The majority of the people didn't vote him in because of his polcies

• JIHAD - sm
  • If you want to post something on the subject, post - Backwards typist
    • People in glass houses... - Sonny
  • I wasn't going to even read this tripe, but I did..... - MT and worn out
    • The opposition is going to fight the other side... - Zville MT
    • It is called Democracy. - Sweet Grapes
    • Everything would be just peachy if we voted in McPain, right? - sm
      • The majority, as you put it, did not even - Backwards typist
        • And just how do you propose to know what the majority - Did or did not know?
        • P.S. Who decided he was the perfect one - Backwards typist
      • That's not what she was saying - icytoes
        • Not about Bush? Your whole message - uhuh
          • That wasn't my whole message - you just picked out the sentence you wanted to - icytoes
        • Can you please identify any good that - uhuh
          • Stop bringing up Bush - this post was not about Bush - icytoes
            • It is like the old song Love and Marriage - Bushwacked
              • And Bush inherited a lot of crap from Clinton - icytoes
                • Yeah, it would be nice if magic could - uhuh
                  • Getting serious means putting blame where it belongs. - icytoes
                    • Hey, icytoes, you have a lot of sense - Backwards typist
                      • Thanks Backwards Typist - aint that the truth - icytoes
                    • Reality? - warmtoes
                      • Reality - most of the people voted for him only because of his race - icytoes
                        • They voted for him because he was half white? - sm
                          • Only in her imagination. - Reality Check
                      • The majority of the people didn't vote him in because of his polcies - icytoes
                        • My DH and I, both middle-aged and white, voted for Obama because - uhuh
                          • Well your in a crowd of a very few - icytoes
                            • Good for you for voting your conscience. - uhuh
                              • Thanks. Here are just a couple comments - icytoes
            • So one more time...please define - uhuh
              • And once again - see message - icytoes
        • Read a funny quote once and your post reminded me of it. - Zville MT
    • So, it was okay for the uber-right-wing neocons to elect Bush and nominate McPalin? - sm
      • Ummmm....uber right-wing neocons would NOT... - sam
        • Uh, that's McPalin, sam - Truthseeker
          • Uh, that's McCain/Palin - really do need to get that one straight - Time for the truth
            • You're right...should be McPain... IMHO. - uhuh
  • same old show - ArkieMT
    • You certainly have that one right - good observation - icytoes
    • Lazy Response - Truthseeker
      • It's not a lazy response, it's the truth. - Zville MT
    • Wonder what it will take to get everybody else to realize this? nm - LVMT

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

And with the great help of ACORN.  In the county that I live in, there was a man who was registered by ACORN, voted 3 times and has been deceased since 1986. 

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.

Ever hear that phrase better to be silent and be thought intelligent than speak and remove all doubt?  You people are ignorant of history and that is what is wrong with the country.  You embarrass liberals by debating with stupidity and posting replies to an historically correct post. Please stop it.

they attacked her first, and then she tried to explain the first post in simple English.

This is the most I have posted on this board in the last 2 months but I just can't take all attacks against people just because they voted  for the pubs.  I said it yesterday, and I'll say it again today, STOP THE BASHING. IT DOESN'T GET YOU ANYWHERE.  All it causes is hate.

P.S. Mrs. M is the one of the worse on here. I have never seen her post before today or yesterday (didn't look at the dates). I think she's just trying to stir the pot.

know who they were voting for. They heard one thing: CHANGE. Yet, change is not what we are getting. It's politics as usual. O does not know how to lead. He only knows how to follow. He is letting people like Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, and countless others walk all over him. He has no clout. He is a lamb being led to the slaughter, yet he doesn't realize it yet.

If he wants to be a good president, he would stop the antics going on now, but I really don't think he knows how to do it. It's a shame, too, because although I did not vote for him, I had hope.

Check photos of him lately. He's not looking so confident anymore. He is starting to think he got in over his head and unless he takes control of the dems, he will go down in history as a president worse than Jimmy Carter.

JMHO

have always been conservative.  However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years.  Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past. 

I'm simply not in a position to judge all that stuff.  There's far more going on behind the scenes than we know.  That's not to give Bush (or any politician, for that matter) a free pass.

The big threat approaching is Israel & Iraq.  A war there is inevitable (& soon), and they're a huge ally of ours.  The not only deserve our help, but will likely need it.