The reason is because FL insisted on moving up the primary, despite being told NOT to. nm

• I'm depressed that I am a disenfranchised voter today. - loyal democrat
  • The reason is because FL insisted on moving up the primary, despite being told NOT to. nm - FL screwed itself
  • Maybe this will help, although - ticked off, too
    • Ain't that the truth! (mumbo jumbo lol) Thanks for the link :-) NM - loyal democrat

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

on Tuesday. As soon as I put the card in the electronic machine it said invalid card even though I watched the woman run it through her little machine to clear it and saw it say clear twice. It took 3 people about 5 minutes to figure out how to get the card out of the machine. Then I got a new one. Everything went along fine until one choice. There were 4 people on the ballot; it would let me vote for 3 of them but not the 4th which was the one I wanted to vote for. I told them about this but nothing will happen. I think we should either have a paper trail or write them out long hand. Even if these machines were not suspect to begin with as far as tampering goes, just plain not working makes a huge difference in the vote.

I know that Bush did not win Florida in 2004. Thousands of African Americans did not stand in lines for hours to vote for Bush. You can take that to the bank and bet the farm on it too. My personal favorite though is a county that counted something like 10,000 votes for Bush and there are only 5,000 registered voters in the entire county !!! Go figure.

from own party who make their living promoting the repub cause.  Big difference in motivation.

This was beautifully done!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phyrx3VuwcM&feature=related

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.

his Rove advisors - they are desperate.

I was politely asking that you call us crooks and criminals on your board, where it will be better received and I was nice about it too.

As far as Foley goes, you will excuse me if I don't think running off to a secret rehab when you have been busted is an honorable thing to do. He got caught and he ran. Simple as that. Then blamed alchohol and a priest for his behavior. That doesn't fly with me. And he has not been convicted of anything, so I guess that makes it okay....neither have OJ or Robert Blake. They, let's see, how should I say it, got away with murder.  And, last but not least, are you not the one who posted awhile back quite a sermon on passing judgement. I seem to remember Bible quotes and all sorts of Christian-esque cliches   about judgement being God's to pass. Then, I hear McKinney is a joke, Jefferson is a bigger joke and Kennedy is the biggest joke of all. Yet they still get elected (by Democrats) which makes us all guilty of what...depraved indifference??? Judge not lest ye be judged. I believe you quoted that but here you are, on the liberal board, belittling Democrats, stating you don't care how we think or feel and that our Democratic senators are jokes. Not to mention how ridiculous it is to try to pin wrongdoing on one party, everyone included, you do it here on this board. All I asked was that you cease and desist with the mud. I do care what people think and feel and have tried to write respectfully keeping that in mind. It is not a bad practice and it is a practice, takes a looooong time to think before speaking or to filter through your heart first what comes out your mouth (or keyboard).

All stories, magazine articles, speeches are edited to reflect a point of view. That's the whole point (like inhaling). To condemn 60 Minutes which has been on for how many years and known as a vanguard of hard-hitting journalism as biased is facile.

because for some people....they just cannot seem to post anything worthwhile.  All they do is repeat the same stuff and call people names.  If you have nothing of value to bring to the table....please feel free to shut your trap as well.  I know what our country is facing and I stand by my decision of picking John McCain.  I believe him, what he stands for, and what he says.  I do not believe Obama.  If you differ in that opinion....that is your God given right.  But bring something to the table other than insults.