There is an obvious reason for using Hitler..(sm)

Hitler was the one who enacted genocide on the Jews, so you would think that they, in turn would not want others to suffer as they did....Wrong.  I don't think the Israeli government gives a rats butt about the holocaust, or anything else for that matter with the exception of domination as a nation (aka greed).  So, now that Israel is basically doing the same thing that Hitler did (they had a good teacher), in my eyes they are no better than Hitler or any other who would perform genocide, and if they are doing it in the name of God, well...that's even worse.

There are my words, and yes, I have chosen them carefully.

• Anti-Semitism versus Anti-Zionism - Lu
  • Correction...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Does really need to be said that Israel is predominantly Jewish? - Lu
      • No dear, it's anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. - sm
        • Well sugar, it becomes anti-Semitic the minute - Lu
          • OK, hon, this is the deal. - sm
            • Israel is anything but doomed, and you are totally deluded. - Lu
              • Until you acknowledge the occupation - sm
      • There is an obvious reason for using Hitler..(sm) - Just the big bad
        • First, Israel is not committing genocide. History shows - Lu
          • Ummmm.....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Of course, you forgot to mention, the - source was MSNBC,
            • Those "schools" are also where Hamas hides and - uses civilians as shields!! then blame Israel!.nm
              • UN provided GPS coordinates and has - jj
              • That has yet to be proven...(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Wanders the desert for 40 years before occupation of the land - I agree
              • There was a truce. Hamas broke it and sent - missiles into Israel. What is wrong with you?nm
                • Maybe you should check your facts...(sm) - Just the big bad
                  • Maybe you should check yours. - jj
                    • Oops. This should be posted under "Thre was a truce." - jj
            • Wow. What an interesting question. - jj
              • This might help...(sm) - Just the big bad
          • Do you share the same gene pool as - sm
            • Baloney. Israel is targeting Hamas, who are - terrorists. Hamas to blame for palestinian deaths.
              • We hold these truths to be self-evident - sm
              • Yeah, and Isreal took its own out of Gaza, yet - Hamas uses Gaza to shoot missiles at Israel!.nm

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

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.

nm

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The phrase "separation of church and state" which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

Wikipedia - Separation of Church and State United States

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

I do believe some people would vote for satan if he ran as a Republican.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the good guys don't always win.

People praise Obama.  That's all you got?  Sticks and stones,babycakes, sticks and stones.

We aren't hiring someone to change the world.  That's not the job of the US President.  If he can't even get that right????

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081101/twl-obama-i-will-change-the-world-3fd0ae9.html

Oh the hypocrasy!

It is obvious this poster is a conservative coming over to the liberal board to try to start some trouble. Fortunately, liberals know to let people speak their minds, think out things and speak them.  Unfortunately conservatives like to squash that, everyone should think like them and god forbid, if they dont, they will be eliminated.  I ask, who posted this against a liberal poster who was speaking his/her mind?  Come forward and state who you are and defend your actions of reporting the liberal poster to the administration..Come on out and tell the liberal board who you are and why you did this.

People in the armed forces are generally conservative people and would likely vote McCain.  So of course this hasn't been fixed because they don't want McCain voters to vote.  Homeless people living on park benches, however, would only have to hear about Obama spreading the wealth and they would be on board for Barrack Obama therefore giving him more votes.  You do the math.

I am totally disgusted by the corruption in this election.  The voter registration fraud as well as the voter fraud that has happened is just plain wrong.  Letting homeless people with no address vote is just opening up a chance for more voter fraud.  Taking away the right of our armed forces to vote because of a glitch is just wrong. They are fighting and risking their lives and we can't even do right by them when it comes to making THEIR vote count.  Of all people in this country, don't you think they have the most right to vote.  They are the ones fighting for us while we sit here and complain about everything from the safety of our computers. 

you have nothing constructive to say (from either side), rather you just look for opportunities to take a jab at someone with a different opinion.  If you were actually following this thread (which I seriously doubt), you would know that this is about the amount and content of news allowed for soldiers at war.  It has nothing to do with me being smarter than them, it has to do with availability of information.

Considering your obvious impressive disinterest in the subject being discussed, might I suggest you start your own post on a subject that interests you and call it *I don't like people who disagree with me.*