The reason the media covered

Tiller like they did was so they could push this horrible accusation about how conservatives are to blame for this psycho gunning down Tiller.  However, this Muslim who attacked those soldiers doesn't benefit them by truly reporting on it.  Just like the Muslim who beheaded his wife because she was going to leave him....you barely heard a snitch about that story. 

I think the news should have covered Tiller's murder.  No one has the right to gun down anyone like that.  However, it would have been nice if they would have given the same respect to an American soldier who was gunned down as well.  It truly does make you wonder what is happening to our country.  Pretty sad when we care more about the death of a man who had no trouble killing babies and yet we have no problem with one of our soldiers being gunned down by a Muslim. 

• The sicko who shot the army soldier - sm
  • The reason the media covered - Trigger Happy
    • Speaking of psychos...(sm) - Just the big bad
      • You're right. They're all wack-jobs... nothing - of real value going on in their lives - SM
      • How are anti-abortion people nuts - sm
        • How are they NOT nuts? Those points could be counted - on 1 finger. No wait, NO fingers.
          • I will admit that there are some - Trigger Happy
      • Murdering near-term babies isn't violent? - WHAT A HYPOCRIT!!!! NM
        • You people are the hypocrits. Why don't you try - supporting mother & child financially,than?
    • The point is Obama NEVER thought it was important - either.................nm
    • Amen. nm - Tired
  • there's no media coverage because they issued a gag order - - Amanda
    • A gag order on the media? Doubtful. - GhostMom
      • No they didn't.....FOX covered it from minute one.... - Obama's true colors coming out.....nm
        • Ummm....(sm) - Just the big bad
        • So now Obama is also repsonsible for the media? - Do you expect him to wipe windows too?
          • Are you just deluded? - sm
    • who and why? - cj
      • It's a gag order to protect the dolt - AnnuderMT
        • Why would they want to protect him. - sm
          • Guilt doesn't eliminate rights - AnnuderMT
        • thank you.. - cj
      • If a gag order were issued............ sm - m
        • The media seem to voluntarily - C. Mudgeon
          • If they cannot get information from the courts, there is nothing to report! - Amanda
            • How many times have we seen - reporters standing on the courthouse steps
              • Maybe you've just missed it? - AnnuderMT

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

and which ones do you think are the most ridiculous?  Fox News, NYT, AP, Wash. Post, CNN, your choice.

health care plans.  My husband pays a portion just like everyone else.  We hardly use the health coverage, only for minor sinus infections, and I did have a hysterectomy last year. 

There are others walking around that have had multiple surgeries including bypass, and they pay the same amount towards the plan. 

How is that fair?  I feel the contribution should be paid on the usage, per se, and not so much (everyone is equal) because we are not.  I had a friend that had a lap band (fully covered), thyroid surgery, neck surgery, and goes the doctor every other week for something or other.  So, when we worked together, we both paid the same; yet, I did not go to the doctor or have any surgeries. 

Is that fair?  Why not look at something like that for cost effectiveness?  Would this turn people away from receiving the healthcare they need (not likely)?

Rush said that's why they went after him.  Seriously, for those who have never explored talk radio, it's like getting your doctorate in history.  It's so different than what many think.  Of course, I like all of it, but this is a fabulous encyclopedia for sources other than the "drivebys."  Of course, that's why the far-left Dems want that so-called Fairness Doctrine.  The centrists (what few are left flailing with little or now face time, for obvious reasons) know full well that if it happens to the conservatives, it'll come right back around and hit them in the butts, too. 

The Dems are very divided but put on a show for the cameras.  If a centrist or a new Rep. doesn't follow The Pelosi Principle, he/she will never get $ for another run, and certainly won't get to introduce anything of interest to that Rep.  The domino effect on that trickles down to the Rep's state, which in turn essentially gets nothing. 

It's quite refreshing to be able to have a friendly exchange here.  What on earth happened?  Let's hope it lasts!

(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS.  I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary.  I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that rambles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it can always run back to socialism to save it.  As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!) 

EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts

Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.

See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.

The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.

In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.

This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.

"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.

"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."

"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."

Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.

Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.

"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.

The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."

The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.

The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.

The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.

The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.

"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."

"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"

Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."

The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.

"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.

But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.

Jon Ward contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS.  I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary.  I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that toddles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it's up to socialism to save it.  As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!) 

EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts

Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.

See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.

The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.

In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.

This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.

"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.

"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."

"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."

Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.

Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.

"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.

The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."

The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.

The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.

The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.

The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.

"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."

"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"

Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."

The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.

"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.

But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.

Jon Ward contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

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.

often creates more questions and issues than politics in general.  I think all politicians are crooks and only out to line their own pockets with money, as evident by all the promises made during election year that never came into play during their actual term. 

I go through spurts.  I get mad and then I stop watching and then I calm down and I start watching again and then I get mad again.  It is a vicious cycle. 

not going to be timid this election about the deceptive way the RNC wants to paint them as liberal and pro-Obama.. They are openly discussing it as a divisive tactic that has been used over and over by the RNC.  Chris Matthews heatedly faced down Pat Buchanan last night over Pat's attempt to be Mr. Women's Rights regarding SP.  Chris noted that with this election, no one is supposed to look into McC or SP's activities or views.  If the media rightly investigates McC, they throw up the POW story.  With Palin, it is going to be Sexist story.  The media's job is to bring us information so we can decide.  Free press is essential to our country.  For this reason we must tolerate all extremes of opinion, as we must on this board. See MediaMatters.org for facts on media misstatements.

is so liberally biased....I'm sure there is a lot that we aren't being told the truth about. 

Treating captive terrorists like dinner guests will not make them like us.  It will not stop attempts on American lives by terrorists.  All that will accomplish is letting them know that they can blow us up and kill thousands of Americans and all they have to do is sit in a prison until released and that is all they get out of it. 

Terrorists that we have released from Gitmo have gone right back.  We didn't waterboard them.  They were released and joined back up with their terrorist pals again.  Gee....I guess they sure learned their lesson, huh?  Another free terrorist who can come back again and try to kill more Americans in the name of Allah.

It seriously amazes me how you people defend these guys.

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war

Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists

By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press  |  August 31, 2005

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.

''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.

Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.

Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.

''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.

The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.

After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.

Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.

It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.

The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.

This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.

At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.

Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board.  The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.

You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE.  You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.

You have your own board.  Would you please just go back there?  You are offensive to many on this board.  This is the liberal board.  You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you.  If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine.  It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option.  But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board.  I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well.  You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.

As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board.  You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person.  She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses.  You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board.  Please.  JUST GO AWAY.

I don't want government involved in my health care.  The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve.  If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us?   

Maybe people who are struggling to afford healthcare, fill up their gas tanks and feed their families just happen to agree with his VIEWS on the issues.

ever called you a kool-aid drinker is because you constantly post about rhetoric.  When will you wake up and realize that even democrat politicians say one thing and do another.  You can't get much more obvious about than the Obama administration and yet you continue to sing his praise.  You are blinded by your own political party. 

Obama...the man who said he would sign no bill with pork in it and then did without batting an eyelash.

The man who said he would pull troops out of Iraq and has extended the time frame to keep troops in Iraq longer and to deploy more in Afghan.  He ridiculed McCain for not wanting a time line but I guess a time line is okay as long as you can push it back whenever you feel the need, huh? 

A man who promised tax cuts on 95% of the American people and yet he wants cap and trade which will tax everyone A LOT.

Gay rights activists sing his praise and yet Obama himself isn't for same sex marriage.

He wants people to have the right to choose to carry a child or abort it and yet he takes the rights away from hospitals and doctors by not allowing them to refuse to perform that procedure.  You complain about taking the rights away from people but yet you have no problem taking rights away from people with a different view point than yourself.

Yet all you ever come back with is that we are a bunch of babies who need to grow some balls and how ignorant we are for watching Fox News even though Fox has higher ratings than the crap you watch.

The channels you profess to tell the truth aren't even covering the tea parties.  I personally feel that thousands and thousands of Americans protesting is a big deal and should be reported on whether or not a channel agrees with the reason behind it.  Picking and choosing what to report is not telling the truth.  It is being very one sided.  Any open minded person would realize that.

marriage would not still be limited to two people (of whatever flavor) at a time.  Bygamy would still be bygamy. 

You're right.  Think what men with half a dozen legal wives and a couple of dozen kids could do to any medical plan, let alone our system for deducting dependents from income tax. 

On the other hand, I have a same-sex housemate who is disabled, unemployed and uninsured.  We are not gay, but if same-sex marriage were legal, I could marry her and get her insured under my plan.  Many marriages involve no sex.  Maybe they didn't start out that way but over time they evolve in that direction.  We would simply be skipping the honeymoon part. 

They go after both sides for inaccuracies.  They back up their points with facts.

Have you seen the two US Weekly covers, the one for Obama and the one for Palin?

I just love this email sent by former Clinton operative and Us Weekly employee, Mark Neschis, that went out to all media in St. Paul:

Thought I would send over our Us Weekly/Sarah Palin cover story, on stands Friday, if helpful in your coverage. Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out.(Us Weekly has 12 million, mostly female readers)

What Obama needs to do now is put his money where is mouth is, and tell all his operatives to tell all their buddies on the blogs and media to cease and desist...if indeed he was sincere in his objection to this treatment.

nm

all these Obama supporters just sweep that under a rug.  They continue to point fingers and blame others and yet they will take no responsibility at all for what they did.  They will not give McCain credit for his warning.  They will not admit that they ignored that warning.  I'm tired of the media having their nose up Obama's ars.  They call McCain a coward for wanting to postpone the debate when it was McCain who was pushing for the debate before until this and now he wants to be in Washington to help find a solution.  He wants to put the country first instead of his own personal campaign.  To me...this says a lot about McCain and yet the dems and the media can do nothing but downgrade.  How in the world are we to have a fair election when the media is so obviously one-sided?

At this point, I really don't know that any candidate can get us out of this mess.  I guess I've just lost hope all around.  As for all those so-called plans Barry Obama promised.....he can't do a one of them....not that they would have worked in the first place but now it is impossible for him to even try.  So now what, Barry?  What else are you going to promise you will do that you can't deliver on?

when she says she is picking McCain and the media is so far up Uhhhbama's butt that if they opened their mouth, you could see the top of his head.

As for McCain disrespecting woman....that makes no sense.  He picks a woman as his VP and that is disrespectful to women?  McCain pays his women employees more than Uhhhbama does AND employs more women than Uhhhbama.