Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Uh oh, I didn't get the memo that he was God! Thanks for clarifying that...have some more O juice

Posted By: nm on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: If you are an American - sm

//


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

Oh, you didn't get the memo? O, of course!
nm
Yeah, Iraq didn't attack us. There was a memo. nm
x
Thanks for clarifying
I asked that in my post too...that's the way it should be.
Just clarifying that's all

Thanks for clarifying that.

I have a feeling you might be right regarding the payback.  I think they just wanted to take a swipe at the poster, rather than the post, not realizing that the joke is on them.


Thanks for clarifying. However,
I meant to direct my statement about the lady who accused Bush of rape and then allegedly committed suicide. This is fishy to say the least. In any other case, who would be the prime suspect of a suicide victim by gunshot who pressed charges against the perpetrator? Though I'm not arguing that Bush was involved. I'm just wondering how can the same people who believe Clinton either killed, raped or sexually harrased everyone he came in contact with could dismiss claims against Bush so easily, but I undersand that you are not in this bunch so to that end we can conversate about BUSH who the OP was about.


Let me take one shot at clarifying...

what I am talking about regarding illegal immigration, and what I view this country to be.  I do not now, nor have I ever said one word about wanting a "pure race."  I have said over and over, America is a country of immigrants.  A country of immigrants coming here who wanted change from their native countries.  Immigrants who became UNITED under one flag, one creed, one constitution, one set of laws.  The UNITED States of America.  The thread that bound us all together...Americans.  And the trend is away from that now.  Illegal immigrants want to come here and change America to Mexican America...or Muslim America...or, or, or.  To change what we are, the ideals we were founded on.  In my mind, if you make a conscious decision to leave your own country and come to this one seeking to change your citizenship, then you embrace this country, her laws, her ideals, etc.  That does not mean a person cannot be proud of individual heritage.  I am proud of my Irish, Native American, Swedish ancestry and can some of it back to the 15th century.  But I am not a Native Swedish Irish American.  I am an American with a mixed heritage, and I am an American first, and I don't frankly see anything wrong with that.  It is in that that we used to be UNITED and is what made us strong.  If we start to separate we might as well set up borders and call part of us Native America, part of us Africa America, part of us Mexico America....because we are not united anymore.  I even had the word "secession" thrown at me, which is ridiculous on the face of it.  I never said such a thing nor would I sanction such a thing, because I believe in the UNITED States of America.


At any rate, to set the record straight:  I do not ascribe to a "pure" race.  I object vehemently to illegal immigration.  I support legal immigration to the hilt.  However, I do believe that immigrants are making a choice when they leave their native land and come here...a choice to become an American, and if that is not their choice, then they need to stay in their country of origin and try to make it more America-like...it seems like that is what they REALLY want.


I love my country, I love her mixed heritage and I love my own mixed heritage.   I really, really don't see what the problem is with that. Black, white, red, yellow, polka-dotted or chartreuse....we are all Americans, and that should be the thread that binds us together.  Therein lies our strength. 


I will now officially stop beating this poor dead horse.  :)   Have a good day, my fellow Americans, every last one of you.  :)


TY for clarifying that. I would hate to see anyone
And Palin most likely isn't gay, c'mon. Could be bi, I suppose, stranger things have happened, but she at least liked male company on 5 occasions. LOL
Ohhh, thank you for clarifying

I don't give a $hit if they were sacrificing bullocks and painting pentagrams on their bedroom walls.


Freedom is freedom


my "well said" goes to Lu - just clarifying! nm
nm
Put down the Kool Aid...now drink you O juice...
//
Drink some more Bush juice.......
your nonsensical attacks are worthless and besides that your breath stinks.
Shaking off some Bush juice?
Like a dog swings it's head to shake off all that slobber?
Drink some more Bush juice...you know you like it! nm
x
And you lap up Bush juice like a rabid dog.....nm
nm
Keep swallowing that Bush juice.....
it took him 8 years to destroy this country...and President Obama is supposed to clean it up in a few months? What are you smoking?  Hair?
Keep chugging that Bush juice!
x
Dunces in bathrobes...drink some more O juice...your boy wonder will fail; it has started....
//
Memo for the President
Memo for the President
    By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
    t r u t h o u t | Statement

    Wednesday 24 August 2005

    Memorandum for: The President

    From: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

    Subject: Recommendation: Try a Circle of "Wise Women"

    By way of re-introduction, we begin with a brief reminder of the analyses we provided you before the attack on Iraq. On the afternoon of February 5, 2003, following Colin Powell's speech before the UN Security Council that morning, we sent you our critique of his attempt to make the case for war. (You may recall that we gave him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq and a "C-" for providing context and perspective.) Unlike Powell, we made no claim that our analysis was "irrefutable/undeniable." We did point out, though, that what he said fell far short of justification for war. We closed with these words: "We are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

    To jog your memory further, the thrust of our next two pre-war memoranda can be gleaned from their titles: "Cooking Intelligence for War" (March 12) and "Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem" (March 18). When the war started, we reasoned at first that you might had been oblivious to our cautions. However, last spring's disclosures in the "Downing Street Memo" containing the official minutes of Tony Blair's briefing on July 23, 2002 - and the particularly the bald acknowledgement that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of war on Iraq - show that the White House was well aware of how the intelligence was being cooked. We write you now in the hope that the sour results of the recipe - the current bedlam in Iraq - will incline you to seek and ponder wider opinion this time around.

    A Still Narrower Circle

    With the departure of Colin Powell, your circle of advisers has shrunk rather than widened. The amateur architects of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seem still to have your ear. At a similar stage of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson woke up to the fact that he had been poorly served by his principal advisers and quickly appointed an informal group of "wise men" to provide fresh insight and advice. It turned out to be one of the smartest things Johnson did. He was brought to realize that the US could not prevail in Vietnam; that he was finished politically; and that the US needed to move to negotiations with the Vietnamese "insurgents."

    It is clear to those of us who witnessed at first hand the gross miscalculations on Vietnam that a similar juncture has now been reached on Iraq. We are astonished at the advice you have been getting - the vice president's recent assurance that the Iraqi resistance is "in its last throes," for example. (Shades of his assurances that US forces would be welcomed as "liberators" in Iraq.) And Secretary Rumsfeld's unreassuring reminders that "some things are unknowable" and the familiar bromide that "time will tell" are wearing thin. By now it is probably becoming clear to you that you need outside counsel.

    The good news is that some help is on its way. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey has taken the initiative to schedule a hearing on September 15, where knowledgeable specialists on various aspects of the situation in Iraq will present their views. Unfortunately, it appears that this opportunity to learn will fall short of the extremely informative bipartisan hearings led by Sen. William Fullbright on Vietnam. The refusal thus far of the House Republican leadership to make a suitable conference room available suggests that the Woolsey hearing, like the one led by Congressman John Conyers on June 16, will lack the kind of bipartisan support so necessary if one is to deal sensibly with the Iraq problem.

    Meanwhile, we respectfully suggest that you could profit from the insights of the informal group of "wise women" right there in Crawford. You could hardly do better than to ride your bike down to Camp Casey. There you will find Gold Star mothers, Iraq (and Vietnam) war veterans, and others eager to share reality-based perspectives of the kind you are unlikely to hear from your small circle of yes-men and the yes-woman in Washington, none of whom have had direct experience of war. As you know, Cindy Sheehan has been waiting to get on your calendar. She is now back in Crawford and has resumed her Lazarus-at-the-Gate vigil in front of your ranch. We strongly suggest that you take time out from your vacation to meet with her and the other Gold Star mothers when you get back to Crawford later this week. This would be a useful way for you to acquire insight into the many shades of gray between the blacks and whites of Iraq, and to become more sensitized to the indignities that so often confound and infuriate the mothers, fathers, wives, and other relatives of soldiers killed and wounded there.

    Names and Faces

    Here are the names, ages, and hometowns of the eight soldiers, including Casey Sheehan, killed in the ambush in Sadr City, Baghdad on April 4, 2004:

    Specialist Robert R. Arsiaga, 25, San Antonio, Texas
    Specialist Ahmed A. Cason, 24, McCalla, Alabama
    Sergeant Yihjyh L. Chen, 31, Saipan, Marianas
    Specialist Israel Garza, 25, Lubbock, Texas
    Specialist Stephen D. Hiller, 25, Opelika, Alabama
    Corporal Forest J. Jostes, 22, Albion, Illinois
    Sergeant Michael W. Mitchell, 25, Porterville, California
    Specialist Casey A. Sheehan, 24, Vacaville, California

    Mike Mitchell's father, Bill, has been camped out for two weeks with Cindy Sheehan and others a short bike ride from your place. They have a lot of questions - big and small. You are aware of the big ones: In what sense were the deaths of Casey, Mike Mitchell and the others "worth it?" In what sense is the continued occupation of Iraq a "noble cause?" No doubt you have been given talking points on those. But the time has passed for sound bites and rhetoric. We are suggesting something much more real - and private.

    Questions

    There are less ambitious - one might call them more tactical - questions that are also accompanied by a lot of pain and frustration. Those eight fine soldiers were killed by forces loyal to the fiercely anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shia cleric with a militant following, particularly in Baghdad's impoverished suburbs. The ambush was part of a violent uprising resulting from US Ambassador Paul Bremer's decision to close down Al Hawza, al-Sadr's newspaper, on March 28, 2004.

    And not only that. A senior aide of al-Sadr was arrested by US forces on April 3. The following day al-Sadr ordered his followers to "terrorize" occupation forces and this sparked the deadly street battles, including the ambush. Also on April 4, Bremer branded al-Sadr an "outlaw" and coalition spokesman Dan Senior said coalition forces planned to arrest him as well. In sum, before one can begin to understand the grief of Cindy, Bill, and the relatives of the other six soldiers killed, you need to know - as they do - what else was going on April 4, 2004.

    You may wish to come prepared to answer specific questions like the following:

    1. Closing down newspapers and arresting key opposition figures seem a strange way to foster democracy. Please explain. And how could Ambassador Bremer possibly have thought that al-Sadr would simply acquiesce?

    2. Muqtada al-Sadr seems to have landed on his feet. At this point, he and other Shiite clerics appear on the verge of imposing an Islamic state with Shariah law and a very close relationship with Iran. With this kind of prospect, can you feel the frustration of Gold Star mothers when the extremist ultimately responsible for their sons' deaths assumes a leadership role in the new Iraq? Can you understand their strong wish to prevent the sacrifice of still more of our children for such dubious purpose?

    Perhaps you will have good answers to these and other such questions. Good answers or no, we believe a quiet, respectful session with the wise women and perhaps others at your doorstep would give you valuable new insights into the ironic conundrums and human dimensions of the war in Iraq.

    A member of our Steering Committee, Ann Wright, has been on site at Camp Casey from the outset and would be happy to facilitate such a session. A veteran Army colonel (and also a senior Foreign Service officer until she resigned in protest over the attack on Iraq), Ann has been keeping Camps Casey I and II running in a good-neighborly, orderly way. She is well known to your Secret Service agents, who can lead you to her. We strongly urge you not to miss this opportunity.

    /s/
    Gene Betit, Arlington, Virginia
    Sibel Edmonds, Alexandria, Virginia
    Larry Johnson, Bethesda, Maryland
    David MacMichael, Linden, Virginia
    Ray McGovern, Arlington, Virginia
    Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, Minnesota
    Ann Wright, Honolulu, Hawaii

    Steering Group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity


Newest memo..(sm)

I'm sure there will be many more to come. 


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/30395296#30395296


In other words, they knew it was torture, they knew it was illegal and were warned that it was illegal, but went on with their plans anyway.


 


Here are a few facts from the memo.
According to the "memo" (cue sinister dun-duN-DUN music)

"A single "application" of water may not last for more than 40 seconds, with the duration of an "application" measured from the moment when water - of whatever quantity - is first poured onto the cloth until the moment the cloth is removed from the subject's face."

And there was, indeed, a doctor and a psychologist present at the interrogations to (as you so aptly put it) "rescue" the prisoners.

I'm not sure why you would just "assume" that "some are really drowned." Perhaps you know something the rest of us don't. Please share.

Goodness I meant memo!

too much transcribing today!


2003 Rockefeller Memo

  


    The 2003 Rockefeller Memo:

Politicize the war, run down the country, sink Bush


Memo to My Critics on the Left: Get Over It.......sm.............



Memo to My Critics on the Left: Get Over It

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Mike Baker


This past week the PWB mailroom, which does extra duty as the foosball arena and beer locker, has been inundated with letters from our readers who reside on the left side of the teeter-totter. It appears that our recent columns on the new administration have irritated some who think we are fixating on President-elect Obama. Many, in language unprintable and at times not entirely well spelt, seem to think that the PWB is being churlish, harbors a grudge over the election results and should, in the words of one fellow, “… get over it.”

Frankly, I think these surly members of the liberal world have missed the nuanced approach we try to take here. If you’ll flip through the PWB archives held at the National Library of Congress, you’ll see that I didn’t have a dog in this hunt. Neither side blew my skirt up and once again there wasn’t a viable third-party candidate.

However, while I didn’t vote for him, I’m actually rooting for Obama and his administration to do well. A successful, efficient and well managed government is what we should all want. But wishing them well and hoping for the best doesn’t require us to not disagree or to not express differences.

After all, the PWB was established back in the spring of 1927 with one overriding purpose … to raise our hand or ask “huh?” anytime the crap-o-meter goes off. And if memory serves me correct, the left side of the liberal bench took eight years to “get over” Bush. During that time, if I’m not mistaken, there was constant criticism, whining and churlishness. So telling me I’m being churlish four weeks after the election does seem a bit hypocritical.


It is interesting to note that the nastiest mail we receive, on a regular basis, is from what I suppose we could call “hardcore liberals”. Look, you won, congratulations. Now tone down the rhetoric, not to mention the unimaginative really foul language, and, in the words of one of your own, “get over it.” Enjoy the moment. Soon you’ll be wondering how the administration ended up governing from the center.

The center. As in, the middle ground. That appears to be where the new administration is headed based on recent pronouncements and some of the cabinet selections. This selection process is our best opportunity to date to get a look at Obama’s management style. After all, the campaign season didn’t exactly give us a detailed picture of the man.

Someday I’d like to get to the point where the candidates have to announce their cabinet selections before the election. Not only does it give you better insight into who would be running your government, it says a lot about the presidential candidates.

I know some on the far right who were fully expecting to see folks like Charles Schumer, Barney Frank and Keith Olberman appointed to cabinet positions in the new administration. There were dire predictions of the government taking a hard left turn, maybe with AL Franken as Information Minister and Chris Matthews as Director of Media Compliance.

Given those expectations, surely conservative Republicans, while not being happy, can at least admit that the likes of Robert Gates, James Jones and even Hillary Clinton are solid, pragmatic individuals. While Gates' selection is likely more about providing cover and won’t be a long-term pick, it’s better than yanking him out and installing new leadership during a critical time.

In the political world, it’s much better to keep him around. If Iraq and/or Afghanistan worsens, Gates can always be tossed overboard as the party faithful scream “he’s a Bush guy, it’s all their fault.” They might even throw in a Palin joke while they’re at it. Keeping a sacrificial scapegoat on hand is just good strategy.

All in all, I was feeling pretty safe and sound with the national security selections. Right up until Eric Holder got the nod for Attorney General. By all accounts smart and certainly experienced, the concern is over his ability to be a realist rather than an idealist when dealing with some of the very tough issues affecting our national security.

Hopefully he’ll find the center when dealing with interrogation questions, intelligence collection matters, Guantanamo and the like. After all, it’s easy to take the high road when you’re not the person responsible for making the decisions. Sometimes the high road looks less attractive, not to mention less secure, once you get the full picture.

And we’re waiting to hear who might be named to run the Central Intelligence Agency, currently under the steady leadership of Michael Hayden. Here’s a thought… keep Hayden. If he doesn’t want to stay on, how about we select someone based on criteria other than “are they acceptable to CIA bashing liberals?”

Recently there was talk of naming John Brennan, a former senior agency officer, a smart and good man. That possibility was derailed when some liberal critics of the CIA cried that Brennan was connected to the agency’s detention and interrogation efforts. What a load of crap.

He, like everyone else at the agency, is against torture. Apparently his transgression was stating the obvious: that enhanced interrogation techniques can be effective and important in select cases. For this, the liberals deemed him unsuitable.

According to the logic used by these critics, anyone at the CIA during the past several years shouldn’t be considered for the director’s role. Did I already say what a load of crap? We’ve discussed this issue before, and it’s a topic that inevitably makes me smash the glass on the emergency bourbon cabinet.

Liberals frame the argument in a clever way … essentially saying that anything other than talking to a detainee is torture. They claim there are no enhanced techniques (such as stress positions, temperature variations, sleep disruption) … it’s either chatting or its torture. Now, that’s a fine debating technique if you’re in a debate on a leafy campus surrounded by lofty thoughts of world peace, unicorns and fuzzy warm puppies.

Unfortunately, the real world is a crappier place and sometimes involves violent jihadists and terrorists who would like to blow up as many innocent men, women and children as possible. If you think this is just a typical Republican scare tactic, review last week’s events in Mumbai. And that’s after Obama won the election. Apparently the terrorists involved in that attack didn’t get the memo that we can all get along now.

The point being, in carefully selected cases, there are times when the allowable interrogation techniques of the Army Field Manual aren’t going to get the job done. That doesn’t mean the next stop on the express is torture. Despite the carefully framed argument of the left, we don’t torture.

Between chatting and torture lies a small window of opportunity for enhanced interrogation techniques. They aren’t used often -- you’d be surprised how infrequently they have been used in the past -- but you better have them in your tool bag.

Here’s hoping the choice for CIA director, as well as for director of national intelligence, reflects the pragmatic, center-leaning approach taken with nominees such as Gates, Jones and Clinton. These positions are critical to our national security. Play politics with other positions if you want … I’m OK with a far-left secretary of transportation.

But fill the CIA and DNI slots with strong persons who have relevant experience in the world of intelligence and operations.

And frankly, if you don’t agree with me, get over it.

As always, we look forward to your comments, thoughts and insight. Send your emails to peoplesweeklybrief@hotmail.com

Till next week, stay safe.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461686,00.html
downing street memo investigation





Republican Congressman Breaks Ranks, Joins Demand for Documents on Downing Street Memos






Related stories: antiwar




src=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/images/1x1.gif 8-24-05, 10:58 am

Congressman Jim Leach (R, Iowa) has informed Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D, California) that he will co-sponsor her Resolution of Inquiry into Bush Administration communications with the U.K. about Iraq at the time of the Downing Street Memos.  Leach is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly support a demand for an inquiry into the Bush Administration's pre-war claims.  The 131 congress members who have signed Congressman John Conyers' letter to the President about the Downing Street Memo are all Democrats.  The 11 Senators who have asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to do the investigation it committed to in February 2004 but never did are all Democrats.
 
The Resolution, H. Res. 375, is a privileged resolution which must be brought to a vote in the House International Relations Committee by September 16th, or Lee is permitted to demand a vote of the full House.  Fifty-two Democrats, including Lee, have co-sponsored the Resolution.  Leach is the first Republican to join them, and he is a member of the International Relations Committee..
 
The International Relations Committee has 27 Republican members and 23 Democratic members.  Thus far 10 of the Democrats have co-sponsored the Resolution.  If the other 13 vote for it as well, then along with Leach, one more Republican vote will be needed for a tie, or two more for passage.
 
Leach has questioned Bush's war policies for years and was one of five Republicans in May to vote for Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's amendment requiring an exit strategy.  Another of those five, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, also serves on the International Relations Committee. 
 
Congressman Leach has broken the silence of the Republican Party on the Downing Street Minutes, said John Bonifaz, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition.  His willingness to co-sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry is bound to make the White House nervous.  It is not possible for the President to paint this demand for documents as coming solely from his opponents.  This is a demand for the truth.  Did the president deliberately deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq?  We as a people -- from Crawford to Des Moines to Washington, DC, regardless of our political persuasion, deserve to know the answer to that basic question.
 
Congress returns to Washington from its summer break on September 6, said David Swanson, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition.  The first 10 days will test the Democrats' ability to stand together and challenge the Bush Administration, as well as Republicans' willingness to break ranks on an issue where public opinion has diverged widely from White House policy.
 
The text of the Resolution, H. Res. 375, a list of current co-sponsors, and what you can do to help: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902

From AfterDowningStreet.org


Memo to Hillary: Road Trip!

Memo to Hillary: Road trip to that place between King City and Coalingo


Dear Hillary:


I know you've been real busy with sniper fire and 3:00 a.m. phone calls, etc., but have you ever seen that commercial for AT&T internet service, where the guy says he's on the road between "King City and Coalingo" (sp?) (There are several commercials out there for this product, and the theme for them is people's "moments.")


In the one I'm referring to, there's a guy is standing near a big field with a bunch of cows, explaining how his service lets him do business anywhere, and after he's through explaining how it works and how his bid was the first one in, he gets a text message and says, "It looks like I got the account."


An old man appears and says, "Congratulations on your moment."


Hillary, PLEASE drive yourself have your chauffeur drive you (with or without your cell phone) to that field "between King City and Coalingo" and take a L-O-N-G walk through that field. (Be sure to fill up have one of your servants fill your gas tank first.) Pet a cow or two. Resist the urge to whip out that gun yer granddaddy taught you how to shoot if you become hungry for a filet mignon; maybe you could make a have your maid make a PBJ before your departure (you know, the kind of food that more and more of us hard-working white people are forced to rely on in today's economy). Along the way, don't be afraid to step into the very thing that comprises your soul. Take a deep breath (lots of them). Try to place yourself into Barack Obama's shoes (sans cow dung) and explore WHY it is that YOU believe you must control everything -- even when you're the loser. Why is it that YOU think YOU get to dictate the terms of everything, even if you don't have the right to do so?


You have repeatedly said you're "in it to win it." You didn't win it. Now pretend to have some grace and/or just some personal decency and do NOT try to strong-arm the person who DID win it. There are a lot of women who would be good Vice Presidential candidates, all of whom believe in and would be loyal to President Obama, none of them potential orphan-makers.


Take a good, long look at those cows, Hillary. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two about "moments." Hopefully, you'll even learn a thing or two about yourself.


Edited by Moderator for aggressive and strange language.


Republicans are Stuck to Bush - See RNC Memo Link

Republicans are Stuck to Bush

In a memo to RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, GOP pollster Jan van Lohuizen argues that it's dangerous for Republican congressional candidates to distance themselves from President Bush.

President Bush drives our image and will do so until we have real national front-runners for the '08 nomination. Attacking the President is counter productive for all Republicans, not just the candidates launching the attacks. If he drops, we all drop.
Note that the democratic talking points memo of the week must contain sm
stuff about utilities, cuz I sure see it on here a lot.  I guess it was okay when Saddam was in power cuz people could flush their toilets and drown out the screams of those being tortured and raped.
GOP alert memo states intent to bust the union

With 3 million jobs hanging in the balance.


Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.


Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout


Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery.  They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible.  The message they want us to deliver is:


1.       This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election.  This is a precursor to card check and other items.  Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.


2.       This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP.  Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it.  We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.


The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better.  Please contact me if you need additional information.  Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes.  If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.


http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/12/1713569.aspx


Bush memo instructs officials: "Say I had honor and dignity."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this! "Honor" and "dignity" are NOT words that would come to mind to describe Bush.


What is INCREDIBLE to me is that Bush's "memoir," "A Charge to Keep" is referenced here. The original ghostwriter (and long-time Bush family friend) for that memoir was fired and his reputation tarnished (in usual Bush fashion) because Bush talked TOO much during his interviews with the writer, including how he wanted to invade Iraq back in 1999 -- 2 years before 9/11. I've posted that link on here before, but here it is again:


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php


For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure


Administration officials get a memo from the White House suggesting what to say about the last eight years: President Bush upheld 'the honor and the dignity of his office,' for one.


By Peter Nicholas
December 9, 2008


Reporting from Washington -- In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.

A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.


Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."

The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.

It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.


In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.

As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."

The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.

A copy of the memo was obtained by The Times' Washington bureau. A spokesman for Bush said Monday that the White House routinely sends out suggestions to officials and allies on ways to talk about the administration's record.
"What we have in mind with these documents is we feel the president's many accomplishments haven't been given the attention they deserve and in some cases have been purposely ignored," said Carlton Carroll, a White House spokesman.

No one is required to recite the talking points laid out by the White House, Carroll said.

The memo closes with a reference to Bush's 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":

"Above all, George W. Bush promised to uphold the honor and the dignity of his office. And through all the challenges and trials of his time in office, that is a charge that our president has kept."

One accomplishment cited is passage of the No Child Left Behind law, Bush's attempt to improve education. "He promised to raise standards and accountability in public schools -- and delivered the No Child Left Behind Act," the talking points read.

On the presidential campaign trail this year, Democratic candidates found that any criticism of No Child Left Behind was a surefire applause line.

President-elect Barack Obama promised to revamp the program, contending that it elevated test-taking at the expense of a well-rounded education.

Nicholas is a writer in our Washington bureau.

peter.nicholas@latimes.com


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush9-2008dec09,0,4145069.story


 


I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
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.



 


I didn't know that.
Thanks, Democrat.  I wasn't aware of that point at all, and to me, that makes a huge difference.  I will visit the site and check it out.  Thanks again.
I though you said you didn't

Sorry, but I didn't see anywhere

in AR's post that she was against it.  Instead, she acted as if the topic has no place on this board and shouldn't be discussed... like some kind of dirty little secret.


The *attack the messenger* technique has been used constantly in the last 5 years by the current administration (and his followers) when someone gets too close to the truth.  Don't believe me?  Ask Valerie Plame.


I didn't say that.nm

It is me, but I didn't get it...sm
I think there is a problem wiht the email on forumatrix because I tried to send an email to the poster ????? who posted on the conservative board today and got an error message as well.

Nevermind it though. Have a good day! I have to get ready for my mini vacation later this week, so I will be working mucho hours til Wednesday.
I didn't know it was q/yours/q.
I just made a fast post.  I don't know what the rest of the stuff is you are talking about.  ForuMatrix is a worldwide board.  Some of us don't even live in the United States.  People here might want to realise that when making responses.  It is of no consequence to me one way or the other.  Just asking a question. 
I didn't think so.

Same old.  Same old. 


No way. He didn't say that, did he??? nm
.
I didn't think of it this way.
I really didn't think of that, but you are right. My brother-in-law made over $20K in a few months. My sister has paid off just about everything, including the mortgage.

But, that is a heck of a risk to take for a little cash.
Didn't know about that one.
nm
You'd be #$%*@ing if they didn't do anything -

But, it IS the RNC, so they are damned either way with socialists oops I mean democRATS like yourself. 


Please tell me he didn't say that

I received a call from an friend who was so upset and said Obama called Palin a pig in lipstick.  I responded, surely no, you must be mistaken.  Obama is running for office of the President of the United States.  Why would he ruin his chances of winning by calling this lady a pig.  That doesn't sound like rational behavior for a presidential candidate.  However, to my surprise I opened several different news sources (both liberal and conservative) and sure enough he did.  I'm thinking why, why in the world would you fall down that path of being so low that you would call Palin a pig saying "you can put lipstick on a pig and it will still be a pig".  If he was trying to make a joke in reference to her joke about the difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull is lipstick, this joke could not have come at a worse time for him.  How in the world is he going to explain that one.


Shame shame Barack Obama.  This has to be one of the lowest comments anyone can make about another candidate. - Not funny!  Why would you go and ruin any chance you had that people may have thought you had a little bit of "class" to you.


I haven't watched MSNBC but am curious as to how they are going to respond.  How can they support someone when this is his opinion of other people.


Talk about low class.  One more reason I will not be voting democrat this election. 


I didn't know this either, but....sm
I was a little disappointed in McCain yesterday, blaming Bush for the current crisis, just like Obama.

What he needs to do, is link Obama and Biden to this, as they both took bribes from the lobbyists, from these corporations, that went under.

Where's the outrage against the dems and the democratic congress, that knew these things were going on, and refused to step in and stop these from happening?

Once again, it's blame George Bush, and McCain has to remember he's running against Obama, not George Bush.




I don't think he didn't know where
Spain was. I think he is just old, tired from the campaign and wasn't thinking very clearly at that moment. But that is not any more comforting than not knowing where Spain is. Geography he can learn; energy, youth and vitality he cannot get back. My mom is a pretty spry 75YO, but would I want her as President at that age, no way.
I didn't go after anything she said . . .
I posed a question, which is worse?. You read far more into it than was intended. Lady R. brought up Obama's bitterly clingly to guns and religion insult and added an additional insult of referring to those people as rednecks. Thus, my question, which is worse? She was just as clueless that it was offensive.

And as far as going after what my opponent says, I am not running for anything, I have no opponent. I voted for McCain in the primary of 2000 and was very disappointed when he wasn't the nominee then. I am an independent that has actually voted both parties.
You didn't see this on NBC, etc.









Subject: Bet Ya didn't hear about this on NBC

Family with Down Syndrome Child Meets John McCain and Sarah Palin

September 9, 2008



((( BEGIN PHONE TRANSCRIPT WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH )))



RUSH:  Kurt in Pittsburgh, hello, sir.  Nice to have you on the EIB Network, and how about the Steelers defense?

CALLER:  How about those Steelers, huh?

RUSH:  How about that?

CALLER:  Hey, listen, Rush, longtime listener, first-time caller, one of those Bible, family, gun clingers from western Pennsylvania.

RUSH:  Thank you.

CALLER:  And I wanted to share a story with you.  A week ago last Saturday we went to the Palin-McCain rally in Washington, Pennsylvania, was the day after he announced her, and we have a five-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, and we made a sign that said: "We Love Kids with Down Syndrome."  So when they pulled in their bus, the sign did catch their eye (McCain and Palin and the rest of their family) it caught their eye, we could tell, they gave us a thumbs-up from the bus, so we were all excited just by that --



RUSH:  Wait, wait, wait.  Who gave you the thumbs up, McCain and Palin?

CALLER:  McCain, Palin, Cindy McCain, we could see them from the bus. We were in a position where we had eye contact with them --

RUSH:  Oh, cool!

CALLER:  My wife was holding our daughter.

RUSH:  Very, very, very cool.

CALLER:  It was really cool, Rush. I was like, "Wow, that's awesome," because I love Governor Palin and so I thought that's really neat.  So then we moved around as the bus was getting ready to pull out, we kind of positioned ourselves so we could just wave them on and a Secret Service agent came up to us and said, "Hey, can you come with us?"  I was like, "Do we have a choice?"

RUSH: (laughing) You shouldn't have worried.  It's not the Clinton administration.

CALLER: Right. So we accompanied them up the hill, we went right to the bus, where it was, and Governor Palin, Senator McCain, Cindy, Todd Palin, they're all standing there. We're in this inner circle with just us and them, and the Secret Service agent, and they came right up to us and thanked us for coming out, said they loved our sign, and Governor Palin immediately said, "May I hold your daughter?" and our daughter Chloe, who's five, went right to her, and I have some pictures I'd love to send you maybe when I'm done here, but Governor Palin was hugging Chloe, and then her little daughter brought their baby Trig who has Down syndrome from the bus, he was napping, and Chloe went right over and kissed him on the cheek, and my son Nolan who's nine, he thanked her.



RUSH: This is amazing.

CALLER: I will send you all the stuff, Senator McCain was talking to my son, and we thanked him for his service, and he asked my son if he wanted to see the bus, and we were hanging out and it was very surreal. I felt like we could have had a pizza and a beer with them, they were so warm.

RUSH: You know what? I want to put you on hold. I want Snerdley to give you our super-secret, known-only-to-three-people here, e-mail address.

CALLER: I will send you everything, Rush.

RUSH: And then could you send us these pictures? Would you mind if we put them on the website?

CALLER: I would be honored, and my main thing is they are warm, kind, genuine people, and they represent the best of this country.

RUSH:  That's right.  And when you send these pictures, make sure you identify them.  I mean, we'll know Palin and McCain, of course.  Identify yourselves.

CALLER:  I will, I will identify everybody in the picture, Rush, and God bless you for being a beacon of hope and truth in this country.

RUSH:  Oh, no, no.  It's nothing, it's nothing.  You're doing the Lord's work.

CALLER:  Well, we're very blessed and I want people to know what a blessing it is to have a child with Down syndrome. These kids, they're angels.

RUSH:  That's the thing.  There's always good to be found in everything that happens.  It may be a while before it reveals itself.



CALLER:  Absolutely.

RUSH:  Right, and when she hugged my daughter I said, here's the difference, this candidate embraces life and all its limitless possibilities.

RUSH:  All right.

CALLER:  That's what she is.

RUSH:  Terrific, okay, I gotta run here, but I'm going to put you on hold.

CALLER:  Thank you, Rush.

RUSH:  Thank you, Kurt.  I really appreciate it.

((( END TRANSCRIPT )))











 

Well, you didn't say that s/m

you didn't agree with everything in that propaganda.  Therein lies the problem.  Don't put stuff out there as fact if you don't agree with it.


Sorry the Dems didn't have enough votes to pass the bail-out without their Pub counterparts.  They are all a greedy bunch of vipers and I intend to vote AGAINST my Senator (Democrat) and Represent (Republican) when they come up for re-election and I have told them so!  Both have voted to support big business in their district and gone against the will of there constituents on every issue.


Sorry, I didn't see
your post before I posted mine.  I said apology accepted.  I forgot about "that dog won't hunt."  LOL
I didn't know he had said this....

Obama told an evangelical church in South Carolina: "I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."


hmmm.