i'm sure osama has a perfectly good reason for this

• Obama bringing terrorists to the US? - What the heck?
  • To what the heck? - our country has gone nuts - New Englander
    • Sounds like Obama is going to - contradict EVERYTHING Bush has done.nm
      • One can only hope so. - nmranium MININ
        • I guess you don't like living - see message - New Englander
    • It has nothing to do with the fact that - sjk
    • we already have custody of thes folks - - Amanda
  • i'm sure osama has a perfectly good reason for this - nm
    • Shoot. Looks like they let the - bats out of the belfry again.
      • what is your problem? - nm
        • Go figure. - You can do it if you try. nm
  • Beacon of democracy must walk the walk, - not just talk the talk...sm
  • Good, they might be innocent. sm - LVMT
  • Closing Gitmo is also a priority. - sjk
  • And I suppose you would rather we continue...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • We do not have enough room for our own prisoners. - Tent City, Arizona no message
      • I would be willing to bet that... - Just the big bad
      • These people are our prisoners too. - -nm
        • You mean terrorists, - big difference. nm

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

We're constantly visited by the *compassionate conservative* trolls from the other board who come here only to be spew hatred, personally attack posters and to generally cause trouble, despite constant requests from the monitor that they not do that. 

I've always been in favor of stem cell research.  I believe in science progressing and helping people live longer.  I don't believe in forcing the personal religious beliefs of some down the throats of every American. 

In all honesty, though, here lately it's hard for me to get excited if I see America making progress in any area because it doesn't matter what bill Congress introduces, votes in favor of and presents to the President.  Bush will dismiss what he doesn't like and issue yet another of hundreds of his famous *signing statements.*  I don't know why we even bother to have a Congress any more.  They've been rendered impotent by King George.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14976584.htm

I apologize if you feel you were being treated negatively.  If you're someone who is legitimate and sincere about debate, then welcome to our board. 

But if you're only here to start trouble, like most of the elephants in donkeys' clothing invading this board lately, then I'd prefer that you just go away.  I won't feed any more hatred because I'm just tired of it all.  I've climbed down to their level too many times in the last few months, the stench way down there is just terrible, and I no longer wish to engage in their kind of communication.

What are your thoughts on the issues I've mentioned?  Please respond.  Thoughtful, intelligent debate, without the use of degrading personal insults, is very welcome here.

Barrack Hussein Obama.....nuff said.

 and not Obama's beard.  How easy it is to confuse Osama with Obama though.  Just one letter difference.

I'd appreciate you keeping the personal insults out.  Like you have never made a typo when typing.  I'm sorry I am not as perfect as you are.

**** I am so glad this man is no longer the president.   He is retarded!!!  May want to credit him with "keeping us safe" after 9-1-1.  No credit due him,   Remember, we were never attacked before 9-1-1 and he knew about the attack and ignored it.  PLUS -- He is friends of Osama Bin Laden's family.   BYE RETARD!!

Forgot to post the link for all you "naysayers" ......  MAN - Before you get on your high-horse, READ, READ, READ --  It's all over the internet.   I meant to say, that Bush is friends with members of Osama Bin Laden's "family."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/breaking-bush-pardons-osa_b_159272.html

ARTICLE BELOW:

WASHINGTON, DC: In a stunning late-hour development, President George W. Bush has granted Osama bin Laden a pardon for the murder of more than 2,700 Americans in the fall of 2001.

"This kinda came out of nowhere," said a White House aide who requested anonymity. "I wouldn't have put bin Laden on the short list myself. On the other hand, maybe this is the president's way of finding closure. Because ... y'know ... he wasn't actually able to kill bin Laden, or capture him, or even keep him from making all those (expletive) videos. I mean, jeez, let's face it: Osama bin Laden is basically a one-man Netflix of cave movies."

The aide paused, then went on to say, "Can you believe this dude (Bush) was actually president for eight (expletive) years? What were we thinking? Seriously, what the (expletive) were we thinking?"

The aide began weeping quietly. "May God have mercy on me for my role in the unfathomable travesty that was the Bush administration."

Conservative columnist William Kristol insisted the pardon made sense.

"George W. Bush is a brilliant strategist. I'm sure he has a good reason for this pardon. I'll figure it out."

Kristol sucked his thumb for a few minutes, lost in thought. He was then distracted by a brightly colored piece of string.

A passerby, told of the bin Laden pardon, offered a possible explanation:

"Maybe Bush is trying to smoke him out. Wasn't that the plan?"

Forgot to post the link for all you "naysayers" ......  MAN - Before you get on your high-horse, READ, READ, READ --  It's all over the internet.   I meant to say, that Bush is friends with members of Osama Bin Laden's "family."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/breaking-bush-pardons-osa_b_159272.html

ARTICLE BELOW:

WASHINGTON, DC: In a stunning late-hour development, President George W. Bush has granted Osama bin Laden a pardon for the murder of more than 2,700 Americans in the fall of 2001.

"This kinda came out of nowhere," said a White House aide who requested anonymity. "I wouldn't have put bin Laden on the short list myself. On the other hand, maybe this is the president's way of finding closure. Because ... y'know ... he wasn't actually able to kill bin Laden, or capture him, or even keep him from making all those (expletive) videos. I mean, jeez, let's face it: Osama bin Laden is basically a one-man Netflix of cave movies."

The aide paused, then went on to say, "Can you believe this dude (Bush) was actually president for eight (expletive) years? What were we thinking? Seriously, what the (expletive) were we thinking?"

The aide began weeping quietly. "May God have mercy on me for my role in the unfathomable travesty that was the Bush administration."

Conservative columnist William Kristol insisted the pardon made sense.

"George W. Bush is a brilliant strategist. I'm sure he has a good reason for this pardon. I'll figure it out."

Kristol sucked his thumb for a few minutes, lost in thought. He was then distracted by a brightly colored piece of string.

A passerby, told of the bin Laden pardon, offered a possible explanation:

"Maybe Bush is trying to smoke him out. Wasn't that the plan?"

..how people who can't see three fingers being held up by someone (see posts and accompanying accusations below) are the very same people who can see a fetus in a hurricane.

Those of us who aren't delusional and twisted can clearly see the truth in this article.  Thanks for posting it.

Since the poster above seems to think he/she can put words in my mouth, I will tell you exactly what I said. 

I fully expect all posters to be respectful and not put down the President (current or past) or anyone else for that matter. I don't care if they're Liberal, Conservative, or polka dotted. 

On the forum, you will be respectful in posting or you won't be allowed to post.

Think you can handle that? If you can't, don't post. It's just that simple. 

They are lacking in reasoning capacity.

how things will go with regards to Obama.  As evident by this board, I think it is very obvious that some people may hold back their "judgments" or concerns about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that any criticism aimed at the president thus far is construed as racism.  How dare we criticize what he does, his agenda, etc. because he is the first mixed race president. 

I also think that he will be judged less harshly because the liberal media will not cover things fairly.  They will continue to portray Barrack Obama as the savior/rock star. 

When this stimulus package fails to stimulate the economy and when our economy is still suffering at the end of his term, we will see how fairly he will be judged.  Until then, he is getting a free pass by the liberal media and people too eager to throw out the race card or people who are too afraid to criticize for fear of being called racist.

You and I  and some others on this board already knew this, but Keith Olbermann did an excellent job of explaining this to anyone who doesn't get it.  This is a great video. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az7yl-UnsQQ

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.

We all were having good conversations and even adult disagreements until the usual drive-by suspects chimed in and make is a potty-mouth bash fest.  Democrat might have lost control a little bit, but we all do at some point.    You did your usual leftist troll duties by coming here and sabatoging and decent debates in process.  You are not a liberal.  You are someone who is so filled with hate that you cannot stand when conservatives and liberals are actually dialoguing.  Yeah, it gets heated, but you are not mature enough nor do you have substance enough to tolerate adult conversation.  You are a dive bomber, and you are the reason we have to be separated.

You and your minions are pretty sad people indeed.

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war

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

By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press  |  August 31, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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