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

Well...if it puts Obama in a good light, it is probably owned by George Soros. nm

Posted By: MT and worn out on 2008-11-18
In Reply to: Gee, I wonder who owns that web site....(NM) - MT

nm


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

George Soros is having "a very good recession". Made $2.9 billion.

So, this "man of the people" who funds the loony left and wants all the rest of us to be communists rakes in $billions from the recession.  He's out there picking up stuff at bargain-basement prices just like JP Morgan and his kind did.


Disgusting.


Thanks for the article, puts O in a good light really.
Told me how he is trying to rein in the lobbyists and get spending under better control and not things as usual in DC. I am Obama girl, thanks for posting!
look up moveon.org & George Soros
That's all you need to know.  HUGE BUCKS from them (one in the same, actually).
Good ol George
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/bush_tours_america_to_survey
Buffet and Soros manipulated Japan, European and
Care to share your theory on HOW they manipulated the markets? Are they also behind the mortgage meltdown, plummeting home values, bank failures, AIG, credit crisis, consumer confidence index, drops in retail sales, plunge in annual sales reports for GM and Chrysler, layoffs negative jobs growth, rise in unemployment, record Exxon and Chevron profits and the like? All manipulated?

With regard to your sour grapes. Obama will win this election because the republicans failed to overcome the Bush legacy of worst administration in the history of the country. They are in a leadershp crisis that produced a weak candidate who could not put together an effective issues-based campaign and, instead, indulged itself in cultural warfare and the politics of division...which in an of itself is a clear sign of 4 more years of the same stuff we are all trying to run far and wide to get away from. Their party is in shambles because of its right wing who is losing its grip of influence and power over the more moderate and centrist among them. Time for some new blood and a platform transplant.

Obama is clearly the best choice for the future of our country. We could use a little "touchy feely" and will benefit immensely by a giant step forward in terms of taking us into a post racial, post partisan reaffirmation of our core values and common sense of purpose, being unity, justice, equality and opportunity for all Americans. It comes as no surprise that some will not quickly recover from the negativity they have been mired in over this past year and it will be up to them whether they stay stuck in the mud or get with the program.

For those who opt for "more of the same," you will be finding out what it feels like to go through exactly what the democrats are finally emerging from after these past 8 years...the depression that comes from a sense of anomie and living in a parallel universe. That choice is yours.
George Bush HIMSELF makes it so easy to make fun of George Bush!!!! oh where would I start, so litt
nm
I did and I owned up to it . . .
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Not afraid to admit it.
Most newspapers are liberal owned
So, it's not big suprise.  Newspaper circulation is down in this country  for several reasons the biggest one being is that they are just mouthpieces for the liberal agenda.  The NYT is a huge example, and their circulation is dropping weekly.  Like liberal news they refuse to accept that most of the blame is due to the glaring bias they have.  The internet has also taken a big bite out of their profits as people who care about news are bypassing newspapers and T.V. to search out their news from the internet.   You're right.  Ann probably is not batting an eyelash about losing newspapers.  They are a dying breed anyway...mostly from political suicide.
Privately owned board??
Who owns it?? If it is private, why is it on MT Stars along with our company boards, and job hunting boards. I thought it was a part of MT Stars; if not, I don't think it should be here since it is an extremely biased forum. It seems to me to be a venue for a couple of people to espouse their very very conservative views and really that is about all. There is not much civil debate going on. There are only a couple of liberals left who post and most of us stay away a lot of the time because no matter what we say, we will be castigated. There is nothing liberal that is acceptable to this board. The conservatives carry on on their side and when they get tired of that, they come to the liberal side and lambast the liberals. Nothing that is not conservative (one single solitary definition of conservative at that) is acceptable. This has become almost a conservative blog. So, who do I write to to find out how this is run. I think this board ought to be removed from the auspices of MT. It has nothing to do with MT and it is privately owned by extremists. I am going to see what I can find out about ForuMatrix and how one goes about getting things changed. I don't think anything resembling the Drudge Report ought be on a **politics** board that appears on the surface to be all inclusive when it is not.
90% of Wall Street is owned and run by....sm
liberal democrats.



What percentage of homes are owned by
Does anyone have numbers?
WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox.....
"nuf said.
she didn't have a choice....stepfather owned everything
--
Government owned Amtrak did not work
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!

une 1st, 2009 12:45 PM Eastern
PHIL KERPEN: It Didn’t Work for Amtrak and It Won’t Work for GM, Either

By Phil Kerpen
Director, Americans for Prosperity

I cautiously cheered the Obama administration’s announcement 60 days ago that GM was on a path to bankruptcy court, because I was hopeful that it would represent an end to political manipulation of the company and a chance to get a clean balance sheet and a new shot as a private company. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Instead GM heads to bankruptcy court with a prepackaged deal that almost completely politicizes the company, with the U.S. government the new majority shareholder.

———

Expect that, like Amtrak, GM will be government-run and subsidized to the tune of billions of taxpayers dollars for decades to come.

———

Taxpayers were already on the hook for $20 billion of bailouts to GM, and today’s deal puts us on the hook for another $30 billion. Even worse, that $50 billion could be just the tip of the iceberg, because the government is now committed to owning and operating an automobile company that could run massive losses for years, even decades, to come.

Today’s New York Times quotes an administration official saying: “We don’t think that after this next $30 billion, they will need more money, but the fact is there are things you don’t know — like when the car market will come back, and how much Toyota and Honda and Volkswagen will benefit from the chaos.” In other words, who knows how much taxpayers will pay. Sky’s the limit.

In 1971, Amtrak was created, the Nixon administration said, “It is expected that the corporation would experience financial losses for about three years and then become a self-sustaining enterprise.” The Obama administration now claims that GM will be a publicly traded company again in six to 18 months. Expect that, like Amtrak, GM will be government-run and subsidized to the tune of billions of taxpayers dollars for decades to come.

The worst part is that government entities are run according to political, not economic, considerations. Every decision—about dealerships and plant closings, about suppliers, about which vehicles to build—will have to pass the Washington tests of political and environmental correctness.

Saab, Saturn, Hummer, and Pontaic will be shuttered. At least nine plants will close. These changes might make economic sense. But with government calling the shots, we will never be sure why certain plants were closed and others were spared.

The Obama administration’s big announcement on fuel-economy standards a couple of weeks ago and the president’s endless drumbeat that Detroit needs to make smaller and lighter cars and stop making trucks and SUVs is proof positive of this theory. Trucks have big margins, and could be a path to profitability. GM does need to find a way to make money on smaller cars, too, but does anyone really have confidence that being overseen and run by government bureaucrats will make that more likely to happen? Instead expect some government-by-committee to turn out vehicles with a Yugo-like design that nobody will want to buy and that taxpayers will end up subsidizing heavily.

General Motors was once an icon of American capitalism, but is now an exemplar of outright government control of a major industry, something completely un-American. Someone alert Karl Marx—we have government ownership of the means of production.

The legendary GM President Charles “Engine Charlie” Wilson was famous for saying in 1953: “For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”

Today President Obama echoed those sentiments, ending his speech by saying that he hopes that once again what is good for General Motors will be good for the United States of America. We can only hope that he is wrong! — that somehow, what’s being done to GM will not spread to the rest of our country and its economy. That somehow, we will resist the inexorable pull of endless bailouts and government control if we are to restore the free market system that made our country great.
It puts you
at the top of my list of level-headed Christians from whom the rest of the party/religion could learn a thing or two, & that is no lie.

I am quite reassured to know that there are some very religious people out there who still manage to separate church & state. I wish there were more of you, or at least, more who were willing to insist that this view be part & parcel of the Republican party. If there were, I'd still be a Republican, but I left the party long ago because of its exclusionary principles.




The same person owns this board who owned it when it was on MTStars. sm
She has made herself known on this board several times and stated her rules.  There are not many conservatives who post anymore either, Lurker, because of the whip lashing we took from liberals over the years. But do you see us whining about that all over the place? I don't think so.  You can't follow the rules, because the rules do  not apply to you.  FormMatrix is a host for ths board, but the same person still administrates it.  I wish you WOULD talk to her and stop with all of this.  You come on our board and post and you always have.  There have been some pretty egregious things said here over the years about the President, some of which probably should have been investigated by the FBI. 
It is an agency created by Congress, but is privately owned. sm
The stocks are owned by member banks, and they are private corporations. Every penny of income tax collected goes to private lenders for interest only on the national debt.

Quote from the Grace Commission report: "100% of what is collected is absorbed
solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone
before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
I'll be PERFECTLY clear. MTStars is a PRIVATELY owned
website that contains posts made by the public.  Because it is PRIVATELY owned, we reserve the right to operate the site how we see fit.  If you have specific questions or concerns about this, you can email me directly at admin@mtstars.com.
Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch
same owner of Fox Noise
Still, nobody puts a gun to their heads

and makes them sign on the dotted line.  You can always change your phone number and address.


Personaly, I don't believe much of that crap you're posting is true.  I know recruiters can be persistent, but all this conspiracy theory is just that, conspiracy.


Bush puts name to everything...sm

















Americas
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/grey.gif




















src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif





The Times March 24, 2006






src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,281993,00.jpg
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif


Bush puts name to everything


src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif






President Bush has become the longest-sitting President since Thomas Jefferson — who occupied the White House between 1801 to 1809 — not to exercise his veto, surpassing James Monroe.










Monroe had been in office for 1,888 days before he vetoed his first Bill on May 4, 1822. Jefferson, America’s third president, never exercised his veto.

Yesterday was Mr Bush’s 1,889th day in office. Congress has sent him 1,091 Bills and he has signed them all. His refusal to wield the veto has angered fiscal conservatives. They have become dismayed by his failure to block legislation stuffed with “pork barrel” special interest projects, at a time of growing national debt and runaway spending.

Last month Mr Bush threatened to veto legislation aimed at blocking a sale of US port operations to a Dubai company. He was saved from a showdown after the company sold that part of its interests to a US entity.

Ronald Reagan vetoed 78 Bills, and Bill Clinton 36.


I will bet that he puts his pants on one
DH does! He really is JUST A MAN, his s**t stinks just like the homeless beggars hanging around DC. He really is JUST A MAN. This isn't even humorous any more, just beyond anything I have ever heard. He will never be "one of us", he has himself on too high a podium to drop to some peon's level.
That puts you in the 26% range...(sm)

according to a recent poll asking the question of whether or not Americans felt safe with Obama.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/13/cnn-poll-obama-not-making-us-less-safe/


Looks like you're still in the minority, a rather small one at that.


That puts you in the 26% range...(sm)

according to a recent poll asking the question of whether or not Americans felt safe with Obama.


[Exert] "Seventy-two percent of those questioned in the poll released Monday disagree with Cheney's view that some of Obama's actions have put the country at greater risk, with 26 percent agreeing with the former vice president."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/13/cnn-poll-obama-not-making-us-less-safe/


Looks like you're still in the minority, a rather small one at that.


I don't think that puts his reputation on the line
If Obama gets elected and he is truly as bad as we think, then we will know God has brought the judgment on us. Serves us right too.

God rarely answers when you try to bargain with him. Praying "prove to me by doing such and such" doesn't seem to bear much fruit from what I've seen. It should be "your will be done"

Flame away.... ;)
This how he puts his campaign coffers to their best use,
oh brother
It is words. When he puts that into action....
I will begin to trust him. His actions will dictate what he meant by that...and if it was just words or sincerity. Since almost everything he is for I am against, I don't see how he could hear my voice, with all due respect. But time will tell. His actions will determine what he meant.
As long as SP puts herself out there and threatens to
she will draw volleys from the firing squad. Truth is that this relentless criticism is the best thing that can happen for the GOP, who needs to turn their eyes in a MUCH different direction when it comes to the leadership void. If they cannot move themselves more toward the center, they are doomed to fail again.
Voucher Program Puts D.C.

Cant trust anything Moore puts out there
nm
And I hope God puts some love and
//
You tried. Some of us do see the light.

A lot of us (family, neighbors, friends) could not believe how Obama spoke about the (SECRET MEETING).  Obama should not have discussed to anyone about the talk in the meeting.  As for Obama's so called aides he picked, should have fired them on the spot for a leak like that.  What if Obama was to talk with the President of Iran?  Look out.  Do not want to mention what I think of all this because I WILL GET BLASTED.  I guess some have to learn the hard way in life.  I see a lot of government me, me, me and LOOK AT ME approach.  Totally into one-self. 


You explained it completely clear and totally made sense.  Writing totally on the wall and so many others could not believe today's secret meeting.


Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/washington/11leak.html?hp&ex=1144728000&en=cfd85f2bec48b42b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

April 11, 2006

White House Memo

 

With One Filing, Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight



WASHINGTON, April 10 — From the early days of the C.I.A. leak investigation in 2003, the Bush White House has insisted there was no effort to discredit Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man who emerged as the most damaging critic of the administration's case that Saddam Hussein was seeking to build nuclear weapons.


But now White House officials, and specifically President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been pitched back into the center of the nearly three-year controversy, this time because of a prosecutor's court filing in the case that asserts there was a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to undermine Mr. Wilson.


The new assertions by the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, have put administration officials on the spot in a way they have not been for months, as attention in the leak case seems to be shifting away from the White House to the pretrial procedural skirmishing in the perjury and obstruction charges against Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.


Mr. Fitzgerald's filing talks not of an effort to level with Americans but of a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. It concludes, It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.'


With more filings expected from Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's work has the potential to keep the focus on Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney at a time when the president is struggling with his lowest approval ratings since he took office.


Even on Monday, Mr. Bush found himself in an uncomfortable spot during an appearance at a Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, when a student asked him to address Mr. Fitzgerald's assertion that the White House was seeking to retaliate against Mr. Wilson.


Mr. Bush stumbled as he began his response before settling on an answer that sidestepped the question. He said he had ordered the formal declassification of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in July 2003 because it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches about Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its weapons program.


Mr. Bush said nothing about the earlier, informal authorization that Mr. Fitzgerald's court filing revealed. The prosecutor described testimony from Mr. Libby, who said Mr. Bush had told Mr. Cheney that it was permissible to reveal some information from the intelligence estimate, which described Mr. Hussein's efforts to acquire uranium.


But on Monday, Mr. Bush was not talking about that. You're just going to have to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that, Mr. Bush said. It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it.


Every prosecutor strives not just to prove a case, but also to tell a compelling story. It is now clear that Mr. Fitzgerald's account of what was happening in the White House in the summer of 2003 is very different from the Bush administration's narrative, which suggested that Mr. Wilson was seen as a minor figure whose criticisms could be answered by disclosing the underlying intelligence upon which Mr. Bush relied.


It turned out that much of the information about Mr. Hussein's search for uranium was questionable at best, and that it became the subject of dispute almost as soon as it was included in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.


The answer to the question of whose recounting of events is correct — Mr. Bush's or Mr. Fitzgerald's — may not be known for months or years, if ever. But it seems there will be more clues, including some about the conversations between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.


Mr. Fitzgerald said he was preparing to turn over to Mr. Libby 1,400 pages of handwritten notes — some presumably in Mr. Libby's own hand — that could shed light on two very different efforts at getting out the White House story.


One effort — the July 18 declassification of the major conclusions of the intelligence estimate — was taking place in public, while another, Mr. Fitzgerald argues, was happening in secret, with only Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby involved.


Last week's court filing has already led the White House to acknowledge, over the weekend, that Mr. Bush ordered the selective disclosure of parts of the intelligence estimate sometime in late June or early July. But administration officials insist that Mr. Bush played a somewhat passive role and did so without selecting Mr. Libby, or anyone else, to tell the story piecemeal to a small number of reporters.


But in one of those odd twists in the unpredictable world of news leaks, neither of the reporters Mr. Libby met, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post or Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, reported a word of it under their own bylines. In fact, other reporters working on the story were talking to senior officials who were warning that the uranium information in the intelligence estimate was dubious at best.


Mr. Fitzgerald did not identify who took part in the White House effort to argue otherwise, but the evidence he has cited so far shows that Mr. Cheney's office was the epicenter of concern about Mr. Wilson, the former ambassador sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to determine what deal, if any, Mr. Hussein had struck there.


Throughout the spring and early summer of 2003, Mr. Fitzgerald concluded, the former ambassador had become an irritant to the administration, raising doubts about the truthfulness of assertions — made publicly by Mr. Bush in his State of the Union address in January of that year — that Iraq might have sought uranium in Africa to further its nuclear ambitions.


Mr. Wilson's criticisms culminated in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed article in The Times in which he voiced the same doubts for the first time on the record. He cited as his evidence his 2002 trip to Niger, instigated, he said, because of questions raised by Mr. Cheney's office.


Mr. Wilson's article, Mr. Fitzgerald said in the filing, was viewed in the Office of the Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq.


Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that the White House effort was a plan to undermine Mr. Wilson.


Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson's wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the vice president had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson's credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism, Mr. Fitzgerald's filing said.




I think Lieberman puts Country first. -has guts.nm
nm
At least McCain's wife puts her money into

I haven't seen anything on that. I see where she helps her own race. I haven't heard anything about her helping children with health problems like Mrs. McC.


If anyone has any proof that Mrs. O does help others, I'd seriously like to know about it.


W puts money in blind trust It's been 8 yrs since
but claims he lost money in the meltdown.  Guess economics was/is not his strong suit.  This makes me wonder if his economic advisors were ever able to dumb down their reports enough for W to be able to understand them.  Just 6 more days, praise the Lord. 
Thanks, this does shed a different light.sm
I do admit, I have not been following this.
Here's another one that sheds even more light.

This also is pretty long and contains much of the same as the other link I provided, but this one also addresses how he should start a *small war* in order to be sucessful.  It also addresses how the George W. Bush camp tried to denigrate Mr. Herskowitz's character after he was pulled from the book (one of the classic trademarks of this administration), and that even after all that, former President George Herbert Walker Bush requested that Mr. Herskowitz write a book about his father, and he agreed.


 


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm


 















Published on Thursday, October 28, 2004 by GNN.tv

Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer

by Russ Baker
 

HOUSTON -- Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999, said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. It was on his mind. He said to me: '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 said, '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. Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker.

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president.

In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush's ghostwriter after Bush's handlers concluded that the candidate's views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.

According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.

The revelations on Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.

Herskowitz also revealed the following:



  • In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.

  • Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been excused.

  • Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot's garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate Mission Accomplished in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.

  • Bush described his own business ventures as floundering before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.

Throughout the interviews for this article and in subsequent conversations, Herskowitz indicated he was conflicted over revealing information provided by a family with which he has longtime connections, and by how his candor could comport with the undefined operating principles of the as-told-to genre. Well after the interviews-in which he expressed consternation that Bush's true views, experience and basic essence had eluded the American people -Herskowitz communicated growing concern about the consequences for himself of the publication of his remarks, and said that he had been under the impression he would not be quoted by name. However, when conversations began, it was made clear to him that the material was intended for publication and attribution. A tape recorder was present and visible at all times.

Several people who know Herskowitz well addressed his character and the veracity of his recollections. I don't know anybody that's ever said a bad word about Mickey, said Barry Silverman, a well-known Houston executive and civic figure who worked with him on another book project. An informal survey of Texas journalists turned up uniform confidence that Herskowitz's account as contained in this article could be considered accurate.

One noted Texas journalist who spoke with Herskowitz about the book in 1999 recalls how the author mentioned to him at the time that Bush had revealed things the campaign found embarrassing and did not want in print. He requested anonymity because of the political climate in the state. I can't go near this, he said.

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.

Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.

Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents - Grenada and Panama - and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.

I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. He said, 'No I haven't, and I won't, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.' Brent would not have talked to him without the old man's okaying it. Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush's administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.

Herskowitz's revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush's pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe 's David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam's weapons stash, wrote Nyhan. 'I'd take 'em out,' [Bush] grinned cavalierly, 'take out the weapons of mass destruction·I'm surprised he's still there, said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.'s father·It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush's first big clinker.

The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand.

Herskowitz considers himself a friend of the Bush family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz, a longtime Houston Chronicle sports columnist designated President Bush's father, then-Congressman George HW Bush, to replace him as a guest columnist, and the two have remained close since then. (Herskowitz was suspended briefly in April without pay for reusing material from one of his own columns, about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.)

In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush's staff expressed displeasure -often over Herskowitz's use of language provided by Bush himself. In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush's own words to describe the Texan's unprofitable business ventures, writing: the companies were floundering. I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, 'You've got some wrong information.' I didn't bother to say, 'Well you know where it came from.' [The lawyer] said, 'We do not consider that the governor struggled or floundered in the oil business. We consider him a successful oilman who started up at least two new businesses.'

In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz's account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. The lawyer called me and said, 'Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.'

They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it, he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.

According to Herskowitz, Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Texas Air National Guard - and inconsistent when he did so. Bush, he said, provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to being sent to Vietnam. Herskowitz also said that Bush told him that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was excused. This directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard. Bush's claim to have fulfilled his military duty has been subject to intense scrutiny; he has insisted in the past that he did show up for monthly drills in Alabama - though commanding officers say they never saw him, and no Guardsmen have come forward to accept substantial rewards for anyone who can claim to have seen Bush on base.

Herskowitz said he asked Bush if he ever flew a plane again after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 - which was two years prior to his contractual obligation to fly jets was due to expire. He said Bush told him he never flew any plane - military or civilian - again. That would contradict published accounts in which Bush talks about his days in 1973 working with inner-city children, when he claimed to have taken some of the children up in a plane.

In 2002, three years after he had been pulled off the George W. Bush biography, Herskowitz was asked by Bush's father to write a book about the current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, after getting a message that the senior Bush wanted to see him. Former President Bush just handed it to me. We were sitting there one day, and I was visiting him there in his office·He said, 'I wish somebody would do a book about my dad.'

He said to me, 'I know this has been a disappointing time for you, but it's amazing how many times something good will come out of it.' I passed it on to my agent, he jumped all over it. I asked [Bush senior], 'Would you support it and would you give me access to the rest of family?' He said yes.

That book, Duty, Honor, Country: The Life and Legacy of Prescott Bush , was published in 2003 by Routledge. If anything, the book has been criticized for its over-reliance on the Bush family's perspective and rosy interpretation of events. Herskowitz himself is considered the ultimate as-told-to author, lending credibility to his account of what George W. Bush told him. Herskowitz's other books run the gamut of public figures, and include the memoirs of Reagan aide Deaver, former Texas Governor and Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally, newsman Dan Rather, astronaut Walter Cunningham, and baseball greats Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan.

After Herskowitz was pulled from the Bush book project, the biographer learned that a scenario was being prepared to explain his departure. I got a phone call from someone in the Bush campaign, confidentially, saying 'Watch your back.'

Reporters covering Bush say that when they inquired as to why Herskowitz was no longer on the project, Hughes intimated that Herskowitz had personal habits that interfered with his writing - a claim Herskowitz said is unfounded. Later, the campaign put out the word that Herskowitz had been removed for missing a deadline. Hughes subsequently finished the book herself - it received largely critical reviews for its self-serving qualities and lack of spontaneity or introspection.

So, said Herskowitz, the best material was left on the cutting room floor, including Bush's true feelings.

He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake, Herskowitz said. That was one of the keys to being a leader.

Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute .

Russ Baker is an award-winning independent journalist who has been published in The New York Times ,The Nation ,Washington Post ,The Telegraph (UK), Sydney Morning-Herald , and Der Spiegel , among many others.

© Copyright 2004 gnn.tv


Why thank you....Ms sweetness and light....
Well, obviously your faith makes cursing a personal choice too. Try reading the post next time and do not, please, put words into my mouth. I was not comparing Hitler to a Jew. What a ridiculous statement. I was not comparing Hitler to abortion, even a more ridiculous statement. I was talking about moral relativity, and that the people in Germany during the rise of Hitler were probably defending his stand on Jews, just like you are defending abortion, because when people are led to believe that any life, at any stage, means nothing, or in your case state it does not even exist, it is a breeding ground for people like Hitler. I meant that people in Germany were probably rationalizing the killing of Jews like you are rationalizing the killing of babies, therefore making it easier to accept what Hitler was doing. You twist words and when you don't get your way you result to base name calling. Calm down, get a grip and a cup of coffee. I am not your enemy.
i am making light of the

attempts to discredit Barack by calling him a celebrity.  You will see the same issue repeated over and over on this board, only by those who seriously consider that a valid issues.


 


Perhaps because the book has only now come to light....
I didn't know about the book until now. The point being...it is known about now, she knew it then, she should not have taken the job. What if they had chosen Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter? Would that be okay with you? Geez.
Glad you see the light.......
xx
Thanks for shedding that light sm
I had not considered what it would do to the lower income people. I had only considered that a straight-across-the board system would work better than our tiered/progressive/whatever you want to call it works now. I do like the flat-rate system, much more equitable.
The light at the end of the tunnel

"We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion, 2 trillion …we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do."

So says Lueo Ping, China Regulatory Commission (02/11/09)


I will gladly eat crow if I'm wrong because our country needs help, but I still don't think it will work.  We have too many in Washington who are crooks and until we get our government to actually work FOR us instead of working for themselves......maybe we will get there.  Who knows.  Right now I don't like the road we are on.  I don't like spending so much money and borrowing from China or just printing money.  I don't like the idea of all these government programs providing welfare, etc.  This package isn't even going to help for a year or two, if it does at all, so regardless more people are going to lose jobs, homes, etc. 


I think the light will come back on again.

Obama is a very wise man. He has come up with an excellent plan to get distressed homeowners back on their feet. He is going to take away their vehicles. 


 


Anybody got a light? 


So shines a light in a dim world. sm
Loved the scene from Armageddon.  Great time to tie it in. Thanks!
Valles and these parents see the light....nm
x
Glad you can make light.
Put your political silliness aside and think of someone other than yourself, and yes, they can use body armor.  If you want to send them some, please do.  Let me tell you one thing, you don't intimidate me at all.  You can laugh and act like a fool all you want, but the truth is, you care about your political perversions and not a bit about the troops or you would be doing something to make their lives easier.  Like I said, I never ever met a soldier who didn't want a package from home.  Never.
I think you already have someone to light candles and pray to...
ahem.
Let us hope that the light at the end of the tunnel

isn't a freight train getting ready to run us over.  That is just how I feel about our economy and government right now.  I'm tired of the finger pointing.  I'm tired of republican versus democrat.  I'm tired of politicians and CEOs lining their pockets with money while the rest of us struggle to survive because of what they have done to our economy. 


After the debate my husband and I flipped back and forth between CNN and Fox.  All CNN talked about was how Barry won the debate and most people on Fox said McCain did.  LOL.  Personally, I think they both could have done better.  I think that time has come that we want more answers and we want specifics.  We are tired of being pacified just so these politicians can get elected and not do anything they promised us during their campaign.