Stolen, just like in 2000
Posted By: hahaha on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: Isnt it pitiful? Talk about stolen election!. I am in - Ohio where you can reside on a park bench.nm
I guess it is alright if the Republicans steal an election, but not the Dems???
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
Right, so that is not a "cut",but free money stolen
nm
2 elections stolen? baloney. Meaningless war? Go
nm
Oh, sure. The left always claims election are stolen,
nm
Isnt it pitiful? Talk about stolen election!. I am in
nm
Dems have stolen/manufactured votes for Franken in this election...wonderful stuff
2000 election
Yes, Bush did win only one election. The first election was handed to him by the Supreme Court Five. If it had been handled properly and fairly, Gore would have won as he had the popular vote.
2000 dead: How many is
2000 Dead: How Many Is Too Many?
By Mike Hoffman
When I left for the Middle East in February 2003 with a Marine artillery unit, I was told Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, had been assisting Al Qaeda, was partly responsible for 9/11 and was an imminent threat to the United States and Iraq’s neighbors.
We destroyed Iraq’s under-equipped and demoralized military – the imminent threat to our nation -- in a little over a month. Since the invasion, no weapons inspection team has found evidence of any weapons of mass destruction and the claims that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda have been shown to be nonsense. When I left Iraq for home in May 2003, after President Bush told us “Mission Accomplished,” 139 Americans had died.
After the invasion was over and the occupation began, Iraqis didn’t throw flowers and candy at our feet. Instead roadside bombs and ambushes awaited us down every street. The administration said we were about to turn a corner. We were told that once Saddam and his sons were captured or killed the insurgents would give up, demoralized by the loss of their leader; peace would reign. By the time Saddam was captured in December 2003, 463 Americans had died in Iraq.
The capture of Saddam had no effect, and daily attacks against American forces and Iraqi security forces continued. It was during this time that the bloody Shiite Rebellion occurred. This was some of the fiercest fighting yet in Iraq. Even with this rebellion happening, we were told there was still hope. Sovereignty would soon be handed over to the Iraqis and another corner would be turned. But we needed to stay and provide the Iraqis security until we could “officially” turn the country back over to them. This would empower the Iraqis and end the Insurgency. By then, June 2004, 958 had come home in boxes.
Most Iraqis didn’t seem to care they had sovereignty, since we still occupied their country. They were still without electricity and faced an average unemployment rate of 70%. Every time US soldiers walked outside the wire they were still taking their lives in their hands. Then, we were told, elections would fix this. The Iraqis would have their own government in place and begin drafting a constitution. This would demoralize the terrorists and end the fighting. On the day of the elections, January 30, 2005, the U.S. death toll was 1,537.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The first time we were told the war was over we had lost 139 American; now we have lost 2,000 American lives in Iraq. Time and time again we are told things are getting better, that we have “turned a corner.”
In the Viet Nam War we didn’t “turn corners;” instead policy makers talked about the “light at the end of the tunnel.” We know now that by 1968 President Johnson knew there was no light at the end of the tunnel; he knew his war was lost. The Pentagon Papers showed this; Robert McNamara admits it today. Over 22,000 American troops died in Viet Nam after 1968 in a war our leaders knew was hopeless and just piling up American and Asian bodies.
Again, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and we’ve turned so many corners we’re going in circles. Our leaders know they can’t win this war, but, like Johnson and McNamara, they refuse to admit it to the American people. Meanwhile, our troops remain a huge provocative force in the region and each individual soldier a prized target. Failure to face this reality is exacerbating the current chaos in Iraq and preventing real regional diplomatic solutions.
So the question falls to ordinary Americans: How many more brave men and women are we willing to sacrifice before we force our leaders to bring the troops home? I pray that it does not take another 56,000 like it did in Viet Nam.
Mike Hoffman was a lance corporal in a Marine artillery unit during the invasion of Iraq. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War.
2000 yrs ago? Try 6000....
not looking for any kind of attention - you are awfully presuming/assuming for a public board/forum poster....you know nothing about me...
please do not respond to any of my posts if you don't like them - you DO have that choice.
I have never been called since 2000
to be included in a national poll. I'm Democrat. I answer all phone calls JUST to have my voice heard. Why haven't they called me?
The $2000 debit card sm
has provisions that state the card cannot be used for alcohol or cigarettes. They will get no cash back on any purchase.
The government has already thought of all these things. The card can only be used for food, personal items, etc.
I can't believe it matters. 2000 or 6000, what's... sm
The difference? It's still an ancient piece of fiction written by primitive, superstitious people from a corner of a long-dead empire. Why anyone in the present day would chose to believe any of it, let alone feel compelled to organize their life around it (or believe that it predicts the future, of all things!) is beyond me.
Here is the lastest immigration law, 2000. sm
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=80
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business.
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business. He's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Another look at the 2000 Bush v. Gore debate.
I wonder if Bush would still have won if voters knew the extent to which he blatantly lied during this debate. To find the TRUTH, all someone has to do is take just about EVERYTHING Bush said, REVERSE IT (with the possible exception of the comment: "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place." I didn't understand it in 2000 and still don't know what it means. And why did he only focus on "our friends in the Middle East?") I know this isn’t new news, but I found it interesting to take a second look at this. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm amazed at how good Gore is suddenly starting to look!
From www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.
GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
I just hope we don't have a repeat of the 2000 election...sm
Whoever wins, let them win by a wide enough margin that the is no question. To this day I do not know how Bush et AL got away with that one. Talk about stupid democrats!
By trying to address 2000 and 2004 election corruption
nm
Pot meets kettle. You mean like Tom Delay's 2000-2001
We are still dealing with the aftermath. But hey, he was just trying to help out the shrub and the rest of the GOP good ole boys.
This person was talking about the 2000 debit cards and calling them handouts...sm
Now is not the time to be talking about handups in the midst of a national disaster like the one in NO. In a time like this it is too late for that and inappropriate. But enlighten me, what kind of handup has the republican party offered the displaced NO citizens?
These people NEED HANDOUTS AND YESTERDAY, until they can regain some type of normal existence and then handups would be good. Some people can't stand to see a person get anything. I've learned that's just how some people are. Even though they are cush in front of their computers posting away, they think if I'm not getting 2000 dollars from the government neither should they. And then there's the, I got mine croud. They feel that these people should have educated themselves, worked harder and they wouldn't be in this position, so let em' stay in the astrodome until they can figure something out.
I don't agree and think these compasionate conservative Christians who think this way should ask themselves WWJD?
rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
I only lost $1000 so far-Hubby lost $2000 in a week (sm)
so, I called his financial advisor yesterday and told him to put hubby in a "safe" plan. It's now in a money market fund that is part of his IRA.
I have no choice. I have to stay where I am. I have no "safe" available. Neither of us will be able to retire on what is now in our 401Ks and you're not the only one. We couldn't buy a car with Both our 401Ks, let alone live on it.
We are late starters for retirement not until our late 40s funds (most of our employers did not offer pensions). We are now of the first retirement tier and although we own our home outright, if we live until we are 90, there is no way we can live off retirement 401Ks or SS.
My husband's father told him back in the 50s that we would experience something like what is happening today and stated it would be worse than the ཙ crash. It is sure starting to look that way, but we will survive some way, I hope.
We need to pray for the people on SS now that cannot survive. I, for one, would love to help them, but can't help ourselves at this moment.
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.
Google voter fraud 2000, voter fraud 2004 and
The pubs have been down this road before.
|
