opps, didn't get the whole address in there (sm)

• You ain't gonna like losing. - m
  • boy, this really paints the picture of - then vs now. nm
  • What about the thousands of men and women - Stardust
    • Here's how they feel. (sm) - MeMT
  • Excellent post - thanks for posting -nm - me
  • Tell me you don't honestly believe that. How sad. - Karla
  • truman - lets go there
  • just a note from factcheck.org - Just the big bad
    • I don't think he should. - mystified
    • opps, didn't get the whole address in there (sm) - Just the big bad
      • From Audacity of Hope...sm - m
        • Many Arab and Pakistanis - ExMQMT
          • Okay.....I will give you that....sm - m
            • Hitler was a Christian - mememe

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

Sorry about that.  My bad.

In some respects I actually agree with you.  From the dem point of view, we mostly only see sarcastic remarks with no facts and no opinions.  When politely asked to explain an opinion, the typical pub response that I have recieved (with the exception of maybe 2 pubs) has been just more of the same one-line sarcastic wonders.  Speaking for myself only, when that's the only response I get, then that's the only response I will give.  It's actually pretty rare anymore on this board to have an intelligent conversation.  I'm starting to look at it like the comedy board instead of the political board.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

I did not intend to insult YOUR intelligence.  I was speaking of American people in GENERAL.  Obviously from your post you agree, whether you agreed in words or not,  it's there between the lines i.e. your BIL's employees who complain.  I was not speaking of people who bought off more debt than they could chew, I have NO sympathy for them.  As far as I'm concerned these people who are living in 5000 sq. ft houses as you said and can't afford it, get what they deserve and I am certainly not in favor of bailing them out. I was speaking of people who are having trouble paying their heating/electric bills, buying groceries and gas to get to work on their $10 an hour jobs.

I say the outsourcing of American jobs is inexcusable.  You proved my point regarding your BIL.  If he, a small business, can give good jobs to his employees don't tell me the big businesses can't do likewise.  You are correct, some people would complain if they were in God's pocket with their head sticking out!  His employees who complain as far as I'm concerned, he ought to fire them and hire people who appreciate a good job in this day and age.

Please don't think anything I say personally.  I do not mean it to be personal to anyone but if the shoe fits..........then I guess people can wear it.

economic nightmare without also addressing those who are already suffering from it.  If that is not addressed while we are setting up new jobs, then we go straight into a depression.  It's a whole lot harder and longer to get out of a full-blown depression that what we have now....and right now we're on the edge.

NASA = The 50 million Obama allotted for NASA is for them to repair facilities in Houston from hurricaine Ike (which should have already been done, btw) and non-space activities.  Again, job creation.  NASA wants more, but I doubt they'll get it.

The administrator and I have posted and reposted the rules.  I don't care what publication approved what.  The administrator will not allow extremely inflammatory posts regarding the President and these rules have been outlined to you repeatedly.  As the administrator has said, this board is read worldwide. Have a care for what you post.  No one has run to me asking to have posts removed.  I remove the posts that do violate the rules.  I suggest you post in another venue if you cannot manage to respect the rules of this board. 

It appears to be another excuse to vent your dislike of all things liberal.  It contains misguided and erroneous assumptions, as usual. 

But I do appreciate the time you took to compose it.  Just wish your time could be spent on something more constructive or insightful...something that could educate or enlighten the reader rather than leaving them scratching their heads thinking....what in the heck is she ranting about.....sure makes me think those neocons are bonkers.....  I wish for once one of your posts would make me think golly, she might have a point there instead of feeling like someone had defecated on me.  Understand?

Maybe we should all send her an email.  Let her know how we feel about her use of taxpayers' money for her own personal benefit. 

sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

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.