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 you didn't clarify a single thing,

Posted By: ann on 2008-08-23
In Reply to: Actually - kd

just restated your point all over again.  Which I still don't understand.  Never mind.


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

to clarify - the baby's safety is the first thing I thought of that was worrisome..
it appeared tacky to me to use the baby in such a way. When I re-read my post I guess it could have been taken differently than it was meant. anywho - it is not a choice I would have made as a mother...
Yes, and EVERY SINGLE THING he did to TRY to
nm
It All Comes Down to ONE SINGLE THING

YOU LOST.


AMERICA WON.


STOP YER WHININ'!!!!!  


 


To same OP: Show me one single thing that is not
For starters, I am not the original poster you think you silenced with your question. I would be happy to step up and point a few things that would lead many people to the conclusion that at least the message in your post is racist, and to the more general conclusion that people who post racist messages are very likely, well....racist.

It is difficult for some to distinguish the difference between prejudice, bigotry and racism. There is a reason for that. They are all forms of intolerance that vary only in degree and basis. Consider for a moment the definitions as they apply to the context of this post:

Prejudice: a: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

Bigotry: The state of mind, action or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; racial prejudice or discrimination

Now, to begin with, there is not a shred of truth to one single thing you have said here. That would qualify you as prejudiced on the basis of "without just ground, before sufficient knowledge." The conclusions you have drawn from your unfounded accusations would also suggest irrationality directed against an individual and the supposed characteristics, in this case, religion.

Obstinate, intolerant and devoted to you own opinions and prejudices, exhibiting hatred and intolerance, yesiree, we can check that off and confidently pronounce you bigoted as well.

Racist...your assumption that ACORN is a "racist organization." Unfounded, untrue and without proof. I challenge you now to show us one thing in your post that is not prejudiced, bigoted and racist, keeping in mind that you have no leg to stand on whatsoever until you can PROVE your accusations. Ball's in your court, dear.

Every single thing you posted is true.

And it's not just the veterans, either.  It's their entire FAMILIES and their friends.  It's all the people you will never hear about (assuming you're allowed to hear about the veterans).  It's about families that will be fractured, causing divorce, only to be criticized by the radical right about having no family values.


Show me one single thing in your post that is not
For starters, I am not the original poster you think you silenced with your question. I would be more than happy to step up and point out a few things that would lead many people to the conclusion that at least the message in your post is racist, and to the more general conclusion that people who post racist messages are very likely, well....racist.

It is difficult for some to distinguish the difference between prejudice, bigotry and racism. There is a reason for that. They are all forms of intolerance that vary only in degree and basis. Consider for a moment the definitions as they apply to the context of this post:

Prejudice: a: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

Bigotry: The state of mind, action or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; racial prejudice or discrimination

Now, to begin with, there is not a shred of truth to one single thing you have said here. That would qualify you as prejudiced on the basis of "without just ground, before sufficient knowledge." The conclusions you have drawn from your unfounded accusations would also suggest irrationality directed against an individual and the supposed characteristics, in this case, religion.

Obstinate, intolerant and devoted to you own opinions and prejudices, exhibiting hatred and intolerance...yesiree, we can check that off and confidently pronounce you bigoted as well.

Racist...your assumption that ACORN is a "racist organization." Unfounded, untrue and without proof. I challenge you now to show us one thing in your post that is not prejudiced, bigoted AND racist, keeping in mind that you have no leg to stand on whatsoever until you can PROVE your accusations. Ball's in your court, dear.
and you agree with ever single thing Obama says
Knock yourself out--but I prefer to think for myself. I only pick the candidate I think is best--not perfect
The one, single thing that took the worst toll on US
nm
You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything.  It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap.  Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
Media didn't have to do a thing....everyone could hear
xx
It's obvious you didn't read a DARN thing.....
First of all, real history is not taught in college either.... unless you are soooo lucky as to get a professor who actually LOVES history and really DID his/her homework.

My son is a history/political major and LOVES history... and I can assure you, he would put history teachers to shame in what they "think" they know.... the crap the government puts in their history books is all they are ALLOWED to teach in our public "government ran" schools!

Our history IS politics....where have you been? Teaching our kids politics IS teaching them history.... WOW! Glad my son is teaching them and not you!

This guy has been teaching for 19 years with NO complaints about his informative web site.... the parents have ALWAYS like it!

Only ONE person complained......ONE!!! No doubt a liberal jackarse who has NO loyalty or love for this country whatsoever.... another lost soul.

This guy had an introductory video where he says he truly wanted his kids to LOVE America.........what the heck is wrong with that?

He was told to remove that video because everyone "did not love America"..... huh? Then I suppose they can sit on their sorry sad butts and hate everything....who cares? This guy did nothing wrong but encourage students to love their country but of course, you WOULD have something wrong with that! Geesh!
Let me clarify it for you.

.......hatred of  Clinton, anything to do with Clinton. The mere mention of his name causes the bile to rise and the red mist to engulf them.  They hate, hate, hate.  They blame, blame, blame. It's what they do.  There is no having conversations with them.  They don't see reason. They don't see fairness.  They see nothing but hate.  I remember this very same venom directed at Clinton, for about 8 years.


I don't hate Bush. I hate what his administration has done to our country and I always say his administration because I do not believe his personal merits, whatever they are, are  presidential. I believe Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, the unholy trinity, serve as president. I have said and continue to say, Bush is just not good enough to be president. Hundreds of thousands of Americans do not have what it takes to be the President of the United States and George W. Bush he is one of them. 


Let ME clarify....
in the same league... that is generalization...like a baseball league, a football league...covers a large number of people. I see equal meaning a more one on one comparison. Frankly, I do not consider you and Lurker equal. I see rather large differences both in personality (at least the personality displayed here), way of expressing yourselves, etc. She comes from a different point of view, and she is nowhere near as angry or condescending in her posting. It is merely an observation on my part, an opinion, because I have been on the receiving end of a lot of posts from both of you. In my mind, there is a big difference. So now we can stop beating this dead horse, shall we? Neither you nor Lurker give a tinker's darn what I think of you, so what does it matter? I only said it in the first place because you have invoked her a few times to make a point. I will not do so again. My opinion is my own and will remain the same until I see something to change it...I will just refrain from posting it.

Have a good day.
Just to clarify....

Here is one thing that I must clarify in your post.  Obama didn't have his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem.  He claims that during the pledge he does put his hand over his heart but was never taught to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.


Everything else you say....I agree with though. 


Maybe this will clarify why ND responded that way.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm

Yes I read their comments about USA Today. The OP did analysis had very similar results. Here are a few more who beg to differ:

http://www.drudge.com/news/115767/nd-most-corrupt-state

http://minnesotaindependent.com/20089/most-corrupt-new-york-times-vindicates-north-dakota-sort-of

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/12/is_illinois_the_most_corrupt_s.html

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/louisiana-most-corrupt-state-in-the-us/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/18/20040118-114320-9103r/

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1008-04.htm



I should clarify......thanks dems
for letting us pay for your retreat.  People are losing jobs, houses, etc. and they feel the need to go to a friggin spa.  Times are tough and sometimes you have to break tradition to save money.  Personally, I think both pubs and dems should have just stayed in D.C. and had a little group meeting or maybe a pitch in dinner.....pay for it themselves.  The pubs retreat was paid for by lobbyists and the dems retreat was paid for by taxpayers while they bragged about not having lobbyists at the retreat.  I don't care if Obama just showed up.......if government really cared about us, like they claim to, they would put any spa retreats on hold and SAVE SOME MONEY FOR ONCE INSTEAD OF SPENDING IT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
To clarify...I'm an independent who

leans conservative.  I don't care for either far left or far right.  I think that there are nut jobs in both extremes.


There are many things that run through my head when I think of President Obama.  To me, Obama is too far left for my taste. 


Some things that we should do right away is get the heck out of the middle east.  Use our troops in rotation to guard our border with Mexico.  Honestly, if we would keep our nose out of the middle east's business, maybe they would just keep fighting amongst themselves and we would have less to worry about.  I know that sounds horrible, but there has been fighting in that region since the beginning of time.  No amount of money we spend is going to change that.  We need to worry more about our problems at home including illegal immigrants.  They are costing us WAY too much money per year.


I do not want big government.  I do not feel that government should have to bail us out.  I believe that government created this problem allowing bad loans to be given out to people who couldn't afford to pay them.  However, I feel that these "programs" that Obama wants to enforce really won't help the middle class he professes to be looking out for.  Bigger government and more government programs does nothing more than promote and reward irresponsibility and laziness.  Our coutry cannot afford to continually bail banks, companies, and people out.  We have no money.  China won't even help us out any more....not that I really like the idea of getting money from China...but you get my point.


What I want is for government to stop handing out and stop spending money it doesn't have.  Get rid of our tax code and have a flat tax for everyone.  You pay more based on the more you earn.  That way it closes loopholes for crooks so they don't have to pay their taxes or they "make a mistake" and don't pay their taxes. 


I'm tired of packages filled with pork and I'm pointing fingers at both dems and pubs on this one as both parties are guilty.  Get rid of the pork and the pet projects. 


The idea of Obama wanting to do away with secret ballots in union votes....I totally disagree with.  Why shouldn't they continue to be secret?  Making that information known just gives unions the chance to bully people and that isn't looking out for employees like the unions claim to do.....even though it is proven that unionized states show less production and less job growth than states without unions. 


Bigger government also scares me because obviously politicians are too crooked....how can we trust them to run everything in this country. 


We also need to reform welfare.  I was truly upset when I heard Obama wanted to get rid of the reform that Clinton had done on welfare.  We need some regulations and limitations to our welfare system. 


I do not have much hope in change.  So far all I see are the same old cronies that were in Washington before.  We have too many crooked politicians and too many people giving money to them in order to get them elected so they have a puppet in Washington to do their bidding.


Just to clarify, Hannibal.
I am not the poster who apologized to you and asked you not to go. Judging by the length of your rambling post, you never had any intention of leaving anyway.
To clarify your misguided attempt
I am not a republican, I do not care for Hannity, and I don't particularly care for McCain either. As far as Obama, I know a skunk when I smell one.....

Sorry to pop your bubble.
Just to clarify, inciting one is a felony. sm
That would include just warning people to get their money out. They warn us about this in discussions we have in finance forums.

Washington Mutual was limiting or refusing withdrawals to depositors. I am not leaving my money in the bank, only enough to keep the account open. I do not want them making money off me. For every $1,000 you leave in the bank, they create $10,000 in credit, and debt is our biggest problem.
Huh? Care to clarify this incoherence?
su
And to clarify...I did not insinuate that the new Prez...
has to respond NOW and neither did Russia. They just threw down the gauntlet. It is up to him how and when he responds.

As to communism...there is no "authority" required for an opinion. Obama has been influenced by Marxists throughout his life...first Frank Marshall Davis, followed by the Marxist professors and students he said in his book he sought out....followed by Bill Ayers...that he taught and used the Saul Alinsky method community organizing..and on and on. The influence is there. Karl Marx said socialism was a start but it did not go far enough because it did not address redistribution of wealth. We know where Obama stands on redistribution of wealth. Everything he has been and everything he says tells me he thinks he can make it work and very well may attempt to in this country. They had a Marxist revolution in Russia. We see how that turned out. They had a Marxist revolution in Cuba. We see how that turned out. So far they are just socialist in Venezuela, but we see how that turned out. There will have to be no revolution here, because our new Prez and apparently 51% of the American people think it will work too. We may very well be the USSA...or worse, the UCSA. Taken over from within without having to fire a shot. THAT is what I meant about communism, and it is a far statement based on Obama's entire history from childhood into adulthood. I have no reason to think he is turning from that now. I will wait and see, of course. But just because he won does not mean I will change everything I want and believe overnight...just like I think he will not change everything he has thought and believed throughout his life. I think it is very naive to ignore that and think that he somehow has.

Again...this has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush. I don't care what Bush does; he's gone. What I care about is the man with the power for the next 4 years.
Just to clarify, I like Palin and am not the same Kendra as above...
I just quit posting on here because I get too irritated with people like my namesake here.
Just to clarify - this is for infants who were actually born .
x
Not a single new job

(unless we are talking about hiring new staff to do all that teaching....wonder if it takes a PhD....)  And since PA is a liquor 'control state'  i.e. the State runs the whole booze operation, it's not as though the customer can go get their hard liquor from some private enterprise down the street where the help might be more knowledgeable. No matter where you buy whiskey in a control state, you are getting it from the State. 


Businesses only need to spend money on marketing and product education if they have to compete for your money. 


so every single pub voted for it and no pub

I've answered several of your questions.  Now try 2 of mine.  Did every single pub vote to pass it and did no pub receive any type of benefit from this situation? 


Not a single Nay vote. He's gone and
Then they're going to vote on whether he can ever hold office in the state again.
Oh, My. I just read every single

comment on the site. I haven't seen hardly any good comments for this program. So.....


This one I copied because I thought it was very insightful:


"I’m a 25 year mortgage veteran. I just got off a 2 hour call with Fannie, Freddie and Treasury.


Trust me when I tell you that this is a complete non-starter.


The modification criteria are VOLUNTARY. There is very little in it for the banks - so they are NOT going to offer these mods. Just trust me on that.


The banks don’t have enough capital to incur the losses these modifications would require.


And the refinance component is a similar waste. If you can refinance today - then you will get ZERO benefit via this program.


At the margin, some folks who find themselves upside down (but are still current on their loan) will be able to refinance - but this is far from a pancea."


Why do you single out Muslims?
I quote from your post:

'If you go back in history, the Muslim religion has ALWAYS been a religion of violence and this has been going on since the Crusades and before.'

Who slaughtered whom during the Crusades?

Who slaughtered the Palestinians in Gaza in the year of 2008?

And there are hundreds of other examples.

Filing single, no dependents?
*
All getting so depression. I doubt there is a single
nm
He tells us who he is every single day. And it isn't pretty.
Your mother really was right, wasn't she? She always taught you to judge character by what people do and not what they say. BO exemplifies Mom's wisdom.
I believe in a single payer system.

It's not being "rushed."  It's not even on the table.  If you like your insurance, you should have a right to keep it.  Others of us would like the option of a single-payer program.


HR676 has been in Congress collecting dust for a very long time now.  It's not being rushed.  It's being ignored.


Single payer = bad idea.
I just don't trust the government to take care of my health needs. I don't want them controlling any aspect of it, including what procedures need to be done and whether it's cost-effective (meaning will I live long enough to recoup the cost) to have the procedure done.

I agree something needs to be done about insurance and health care and I speak as one of the millions without health care (my husband and I are both self-employed, but cannot afford full coverage). Single payer (meaning the government pays) is just not the answer - look at how they've screwed up everything else!
I assume you are referring to a single photo of him...
and I assume you don't know the exact moment that picture was taken - maybe before or after the actual pledge was recited?  Regardless, I support Obama 100%, and as I have said many times: No candidate is perfect, but he is an exceptional human being and can literally help "save" this country, and Lord knows we need some savin up in here!  I am very optimistic about the outcome in Iowa.
"Ms" is a moniker that denotes neither single
It is used by thousands of women this way. also, how many Mary Smiths are in the phone book. These letters are not yours to claim.
I'd rather eat glass than spend a single minute
nm
That would explain why the libs were single-handedly
the rise of the Beat Generation, the counter-culture revolution of the 60s, the success of the civil right's movement and the VietNam, Gulf War and Iraq anti-war movements, not to mention the fact that they have been champions of all sorts of dissenting opinions/movements. Advocating for Palestinian statehood comes to mind.
There is no credibility in any single part of this story
including at the $800,000 expense claim, since the whole thing is based on a fantasy whichg arises out of a false premise. You may have noticed that the other 2 posts directly below regarding this trash have gone unanswered all day long, and you will not be engaging me in any further beating of this dead, dead horse. The fanatic/broken record comment is all I care to post as the rest of it is simply a huge waste of time and energy. We all know that when the Supreme Court dismisses this tomorrow it will not phase a single solitary fanatic and they will continue their quest to nowhere until they run out of money. Fanatics, every last one of them.
By my read, not a single negative response among them.
x
Our countdiwn has entered into single digits.
Pretty soon we'll get to count in hours instead of days, post every hour, too, beginning with the double digits at 8 am EST THIS coming Friday...99, 98, 97. 
I get the single rate deducted from my pays (nm)
.
Since when does questioning a stance on a single issue
"changing his mind?" In fact, it is media's JOB to exercise both sides of an argument (in the same way that debaters are required to argue both sides of a premise). The mere fact that a reporter is doing just that during a broadcast does not necessarily say anything whatsoever about his personal beliefs.
Typical pub. Can't address a single issue directly.
nm
Now you're speaking my language. Single parenthood
world void of credit cards. Never used one. Not once. Have only paid off one car loan in my entire (long) life...the rest of it, cash and carry, pay as you go. Paid for my condo that way and became proud owner of Acura 2.2 CL in the absence of interest back in the 90s, good ole days from where I sit now. Passed these survival skills along to my son. Credit crunch has left us unscathed. We are wondering how the rest of the folks will fare once the recession (let's not quibble and say it OUT LOUD) sets in. Guess they will have to see what it feels like to live like the great unwashed underbelly. We expect the tables will turn on some of them but will be happy to help them out and give them a "hand up," when the time comes.
Obama cannot single-handedly sign this bill into law.
It has not passed the House and Senate. Nobody can predict the course that bill will take during legislative process. As president, he has clearly stated he will pass it, rather than impede or veto it. He cannot PROCLAIM FOCA into law. Any discussion beyond that is purely speculation.
Obama cannot single-handedly enact FOCA.
No one can predict what will happen to the language of that bill throughout that process. Obama has merely indicated that he will not impede or veto it, but rather will sign it, which is as it should be once it makes it through the House and Senate. That's the way democracy works, is it not?
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
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.