bill (SB) 767 and SB 768 on fuel economy, SB 1306 on product safety and hazardous materials, SB 2132 on product safety prohibiting lead content . Regulation in E-commerce, credit card, banking, mortgage lending sectors.
10. Universal health care and national health insurance. Well known support, as is his support for conservation and the environment.
11. Judicial reform that would restore integrity of judicial discretion.
LOL.. yeah, Roosevelt was "on television"
nm
How Palin pales in comparison to Teddy Roosevelt.
Let's start by describing Roosevelt's accomplishments by age 42:
1. Graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard in 1880, 22nd out of 177, after which he enrolled in Columbia Law School. He was reputed to have a photographic memory.
2. New York Assemblyman 1881, where he served for 3 years, distinguishing himself as an ardent reformer. Wrote more bills than any other state legislator.
3. At age 23, published his first book, The Naval War of 1812, establishing him as a respected author. He would go on to pen 35 books, 4 of which were written before age 42, including an exhaustive 4-volume historical account of westward expansion.
4. Appointed by President Harrison to Civil Service Commission (age 31), later to become its president, 1889-1895.
5. Director of NY Police Department, 1894-1897.
6. Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President McKinnley, 1897 in preparation for the Cuban War.
7. Went to Cuba as lieutenant colonel of a volunteer cavalry where he became famous as the leader of the Rough Riders, returning as a Spanish-American War hero.
8. Governor of State of New York, 1898, which was not avast wilderness, even at the tturn of the century.
9. Vice President, 1900.
10. Succeeded to presidency after McKinley assassination.
More striking differences become apparent when examining what KIND of republican reformer he was:
1. He was a PROGRESSIVE reformer in regard to workers' rights and ordinary citizen in general.
2. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved 44 corporate monopolies....can you say trust busting regulation? Was never accused of being a SOCIALIST. We could use a healthy dose of a modern version of that traditional American approach in the 21st century.
3. Square Deal advocated FAIR negotiations between workers and business/industry and REGULATION of interstate commerce.
4. First US President to call for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE and NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. Nope, he was not a communist either.
5. Promoted conservation movement and not once tried to block endangered species designation.
6. Sought judicial reform with regard to their bias against labor unions (gasp).
7. Fractured republican party via Bull Moose party to the point that democrat Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912.
8. Nobel Peace Prize recipient 1906.
When attempting to compare Palin to a great American leader, you might want to choose someone a tad less like Obama next time.
Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.
The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.
And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!
I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!
Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).
I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
This is a really BIG mess....
instead of talk radio or Gore's electrice bill. I am referring to Libby's trial,
Well....he was convicted of perjury and if he in fact did lie under oath to the grand jury, he should go to jail. That being said...why not pardon him? Clinton was cited for exactly the same things...lying under oath (perjury) before a grand jury and obstruction of justice. He is free as a bird, finished his term as President, making money hand over fist....yes, for that reason alone I think Libby should be pardoned to level the playing field again. If liberals were happy that Clinton walked, they should not scream bloody murder if Bush does pardon Libby. Because it is the very same thing and would expose the hypocrisy BIG time. But, that has never stopped them before, has it?
the firing of 8 judges,
I am having a hard time finding much usable information about this. What I can find are various blogs that lean hard right or hard left and not much fact. I saw where it was stated that they were fired for cause, citing one refused to file death penalty cases, one refused to file immigration cases, yada yada. But I did not really find anything compelling and not in a blog that compelled me to fall either way on this. I don't see any reason to think they were not fired for cause...don't see anything in writing to convince me either.
Pete Domineci,
If you are talking about the firing of David Iglesias, I am not much buying it that the administration fired him because of something he did or did not do back during the presidential election. I can't find any evidence to prove that. It is of concern to me that Iglesias held that information all this time, and now that he has been fired brings it forward. He said himself, or at least was quoted as saying, he had no proof that his firing was related to that. It sounds like sour grapes for being fired to me. Typical, human reaction to being fired. But because it is a political position, the sour grapes are made public.
the unnecessary and ever rising numbers of dead - everywhere, 40 towns in Vermont calling for impeachment (of course this won't go anywhere but the gesture is telling),
Nothing much to say about this. Wars kill people. Most of the Iraqi deaths are at the hands of other Arabs. You can blame that on America if you wish. I choose not to. More Iraqis are coming forward and fingering the bad guys, and that is what it is going to take. We have had a lot of successes. Of course, you have to watch Fox to see them. CNN studiously ignores such things as it does not fit their agenda. As do the networks. I hope you are not going to suggest that Fox has a soundstage where they fake the reports.
a pardon for Libby (and does he have to admit guilt to be pardoned which he has not done), the fact that Libby was the attorney to the much maligned Marc Rich who was pardoned by Clinton, which was also much maligned. Was Scooter as evil as Clinton for having defended him in his dealings with Iran and his tax evasion as Clinton was for pardoning him ?? If all this was just about infighting between the FBI and the administration and George Tenet, then why did Libby lie at all; wouldn't be important enough to lie about, IMHO. Throwing it out there.
This whole thing smacks of getting back, to me. More interesting to me than Scooter and Marc, is Fitzgerald and Comey. Fitzgerald and Comey were both prosecutors working on the Marc Rich case. Obviously they were not happy when they were on the eve of an indictment when Rich ran (wonder who leaked to him that the indictment was imminent) and were even more UNhappy when Clinton pardoned him. And who should be now prosecuting Scooter? And who did most of the investigation? Why, that would be Fitzgerald and Mr. Comey. Which is why I think they went for Scooter's throat and did not indict the man who REALLY leaked the information, Richard Armitage. Payback in politics is hael, my friend!!
No he isn't. He's trying to mess up
my debate party!
Yep...that's a mess....(sm)
I will have to admit though that I don't know that much about that aspect of it. I do know there is some controversy surrounding the whole Hezbullah vs Hamas and Lebanon vs Gaza. I obviously have some catching up to do on that one...LOL.
I do think, however, that Hamas kind of got a bad rap because they couldn't keep up with the demands for food, housing, etc, and particularly the distribution of aid....? However, I also think that it's kind of hard to keep that flow of aid going when Israel is attacking incoming ships that carry that aid. With that and the constant bombardment from Isreal in a military sense on the ground, I think it kind of put them on shaky ground to begin with.
I think in the end the success of whoever wins will be very dependent upon us being able to control Israel.
The only guy that made a mess is
So the ends justify the means when it come to rebpulicans, abuse of power and the ethically challenged ethics maid? Said it once, will say it again. Divorce/custody issues are typically played out in family courts without interference and manipulation of the Governor's office. Marginalized? Is that the best spin you can think of for cold, hard fact? No backs up against the wall here. You see, JM has made life a whole lot easier by his latest senior moment. This decision smacks of "he just doesn't get it." Alienated women with his token showcase and moved the party straight back to the far right. If there were any doubt that he would be 4 more years of the same before, now it is plain as the nose on his face. We knew he would self destruct sooner or later, but noone expected it would come in the form of his VP pick. Nothing petty and vindictive about it, but if you feel the need to insult, bash and vent a little, by all means, knock yourself out. You, like your candidates, are underestimating the Clintons, their supporters and their party. She may have the same genitalia, but she is about as far from Hillary as it gets.
why do you care what I think so much? (No/mess)
@
More on the Acorn mess....
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-democratic-acorn-bailout/
What a mess! More bad news about ....sm
the economy. Cooporations starting to lay off and anticipate many more lay offs next year, affecting local and state governments, police, fire and rescue operations due to a fall in tax revenues, precipitating more foreclosures. Wow, all frowning faces and gloom and doom. I really think we are on a runaway train into the second great depression, something we have no idea about other than stories from our parents and grandparents. Very scary. I think that we MTs are pretty secure in our jobs but so many people's jobs are at risk. 
To top it all off, the treasury department has decided to not use our tax bailout money they way they promised, rather are taking a different tactic without telling any of us or congress. I sure hope they know what they are doing because I sure don't understand it. 
Where are you hearing this mess? It's
absolutely not true. What, 1 or 2 whackjob republican electorates are nervous about it? LOL.
The BC is a NON-ISSUE, he won by a large margin, and he will be inaugurated. This has all gotten so SILLY.
Yeh, your' re right, he's gone and look at the mess he left!
But yet you people begrudge O taking his wife out for for dinner and theater (which he paid for), promoting and supporting the arts. How dare he? Ticket sales tripled the nights following their appearance there. I'm quite sure the theater industry didn't hate the boost they got from that appearance. Get over it. Focus on something that is actually important.
what a mess bush has created
Iraq's Fig Leaf Constitution
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 30 August 2005
Who lost Iraq? Someday, as a fragmented Iraq spirals further into religious madness, terrorism and civil war, there will be a bipartisan inquiry into this blundering intrusion into another people's history.
The crucial question will be why a preemptive American invasion - which has led to the deaths of nearly 2,000 Americans, roughly 10 times as many Iraqis, the expenditure of about $200 billion and incalculable damage to the United States' global reputation - has had exactly the opposite effect predicted by its neoconservative sponsors. No amount of crowing over a fig leaf Iraqi constitution by President Bush can hide the fact that the hand of the region's autocrats, theocrats and terrorists is stronger than ever.
The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state, said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds. And, he could have added, a pro-Iranian state that will be repressive and unstable.
Think this is an exaggeration? Consider that arguably the most powerful Shiite political party and militia in today's Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its affiliated paramilitary force, the Badr Brigade, was not only based in Iran but was set up by Washington's old arch-foe, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and was recognized by Tehran as the government in exile of Iraq.
Or that former exile Ahmad Chalabi is now one of Iraq's deputy prime ministers. The consummate political operator managed to maintain ties to Iran while gaining the devoted support of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, charming and manipulating Beltway policymakers and leading U.S. journalists into believing that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Chalabi is thrilled with the draft constitution, which, if passed, will probably exponentially increase tension and violence between Sunnis and Shiites. It is an excellent document, said Chalabi, who has been accused by U.S. intelligence of being a spy for Iran, where he keeps a vacation home.
What an absurd outcome for a war designed to create a compliant, unified and stable client state that would be pro-American, laissez-faire capitalist and unallied with the hated Iran. Of course, Bush tells us again, this is progress and an inspiration. Yet his relentless spinning of manure into silk has worn thin on the American public and sent his approval ratings tumbling.
Even supporters of the war are starting to realize that rather than strengthening the United States' position in the world, the invasion and occupation have led to abject humiliation: from the Abu Ghraib scandal, to the guerrilla insurgency exposing the limits of military power, to an election in which our guy - Iyad Allawi - was defeated by radicals and religious extremists.
In a new low, the U.S. president felt obliged to call and plead with the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, Abdelaziz Hakim, to make concessions to gain Sunni support. Even worse, he was summarily rebuffed. Nevertheless, Bush had no choice but to eat crow and like it.
This is a document of which the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can be proud, he said Sunday, through what must have been gritted teeth. After all, this document includes such democratic gems as Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation, and No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam, as well as socialist-style pronouncements that work and a decent standard of living are a right guaranteed by the state. But the fact is, it could establish Khomeini's ghost as the patron saint of Iraq and Bush would have little choice but to endorse it.
Even many in his own party are rebelling. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur, said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel last week, one of a growing number of Republicans who get that we should start figuring out how we get out of there.
Not that our what-me-worry? president is the least bit troubled by all this adverse blowback from the huge, unnecessary gamble he took in invading the heart of the Arab and Muslim worlds. What is important is that the Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion, not at the barrel of a gun, Bush said.
Wrong again, George. It was the barrel of your gun that midwifed the new Iraq, which threatens to combine the instability of Lebanon with the religious fanaticism of Iran.
Let's see if we can make a little sense out of this mess....
You said:
The subject is not the name of the proceedings, the intent of the inquiry, whether or not you think he should or should not be impeached or any of the other distractions you have thrown up in this thread.
Answer: I know what Dennis Kucinich says. It is not new. I have heard it. I have heard it from any number of Democrats. All I am saying is if they think they have the evidence to impeach him, why the heck don't they do it?? That is not a distraction, it is a valid question. I don't care what they call it...all I said was, what they are doing now, even the chairman said was not an impeachment hearing. HE said it, I didn't, so why don't you accuse HIM of throwing up distractions and circling around, yada yada. Perhaps because when Democrat throws up distractions and circles around that is fine in your books??
You said: You circled around the subject when you thought you could gain some traction/advantage when trying to refute the accusations against Bush regarding lying about WMDs/yellowcake uranium intelligence, trying to make it appear that total exoneration would be a piece of cake..as if that were the only thing the democrats have on the table.
Answer: Geez, stop putting words in my mouth and assigning agendas to me I don't have. In going and doing some of the research you shouted at me to do, I found excerpts from the impeachment-trolling-factfinding-whatEVER the heck makes you happy to call it committee, I found where one of the lone Republicans on the committee made mention of a document recently declassified by the CIA that supposedly corroroborates (and I said supposedly because I don't know, because I haven't seen it, because it is part of the blacked out stuff) Bush's story about Niger and yellowcake and exposes Joe Wilson's story about the same. I did not say it myself, and I did not make it up. One of the committee members said it. Yes, I would be interested in it. I would be interested in any evidence Kucinich has other than speechifying about it. That is why I would be interested in a real impeachment trial, if that is what they want, so we can hear from ALL witnesses, see ALL the documents, and make our OWN decisions. I want more that Kucinich's word and Vincent Bugliosi's book. I want the CIA declassified document and the whole ball of wax. I want people under oath when they testify. Although, after Bill Clinton, even that is not always helpful since he chose to lie anyway, but still...not everyone is willing to perjure himself/herself. If that means I have my head in the sand, so be it. LOL.
YOU SAID: The subject is the CONTENT of the hearings, otherwise known as the ISSUES. It makes no difference where you get them from. DK is the best when it comes to explaining the positions concisely. The prosecuting parties are all amazingly consistent in their identification of what their contentions are and how they back them up.
ANSWER: Well excuse me, but didn't I read the hearings were closed and blacked out? So how do you know what the content is??? As I said, I have heard what Kucinich says. It is not new with him. I just need more than his word for it.
YOU SAID: What you are refusing to do is examine the other side of the story (that is to say, the specifics as laid out by the democrats)...that side of the story that takes you out of that safe place where you always stay...
ANSWER: Look that that finger in the mirror, points right back at you. You are completely unwilling to entertain any thought that you, and these Democrats, might just be wrong. If I was terrified, as you state, or did not want to hear anything about Bush maybe being guilty, I would not be hawking for his impeachment. What you are doing is make me the enemy, classic attack mode. Turn that mode off and try to hear me this time: I DON'T KNOW if Bush lied. NOBODY does. I don't know if he did or he didn't, but I DO KNOW that I need more than Dennis Kucinich's word or interpretation of whatever evidence he has to believe that Bush lied. You are so consumed with hatred for the man and the so-called right wing that you are ready to move right to "you're guilty." You believe he is guilty and you have not heard any of the defense. You do not WANT to hear any of the defense. How, pray tell, is your attitude any different from the one you accuse me of? If this was a Democrat president instead of a republican president, would you be on here righteously indignant presupposing his guilt based on a Republican-dominated committee and a lawyer's book who was not even close to the events that took place? Of course you wouldn't! You would be here saying it was a railroad hatchet job. Don't bother denying it. It would ring pretty hollow.
YOU SAID: that support your arguments, making nice with those who agree with your ideas, the condescending "let me enlighten you" instructions (i.e., "read up on Marxism, but let me interpret it for you if you don't see it my way" passages) and the inevitable name-calling, innuendoes, half-truths, misprepresentations, statements taken out of context, jumping to far-fetched conclusions when making degrading statements about democrats, and the vitriol that issues forth in your endless Obama bashing.
ANSWER: Talk about throwing up a distraction. As to condescending, when that tone is used with me I respond in kind. If you don't like it, don't condescend to me.
As far as that other litany, it would apply to Dennis Kucinich and Vincent Bugliosi as well. If they have documentation and not opinion to back up what they are saying, then why (and please stop dodging this fundamentally important question as you have so artfully what, three times now?): If they have the evidence, all these "prosecutors," why don't they go to trial?? That is a simple question. Answer it, please. As I said, I would WELCOME a trial, where BOTH sides are heard, under oath, all the documents in evidence, and no opinion, just fact. I mean that. And if it was proven that Bush lied, that he cooked intelligence, abused executive privilege or whatever and they convict him he should be thrown out of office (which would be largely symbolic, doncha think, since he has what, about 3-4 months left? Sheesh). I have no problem with that. My question is why don't they do it?? And if they are unwilling to, why are you so incensed at me? It is not MY fault they won't impeach him.
You can sure see the splinter in my eye, but the timber in your own seems to escape you.
As to Obama bashing, I gave opinion on what are known facts. His association with Reverend Wright...his church's association with Louis Farrakhan...his church's black liberation theology...his radical way left pro abortion stance...all facts. There is plenty of McCain bashing going on too. I don't hear any righteous indignation on your part concerning McCain bashing. So it is okay to bash Republicans? I see.
YOU SAID: Obstruction is something the right-wingers have down to an art. You have mastered well.
Answer: Ahem. Seems like the Democrats are the obstructive ones. Last time I looked, Pelosi was a Democrat, and she is obstructing an impeachment. Take your rant to her where it might do some good. I would tell them if you think you have the goods, bring it on. Ms. Pelosi is obstructing that.
You said: At the same time, it is an extremely transparent and ineffective way to address issues that are vital to our country.
Answer: Issues vital to our country? Impeaching a president who only has 3 more months in office is vital to our country? For everyone to just assume dennis Kucinich and these prosecutors are telling the truth and the accused has no opportunity for defense? That sounds more like Russia than America.
You said: Clearly, you are unwilling to attempt to look at, let alone participate in any kind of real debate that excludes the tactics you use in these posts.
Answer: Debate involves both sides being willing to hear both sides. You are not willing to entertain the thought of Bush not being guilty. In fact, absolutely will not entertain it. I, on the other hand, said let's have the impeachment trial and get it all out in the open once and for all, both sides. That sounds like I am very willing to hear both sides. Unlike you.
YOU SAID: That would involve actually knowing what you are talking about...and the only way to get that is to peek inside the hearings and focus on the ISSUES under discussion. Somehow this seems to terrify you. No problem. There are plenty of places beyond this forum where really informed discourse is available.
Answer: Peeking inside hearings where only one side is presented is NOT debate, and it is NOT the way to find the truth. Anyone with a reasoning OPEN mind sees that. Impeachment would be televised. We would hear testimony first hand. We could see documents first hand. None of this behind the door whispering stuff. Get it ALL out in the open. THAT seems to terrify you, not me. Seems to terrify Democrats, otherwise Nancy Pelosi would not be blocking it. That is common sense.
As to knowing what I am talking about...you only know what Dennis Kucinich is talking about and what little leaks out of those closed hearings. One-sided without anything from the other side. That is decided UNdemocratic for someone who calls himself/herself a Democrat. I am just amazed that you cannot see that everything you accuse me of, you are in spades. LOL. Amazing.
You said: Go head. Stick your head in the sand, and keep it there, if that's what makes you happy. That's what a comfort zone is...a world where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know.
Answer: Sheesh. Dial it back a notch will ya. You just described yourself to a tee. "Your comfort zone where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know." You have basically been lecturing to me paragraph after paragraph that you know all there is to know, YOU know the truth, and I just refuse to see it. You say honest debate, yet you have no intention of entertaining any such thing. If you did, you would want to hear both sides in an open forum. You don't. You want a select committee comprised of majority partisan Democrats calling witnesses they know are going to support their aim without asking anyone who might refute any of it...come ON. Talk about transparent. Lynch mob mentality, hang him and ask questions later. All this drama over a man who is leaving office in 3 months. All this anger....
I will try to say this again, and maybe you can dial back your disdain and condescencion just long enough to hear it...I have stated emphatically and will state it again: I DON'T know all there is to know. I have heard stuff from both sides, both sides equally convinced of innocent and guilt, but neither able to prove it definitively. Which is why I said...impeach the man. If you feel like they have the goods, then you should be lobbying the Democratic leadership not to block impeachment, little obstructionists that they are. Let's get it ALL out in the open. Both sides. ALL of it. And if they are not willing to do it...then in my opinion, they should fold their tent and HUSH. And that is the difference between you and me...if this was a Democratic President I would be saying the same thing to a Republican committee...if you aren't going to do anything other than a political exercise, fold up your tents and HUSH.
And I bet you voted for George who got us in this mess.
Hiliary could have handled this. Obama is our only hope. Taxes is the issue people and you know what mccan't will do - give the rich their tax breaks along with corp america, cut funding to states, causing state taxes to go up. Oh yeah, McCann is not working for you, and your support of him is a slap in the face of middle america.
It didn't bother them to cause this mess....
won't bother them to perpetuate it. Amazing...and people just lap it up. Amazing, ain't it?
distraction. don't let it mess your mind.
nm
It was too lenient on the ones that caused this mess (sm)
That's why it didn't pass last week. It was too one-sided.
There is absolutely nothing in the entire mess this
Their greed, and the greed of those who so stalwartly support every move they make, is the root of most of the problems we face today.
It's not my party. Clean up your own mess....
oh...what am I thinking. You don't see any mess. Got it.
Don't have a range rover; 6 cylinder jeep. No leather. don't smoke, never have.
Class envy is really ugly.
The subprime mess sm and iraq too
Really started about 5 years ago when the mortgage brokers were given money incentives to sign on subprime even to people who qualified for conventional loans. They fraudulently did not offer the conventional loans to people who didn't even need subprime. It was all about the commissions. And your precious GW is the one who kicked off the loans with NO DOWN PAYMENT...!!! He saw this mess coming and he figured SS dollars going into wall st, which he TRIED TO DO in 2005 but got voted down... he figured our SS money would bail out Wall St.
Yes, so I do blame him. I also blame him for pretending this Iraq war was for our security when it was about oil and cheney getting richer and oil men getting richer. $350 million a day and thousands of young people's lives lost. For what? He pretended there were WMD which there were not. He pretended it was related to 911, which it was not. Bunch of dips following him, waving a flag, when he has dragged our beautiful country way down.
I found this interesting too. What a mess this will
nm
It will take a long time to get out of this mess.
That is for certain. I don't blame it on the unions though. My family (not my husbands) have been involved with unions for years and I see it as a positive thing.
I do have a problem with the higher-ups in these companies pulling in millions and using company jets, etc. for personal needs. Instead of laying off 50 factory workers they could do away with 5 high-paid workers. It's a well known statement that the higher up you get, the more you deligate and less work you do - in any company. The middle class is falling away and this needs to stop. Perfect example, the guy from GM (I think) making his way to ask for bailout money in the companies private jet. What kind of hotel you think these people have been staying in while fighting to stay out of bankruptcy - probably enough to pay a few factory workers wages for a month or two.
He was hired to SOLVE the mess.
nm
and you blame Obama for this mess?
Oh... God forbid... going on Leno resulted in thousands of dead and more thousands maimed Americans in an illegal war that put us where we are now. Americans forgotten. Earth forgotten. Money he does not have? GW spent money he did not have to murder. At least Obama's intentions are inherently not evil.
So much more I could say, but it would go on deaf ears.
The present mess has nothing to do with George Bush...
and everything to do with Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank and the other Democrats who consistently blocked reforming of Fannie and Freddie. They deserve most of the credit for this fiasco.
Don't forget the Milwaukee voucher mess
From 2005:
An investigation this June by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found problems in some voucher schools that—even to those numb to educational horror stories—break one's heart. No matter how severe one's criticisms of the Milwaukee Public Schools, nothing is as abysmal as the conditions at some voucher schools.
Some of them had high school graduates teaching students. Some were nothing more than refurbished, cramped storefronts. Some did not have any discernable curriculum and only a few books. Some did not teach evolution or anything else that might conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
At one school, teacher and students were on their way to McDonald's. At another, lights were turned off to save money. A third used the back alley as a playground.
One school is located in an old leather factory, another in a former tire store, a third is above a vacuum cleaner shop and hair salon.
As one of the reporters said, "I think we expected from the start to see some strong schools and some weak ones. But seeing firsthand the effect that troubled schools can have on children's futures and lives was disturbing."
Overall, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel estimated that about 10 percent of the schools visited demonstrate "alarming deficiencies" without "the ability, resources, knowledge or will to offer children even a mediocre education."
That's a cautious estimate. First of all, reporters made pre-arranged visits, giving schools time to put their best faces forward. Second, nine of the program's 115 schools —an additional 8 percent—refused to allow reporters in.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/voucher_report/v_free201.shtml
Obama didn't create this mess
I am amazed at the criticism directed at Obama regarding the current economic crisis.
1. Did he run up our huge debt with China?
2. Who blew billions on Wall Street without any oversight - Bush/Paulson - ring a bell?
3. Who gave us the stimulus checks last year that the government couldn't really afford to give?
4. Who got us into a $10 billion a month Iraq war when our allies and the UN Security Council could see that the "evidence" was total b.s.? Wasn't it McCain who said we would keep at it 100 years? How much has that and would that fiasco cost us?
I speak as a former Republican/turned independent. Both parties have sold us down the river to appeal to the interests of big multinationals interested in "free trade". How could we possibly hope to keep our economy healthy by allowing trade with people making pennies an hour? Our own profession is a microcosm of the maladies caused by the "global economy". We make far less and work much harder - finding it difficult to pay bills. It had to crash sometime.
I agree with you that this stimulus package will probably not do the trick, but to blame Obama for it is ridiculous. It would be the equivalent of having been sent in a barrel over the side of Niagara Falls, and halfway down Obama tries to figure out a way to soften the landing. He didn't put us in the situation - and maybe he can't get us out.
One thing is certain - McCain could not have done better. He would have kept us bleeding billions in Iraq that we simply do not have.
We are likely going to see runaway inflation. The government is committing itself to compounding the effects of the disaster - starting with Bush allowing Paulson to throw billions to his Wall Street buddies and the continuing effort to stave off the inevitable crash of our economy. The only way they can afford these megabillion plans is to print more money - and the money will become worth a lot less. Get ready for a $100 loaf of bread.
"hired to solve this mess" ,..,,. that's pathetic
x
And we bail out Wall St. who created this mess.....
Didja watch House of Cards? That spelled it out pretty succinctly. People were sucked into mortgages they couldn't afford, they were told they could refinance in 1-5 years and keep the mortgage payments they could afford - THEY WERE LIED TO. The bankers and Wall St. had to keep that Ponzi scheme going.......pizza delivery drivers were selling mortgages!! The more they sold, the more money they made - upwards $20,000 per month - they sucked people into refinancing to put cash in their pockets because housing values were skyrocketing.......and it all crashed down. So who did we bail out first? The banks and Wall St.............not the people who got screwed by con men. And these people were not POOR - they just got sucked into buying more house than they could afford. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
HELLOOO...It took your guy a LOT longer to make the mess!
...don't you worry about it.
More on Barney Frank...he is SO dirty in this economic mess....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html
Recent history -- what started TODAY'S mess:
I agree that we should stay OUT of this, though I fear the timing of this all was purposely designed to drag us into it right before Inauguration Day.
Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen
A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.
Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.
Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.
One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.
"This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat," the Israeli military said in a statement. "There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire, rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organisation."
In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce".
"The Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds," he said.
The attack comes shortly before a key meeting this Sunday in Cairo when Hamas and its political rival Fatah will hold talks on reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government. It will be the first time the two sides have met at this level since fighting a near civil war more than a year ago.
Until now it had appeared both Israel and Hamas, which seized full control of Gaza last summer, had an interest in maintaining the ceasefire. For Israel it has meant an end to the daily barrage of rockets landing in southern towns, particularly Sderot. For Gazans it has meant an end to the regular Israeli military raids that have caused hundreds of casualties, many of them civilian, in the past year. Israel, however, has maintained its economic blockade on the strip, severely limiting imports and preventing all exports from Gaza.
Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, had personally approved the Gaza raid, the Associated Press said. The Israeli military concluded that Hamas was likely to want to continue the ceasefire despite the raid, it said. The ceasefire was due to run for six months and it is still unclear whether it will stretch beyond that limit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
Your precious Bush who got us in this mess will not suffer financially ever in his sm
lifetime, not will Cheney's family or many generations to come... you don't get it.. it was all about money and power for them and now it's for US for the country AND the world. We have a responsibility and we have done a terrible job under Bush's lack of leadership. Keep all your toilet paper; you will need it to wipe the filthy lies from your mouth.
It took only 2 years to create this mess? You missed your meds.
x
He does not want "big government", but the big MESS he inherited and is now taking on.....sm
as Bush never would (and he was the president that kept insisting we were not in a recession right up to the crash, remember, and did absolutely NOTHING), the possible solutions, ever hear "desparate times requires desperate measures?" There are so many widesweeping changes go be made, it does take MONEY and work and forsight to fight problems this big. So before you condemn, try to wrap your partisan mind aroudn the MAMMOTH problems this man is willing to try to solve for our society, our country, or future, and stop try to make it a partisan problem, we are all Americans, we have a president working hard for answers, he is not God, his is not Superman, but he is trying to undo all the damage left behind....would you want to inherit this huge catastrophe??? I would not, I give him so much credit for trying so hard. Mistakes yes, but did Bush try to do anything as the train wreck was about to happen????? NO.
This attitude is exactly why we are in such a mess and the country was brought down in the past 8 y
nm
Yeah and Bush's policies got us in a fine mess didn't they?
Anger at Bush is well justified - he and his Republican Congress put us in this mess...nm
r
Yes - there was a young surgeon featured on one local TV program about this mess. SM
I didn't catch the first part of the segment, but he is having to think about joining the military medical corps because he had just opened his practice when the recession hit and can't pay his loans, and there aren't any openings in other practices around here now.
Yup, glad I am taking Yoga, gonna be a bumpy ride either way....(my closets are a MESS, reflects my
nm
|
