Dr. King transcended partisan ties in message and in deeds.
Posted By: What's your point, here? nm on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: Good Read... - sm
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- Good Read... - sm
- Dr. King transcended partisan ties in message and in deeds. - What's your point, here? nm
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
their deeds won't be lost....they get a bunch of
nm
God tells us not to publish our good deeds.
,
So you say...I have not seen any ties from
McCain and Palin to any skinheads. Come on. That is ridiculous. Skinheads do not need any fuel.
Here is one, but it's partisan left! sm
Neighbors for Peace to "Raise the Bar" for Democratic Candidates
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
St. Paul, MN – June 17, 2003 – When national Democratic leaders visit St. Paul next week, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace and other Minnesota organizations will be on the scene to question presidential candidates, raising the electoral bar for peace, justice, and environmental issues.
The Association of State Democratic Chairs and the Democratic National Committee will convene this weekend at the Radisson Riverfront Hotel at 11 East Kellogg Boulevard in St. Paul. Gearing up for the 2004 presidential elections, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace will be outside the hotel on Friday, June 20, from 2:30 to 5:30 p.m. to invite the candidates to join concerned Minnesota Democrats in dialogue about critical issues.
"People are leaving the Democratic party in droves, because in recent elections the candidates have become so centrist that they are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans," comments Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace co-founder, Anne Benson. "We want to see the Democratic party return to its progressive roots—to stand up for working people and poor people, and to fight against the regressive domestic and foreign policies of the Bush administration."
The neighbors from the Merriam Park area of St. Paul hold that in recent elections, Democratic candidates have lost their chance to take office because they've neglected the concerns of their own voters.
"It has always been said, 'There are more Democrats than Republicans; we just need to get out the vote,'" states member, Steve Schwarz. "We, however, need a reason to get out the vote. Many Democrats have felt alienated and misrepresented by the party and have looked instead to other alternatives. We believe in the principles that made the Democratic party what it was and still can be today. Remember, we in Minnesota have supported a long line of Democratic politicians who voted on principle and not on predictions of popularity. We expect our candidates to make peace and justice issues a priority."
Adds Benson, "We're encouraging candidates to ask themselves the hard questions: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Was I misled by the administration when I voted for the War Powers Resolution? How do we get out of this quagmire in Iraq? Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on too many civil liberties?"
Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace has invited all Democratic candidates to meet with them after their sessions conclude on Friday to answer a series of fourteen questions regarding issues of pre-emptive war, international relations, arms development, military spending, V.A. benefits, U.S. economy, social programs, employment, globalization, education, health care, civil liberties, terrorism, and environmental policy. They invite all Minnesotans with these concerns to join them in St. Paul on Friday in addressing the candidates.
"We're not endorsing a particular candidate," group member, Jeanne Schnitzen, notes. "We're giving them all a chance to look us in the eye and answer to the issues we vote for. If they're really in this race to turn the tides, we'll make sure they get that chance. I want to believe there is a Democratic candidate who is capable of sowing the seeds of change."
Why not put your partisan views aside and tell us this: Do YOU think sm
that Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? I am neither a conservative nor a democrat, and I do not think he deserved to win it. I'm with the Observer on this one. Anyone with a molecule of sense knows that the two just don't go together - global warming and peace.
The Nobel Prizes were established in the will of Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who died in 1896. The only framework he set for the peace prize was that it should honor people who have promoted "fraternity between nations," peace conferences or the "abolition or reduction of standing armies."
Hmmmmmmmm
Someone less partisan and more uplifting
Joel Olsten. If he was looking to "reach out" to the conservative right, I'd much rather see even Pat Robertson (!), who at least has shown some capacity to embrace the realities of the demise of his party and some insight into where they REALLY need to be focusing their energy.
Obama's Ties
Obama Ties to Farrakhan Revealed
A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan
tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist
movement in Chicago run deep, Kenneth Timmerman reports.
Read the Full Story — Go to Newsmax.com.
To quote the old 70s band, "Bad Company..." And this is just one of many!
Impressive!.
I think he has some rather nice ties
He always looks great!
Spoken as a true partisan.
No, spoken TO a true partisan
Only the conservatives on these boards fail to open their eyes and be objective when it comes to Bush and his actions. They're obviously partisan conservatives.
However, the people who continue to defend Bennett after Bush himself condemned Bennett's statement... well, there's a name for them, as well.
I think we're starting to see a divide in the conservative party. Those who just blindly follow Bush, unwilling or unable to see what's really happening, and the more sinister, dangerous, racist group who wouldn't mind seeing all black babies aborted. Those who insist on defending Bennett are emphasizing that distinction, which is a good thing. Let these people reveal themselves for what they really are.
#1, The Nation is extremely partisan. #2.
Tillman didn't talk about why he went into the service to anyone. We will have to assume that what his mother is saying is true. Has the wife spoken out? I would think if he told his deepest heart's secrets, it would be to her. She was his high school sweetheart. Here's a snippet from a Newsweek article.
He joined the service just after a honeymoon to Bora Bora with his high-school sweetheart, Marie. He and a younger brother, Kevin, slipped off to enlist in Denver, where they could avoid publicity. Kevin, who gave up a budding minor-league baseball career, remains in the Army. Pat Tillman wanted no attention, no glory, for joining the rank and file. He didn't want to be singled out from his brothers and sisters in the military, says former Cardinals coach Dave McGinnis. Tillman apparently had made a pact with his family to stay silent about his service, a promise they have kept. They have gathered to grieve inside the comfortable family home in a leafy enclave of San Jose.
His was no simple case of patriotism; Tillman was never known as a flag-waver. His agent, Frank Bauer, told reporters he had suspected that Tillman might quit to teach or to practice law like his father, Patrick Sr., but not to join the military. Snyder, his college coach, said Tillman never used the word patriotism when he explained his plans to enlist. He just seemed to think something had to be done. When players asked why he enlisted, he didn't want to talk about it. McGinnis says there were reasons Pat said he had that he didn't want to divulge, and the coach respected his view and his right to make his own path. Tillman had always been different. When he joined the pros, he rode a bicycle to practice because he didn't own a car. He refused to buy a cell phone. A sports publicist at Arizona State once described him as a surfer dude.
It seems his mother decided the pact no longer had any merit. Personally, I see another Cindy Sheehan, disobeying her son's wishes.
Most non-partisan sources would not agree with you
But you would have to read something other than far-right-wing propaganda, which you probably don't. Try getting a more global perspective and you will be less naive and less gullible. Unfortunately, if you had a more non-partisan world view you would also probably stop attributing all the problems of the world to the leftists. And then who would you have left to insult?
Part of the fault lies with lack of follow-through in Afghanistan but the major problem lies with Pakistan which has been the major breeding ground of the Taliban and terrorists for years. The U.S. pretty did a cut-and-run in tracking down bin Laden.
What is the answer to all this? I don't know. However, I do know that Pakistan's support of terrorism and the Taliban has been in place for a long, long time and is not the result of the Iraq peace movement in the United States, despite what your extremely partisan sources may insist.
Agreed. And anyone who looks at it objectively and not through partisan...
glasses could see it too. Fox has a lot more Democrat contributors and commentators than MSNBC, the major broadcast outlets or CNN. And Fox has more viewers, so apparently it is the choice of a lot of Americans.
And as to the debates...Obama didn't want anything near a town hall before his convention. I read he was going to come up through the floor in a set that looks like a Greek temple to accept his nomination. I thought to myself you have GOT to be kidding. His spokesman didn't deny it, just said it was tastefully done. Okay, a tastefully done temple. Oh my. Well, I reserve any opinion until I see it.
This is no partisan blame game.
long saga of voter registration/voter fraud, election and campaign finance reform. Left-wing progressives have been focusing on this issue since 2000 but so far, nobody has listened because they are so busy dismissing them for being lefties. It is that id of partisan division and bickering that at the moment has our country so frozen up with spite that we cannot even managed to put together a clean election. We have no business trying to bring democracy to any other developing or third world countries until we at least get this part of our own back yard cleaned up. In terms of THIS election, 18 days before D-Day...a litle late in the game.
Yes, and condescending, biased, partisan.
nm
They have proven ties to Al Queda. nm
nm
War is a Partisan Decision (and more on amnesty for terrorists)
Now here's an honest Republican. Very refreshing!
URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_4781865,00.html |
Duncan: War is a partisan decision
Knox Republican opposed successful GOP bill aimed at testing Democrats
By RICHARD POWELSON, powelsonr@shns.com
June 17, 2006
WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.
I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.
Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.
In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.
The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.
Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.
Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.
Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.
Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.
Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.
Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.
Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.
Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.
But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.
Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.
It is called putting aside partisan politics for the
.
Partisan-led inquiry.....no real big srprise there...sm
Try telling the both sides of the article and judgment please:
Excerpt from CNN:
A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign responded by calling the investigation "a partisan-led inquiry" run by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, but hailing its finding that Monegan's firing broke no law.
"Gov. Palin was cleared of the allegation of an improper firing, which is what this investigation was approved to look into," campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said.
She said the Legislature exceeded its mandate in finding an ethics violation. "Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact," she said.
Rep. John Coghill, a Republican who criticized the handling of the investigation, said it was "well-done professionally."
But he said some of the conclusions were judgment calls by Branchflower, and recommended readers should view them with a "jaundiced eye."
RNC: Partisan politics in times like this is unhealthy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/us/politics/24web-nagourney.html?bl&ex=1230354000&en=16a3dd67da5bac74&ei=5087%0A
For Now, Obama Proves to be an Elusive Target for the GOP
Why did the Kennedy's have ties to organized crime?
Why was the Texas Democratic party of Lyndon Johnson horribly corrupt?
Why was Lyndon Johnson's election to the senate in 1948 won by massive voter fraud?
Why did Lyndon Johnson insert language into the IRS code in 1954 that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, this thoroughly corrupt man used the power of the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Why? His disservice to religious freedom has yet to be undone. Why?
How did Kennedy defeat Nixon in Illinois?
Just rhetorical questions.
Biden also has ties to Tony Rezko...
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/joe-biden-has-ties-to-tony-rezko/
Not as scary as a career politician with ties...
to all kinds of questionable characters, who has zero executive experience, showed up to vote present the majority of the time therefore not having to make a decision...can't vote present in the oval office. She has more experience than he does...fact is fact. And she is not running for pres...HE is. He is in the chair day one. SCARY indeed.
O's alleged ties will cost money plus a lot more...nm
nm
Uhhh.. Obama IS a socialist and has ties to a
nm
Yeah, I think my MENSA ties just might make me "minimally"...sm
intelligent too....lol....
On terrorist ties, since topic is popular for the moment
McCain link to private group in Iran-Contra case.
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/sections/politics/ci_10655363
I've always wondered the true family ties here
;?
Senior moments on the trail: Mc attacks O ties to
For the slur that was dead on arrival, go here:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/the-khalidi-gam.html
Maybe we should have a king instead.
One stubborn King.
Looks like we're stuck in Iraq, folks. But wait a minute, you mean there is no connection between between Iraq and 9/11? And I thought the insurgency was in its final throes a year ago? Oh right, it's the *suiciders*. A God-fearing Christian war king wouldn't lie, right? Uh, kind of, uh, I guess, uh, duh, I would surmise, uh, uh.
Bush Tells Press U.S. Won't Leave Iraq While He Is President -- And Says He Won't Campaign in Connecticut
By E&P Staff
Published: August 21, 2006 11:55 AM ET
NEW YORK At a press conference this morning in Washington, D.C., President Bush declared, We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake.” Bush leaves office in January 2009.
He also said, in response to a question about backing the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut --against Democrat Ned Lamont and Independent Joe Lieberman -- that he is going to stay out of Connecticut.
Reminded that a reporter that this was his native state (he was born there), Bush replied, to laughter, Shhh.
He explained further, And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Bush also tied Iraq to 9/11, and then backed off, when asked about the effects of the U.S. invasion as witnessed today.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the 'stir up the hornet's nest' theory, Bush said. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Asked by a reporter what Iraq had to do with 9/11, Bush replied, Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Also on Iraq, Bush explained, The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve the objectives and dreams which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy. The tactics — now — either you say yes it’s important we stay there and get it done or we leave. We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know terrible, signal to reformers across the region. It would say we’ve abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror.
Bush also said at the news conference -- held at the temporary press quarters while the old White House briefing room is being rebuilt -- that if the government in Iraq fails, it could turn the country into a safe haven for terrorists and extremists and give them revenues from oil sales.
He said he agrees with a top military commander that if the U.S. were to do so, the terrorists will follow us here. Bush added those who want an immediate pullout from Iraq are absolutely wrong. He says it takes time to defeat the extremists, but that the U.S. is going to stand with the government of Iraq, and with reformers across the region.
Despite all the grim news, Bush often acted in a very jocular manner. He also had a rare exchange with reporter Helen Thomas on the Lebanon conflict.
Asked by another reporter if he was frustrated by lack of progress in Iraq he replied: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that.
You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists.
A partial transcript follows. To watch a full video of the President's press conference, click here
***
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month -- the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?
BUSH: No, I -- I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of. And therefore we have a plan to help them -- them, the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives.
Part of the plan is political; that is, to help the Maliki government work on reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community.
The other part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they needed to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes, you know, a very robust security plan for Baghdad. We -- you may or not know, Terry -- have moved troops from Mosul Stryker Brigade into Baghdad, all aiming to help the Iraqi government succeed.
You know, the -- I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm -- I'm concerned about that, of course. And I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country, and that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the extremists and the radicals and al Qaeda, and that the security forces remain united behind the government. And one thing that's clear, the Iraqi people are showing incredible courage.
The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century.
You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people -- saying withdrawal now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself and listen to the -- and answer to the will of the people....
Helen?
Q: (Chuckles.)
BUSH: What's so funny about me saying Helen? (Laughter.)
Q: Israel --
BUSH: It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.
Q: Israel broke its word twice on the truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah rockets, but it's Israeli bombs that destroyed Lebanon. Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on view on breaking of your oath for a truce?
BUSH: Hm. Yeah. Thank you.
I -- I'd like to remind people about how this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which -- which -- which bothers me, began; what caused this.
Q: Why drop bombs on -- (off mike)?
BUSH: Wait, let me finish. Let -- let -- may I -- let me -- may I -- please, let me finish the question. It was a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway....I know you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath.
(Laughs.) There you go.
It's -- this never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how she defends herself. Israel is a democratically elected government. They make decisions on their own sovereignty. It's their decision making that is what leads to the attacks they chose. And -- but the world must understand that now is the time to come together to address the root cause of the problem, and the problem is you had a state within a state. You had people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.
And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who are involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon to help the Lebanese government achieve some objectives. One is their ability to exert control over the entire country. Secondly is to make sure that the Hezbollah forces don't rearm, don't get armed from Syria, or Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.
Let's see. We'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be patient.
Q: Thank you.
BUSH: It's kind of like dancing together, isn't it? (Laughter.)
Q: Yeah, kind of.
BUSH: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery, I'll call on you. (Laughter.)
Q: Mr. --
BUSH: Yeah. By the way, seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody gets it. (Laughter.) Never mind.
Q: It's the summertime east Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.)
BUSH: (Laughs.) Yes. Yes, Martha. Sorry.
Q: That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You have continually cited the elections, the new government as progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You have to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?
BUSH: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon; you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.
Q: I'm talking about the strategy.
BUSH: Well, the strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy.
The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, it's important that we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know, terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists. No, we're not leaving. ...
Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete, and we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I -- I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.
And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with plan Baghdad, and that's when we move troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replace them with a Stryker Brigade so we're not -- we increase troops during this time of instability.
Q: Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy is --
BUSH: Sounded like the question to me.
Q: You -- you keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave, but is your strategy to win working, even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before. These things have happened before.
BUSH: If I didn't think it would work, I would change the -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy.
They believe it'll work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government's been in power for, you know, less than six months. And, yeah, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- of -- the reason I've cited it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really -- it's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.
And, you know, obviously I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But incredibly enough, they showed great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.
And this is the campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now. Vote for me. I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they're trying to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It were to be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq....
Q: Good morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the violence in Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals and then al Qaeda. It seems that al Qaeda and foreign fighters are much less of a problem there and that it really is Iraqis versus Iraqis. And when we heard about your meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some of the reporting out of that said you were frustrated, you were surprised, and your spokesman said, Nope, you're determined.
But frustration seems like a very real emotion. Why wouldn't you be frustrated, sir, by what's happening?
BUSH: I'm not -- I do remember the meeting; I don't remember being surprised. I'm not sure what they meant by that.
Q: About the lack of gratitude among the Iraqi people.
BUSH: Oh. No, I think -- yeah -- first of all, to the first part of your question, you know, if you look back at the words of Zarqawi before he was brought to justice, he made it clear that the intent of their tactics in Iraq was to create civil strife. In other words, if you -- look at what he said. He said let's kill Shi'a to get Shi'a to seek revenge and therefore to create this kind of hopefully cycle of violence. Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that the -- at least the evidence indicates that the bombing of the shrine was an al Qaeda plot, all intending to create sectarian violence.
Now, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the more -- I would guess, I would surmise that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda suiciders. No question there's sectarian violence as well. And the challenge is to provide a security plan such that a political process can go forward. And you know, I know -- I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million Iraqis voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society. That's what that means, see. And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long term is to defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one that -- where government, you know, responds to the will of the people. And that's really the fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this 21st century is whether or not we believe as a nation and others believe it is possible to defeat this ideology.
Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically -- but I strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology, they have tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a huge mistake for the United States to leave the region, to concede territory to the terrorists, to not confront them.
And -- and the best way to confront them is to help those who want to leave in free society. Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their government succeed.
Q: But are you frustrated, sir?
BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the -- the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's -- that's -- that's the question.
And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future generations to do so....
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier Do you agree with those in your party, including the vice president, who said or implied Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and the message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad.
BUSH: What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world. That's what we're saying. And it's an honest debate and it's an important debate for Americans to listen to and to be engaged in.
In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are unacceptable. I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself, A -- you know, chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region.
Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged or cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job would done would be -- send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job was done would be a disaster. And that's what we're saying. I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.
It's like the other day I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion, and that's why we're appealing it. And I have no -- you know, look, I understand how democracy works. Quite a little bit of criticism in it, which is fine. That's fine. It's part of the process. But I have every right, as do my administration, to make it clear what the consequences would be of policy, and if we think somebody is wrong or doesn't see the world the way it is, we will continue to point that out to people. And therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply don't see the world the way we do. They say it maybe kind of isolated incidents. These aren't isolated instances; they're tied together. There is a global war going on.
And you know, somebody said, well, this is law enforcement. No, this isn't law enforcement in my judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, you know, singular response to the problem. This is a global war on terror. We're facing, you know, extremists that believe something and they want to achieve objectives. And therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and we must work with others to defeat this enemy.
That's -- that's the call. And we -- in the short run, we got to stop them from attacking us. That's why I give the Tony Blair government great credit and their intelligence officers, and our own government credit for working with the Brits to stop this attack.
But you know something? It's an amazing town, and -- you know, where they say on the one hand, you can't have the tools necessary -- we herald the fact that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the people, and sure enough, a(n) attack would occur and say, how come you don't have the tools necessary to defend the people? That's the way -- that's the way we think around this town. And so, you know, we'll -- Jim, we'll continue to speak out in a respectful way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their -- their strategies or their -- their point of view.
And, you know, for those who say that, well, all they're trying to say is we're not patriotic simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they? What -- what matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different points of view, and there are a lot of people in the Democrat party who believe that the best of course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period, and they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done. But I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation as far as I'm concerned.
Q: And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?
BUSH: I'm going to say out of Connecticut. (Laughter.)
Q: It's your native state, Mr. President! You were born there!
BUSH: Shhh! (Laughter.)
Q: How can you stay --
BUSH: (Chuckles.) I may be the only person -- the only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born.
Do you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched that and dropped it out for everybody to see, particularly since I dissed that just ridiculous-looking outfit. (Laughter.)
Q: Your mother raised you better than that, Mr. President....
BUSH: And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Q: Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy, and people will change their mind about it? Or is the kind of thing you're doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain public support for it?
BUSH: Thank you. Yeah, look -- look, I mean, presidents care about whether people support their policies. I don't -- (inaudible) -- think that I don't care. Of course I care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq. I can understand that. There is -- we live in, you know, a world in which people hope things happen quickly. And this is a situation where things don't happen quickly because there's, you know, a very tough group of people using tactics, mainly the killing of innocent people, to achieve their objective, and they're skillful about how they do this and they also know the impact of what it means on the conscienceness of those of us who live in the free world. They know that. And so I care. I really do. I wish -- you know, and so therefore I must spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can, you know, why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq. And --
Q: A quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mention for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the stir up the hornet's nest theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --
Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.
Now, I said going into Iraq we got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialized. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world was better off without him. Now, the question is, how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS | REPRINTS
SUBSCRIBE TO EDITOR & PUBLISHER »
Related Articles
Former CIA Officer Defends 'Wash Post' Op-Ed in Online Chat
Jan 10, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
Gallup: 55% Now Call Iraq War a 'Mistake'
Feb 22, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Military Times' Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War
Jan 2, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Stars and Stripes' to Launch Weekly U.S. Edition: A Military 'Parade'?
Aug 29, 2005 – Editor and Publisher
Small Oregon Paper Leads Reporting On Missing Local Soldier
Jun 19, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
hroes? Why have I been so badly misinformed?
GWB is the king of big government
US Government has grown 27% under Bush - really O can't be much worse than that!
King of Pork!
And the King is...... Robert Byrd - D-WVA
60 earmarks for a total of 122 million.....
LOL! He was the BUMBLING King!
.
King Obama? sm
I got this in email today and checked out the links. It certainly looks legit.
House Considers Repealing 22nd Amendment
Earlier this year, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. introduced H. J. Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment which prohibits a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama president for life. Not surprisingly, the corporate media currently caught up in Obama-mania has not covered this story.
“Will George W. Bush end up being the last true U.S. President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, ‘once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization ACORN nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.”
See the proof on any of these websites.
Or go to Google and do your own search by typing in H. J. Res. 5.
More:
Why did the 9/11 commission give King
Yet again, you continue to miss the point. He acted ILLEGALLY. For all your blabbing about *intelligence* you have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps it's okay with you that your civil rights are violated all in the name of *protecting the country*. Why is it so hard to get the required permission from judges?
The madness of King George
Here's another example of King George's *work*
Bush Quietly Says No Need Follow Patriot Act Oversight Measure
White House Says Signing Statement Is Normal and Constitutional
Analysis
By GEORGE SANCHEZ
March 24, 2006 — - When President Bush renewed the revised USA Patriot Act on March 9, Congress added oversight measures intended to keep the federal government from abusing the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize documents.
The additional provisions require law enforcement officials to safeguard all Americans' civil liberties and mandate that the Justice Department keep closer track of how often and in what situations the FBI could use the new powers, and that the administration regularly provide the information to Congress.
However, it was not known at the time that the White House added an addendum stating that the president didn't need to adhere to requirements that he inform members of Congress about how the FBI was using the Patriot Act's expanded police powers.
After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discreetly issued a ''signing statement, an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.
Presidential Power in Question
In doing so, it appears the president once again cited his constitutional authority to bypass the law under certain circumstances.
For example, after The New York Times reported last year that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, the president said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.
When Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in U.S. custody, Bush signed off on it but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Bush's actions have provoked increased grumbling in Congress from both parties. Lawmakers have pointed out that the Constitution gave the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute them.
On Thursday Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, took issue with Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act. He said it represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.
''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, Leahy said. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. Leahy voted against renewing the Patriot Act this year after sponsoring the bill back in 2001.
The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required.
''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven inspector general reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act's renewal was viewed as a rare victory for the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives approved the measure by a vote of 280-138 after the Senate passed the controversial bill 89-10.
JM was scheduled for Larry King the
other night but he got upset because they were asking questions about SP.....
Rush...the new pub king....ROFL (sm)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/phil-gingrey-gop-congress_n_161964.html
LOL! Why aren't you upset with King George?
Oh, I forgot. It's the neocon MO to bash the messenger and defend the actor.
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227238 Mary Carey to Dine with President Bush By: Chip Baker Posted: 1:15 pm PDT 5-18-2005 LOS ANGELES - Porn star and former gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey will be joining her boss, Kick Ass Pictures president Mark Kulkis, in attending a dinner with President Bush in Washington, D.C. on June 14.
Coretta King Rejected War (period).
We must remember it was Coretta's funeral, so sentiments were made in HER honor, NOT SUGAR COATED FOR THE BUSHES.
|
|
|
|
Coretta King Rejected War |
Editorial |
|
President Bush may have tried to claim a little bit of the legacy of Coretta Scott King with a warm and generous reference to her at the opening of his State of the Union address this week, but it should be remembered that King was a foe of this president and a frequent critic of his abuses of power.
On the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, King celebrated the anniversary of the birth of her late husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., by recalling that the slain civil rights leader had been outspoken in his opposition to unnecessary and unwise wars.
We commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. as a great champion of peace who warned us that war was a poor chisel for carving out a peaceful tomorrow. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. Martin said, 'True peace is not just the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice,' Coretta King told a crowd that had gathered at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church. She continued, May his challenge and his example guide and inspire us to seek peaceful alternatives to a war with Iraq and military conflict in the Middle East.
Coretta King continued to speak out against the Bush administration's policy of pre-emptive war-making, and she always make it clear that she disagreed passionately with this president.
Coretta Scott King ponders a reporter's question in front of a painting of her late husband, civil-rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., in this Jan. 14, 2003 file photo from Atlanta.
When Bush showed up to lay a wreath at the Rev. King's grave in January 2004, Coretta King was polite but pointed in her remarks. Before greeting Bush, she said at another event at Ebenezer Baptist that she sided with those who opposed the war rather than supported it, and she lamented the fact that those people are not in charge of making the policies of their nations. If they were, she added, I think we would have more peace and more justice.
There will be many celebrations of Coretta Scott King's brave and inspiring life, as well as her rich legacy of activism.
But none will be so appropriate as those that recall her absolute opposition to this president's illegal and immoral war-making.
© 2006 The Capital Times |
|
|
Revelations, King James Version
The anniversary of Martin Luther King's...
"I have a dream" speech. And it was not condescending. He was being honest. It is a historic day. On this day in 1963 is when King delivered that speech, and today the first African American man will accept the nomination of a major party for President of the United States. It is historical and McCain was taking the high road.
By any chance, you catch Larry King?
To begin with, I was a pregnant teen and most definitively will be voting for Obama. The other unwed mother poster is voting for Obama too in case you hadn't noticed. Bully, fear and threat tactics are not effective.
His candidacy is alive and well and has nothing to do with this issue and how it is going to play out. Tonight, Larry King's panel were talking this subject up one side and down the other. Every single issue that was raised today in these posts on this board were touched upon....every single one. SP is in the political arena now. Unfortunately, she has put her daughter there too. The issues surrounding this will be politicized. You can't stop this train.
Yah remember the Rodney King riots? (sm)
The original OJ not-guilty verdict because the jury was too afraid of another Rodney King-like riot were he actually convicted?
I just hope Biden is qualified to be president. I honestly don't see Obama actually becoming president or maybe that's just wishful thinking, take it however you want.
Who watched Larry King last night?
They were talking about the idea of implementing a stimulus package for (in particular) the auto industry. Well, turns out that they have already been trying to pass a stimulus package and I'll give you one guess as to who's blocking that. In the meantime if the auto industry goes down that's another 2-3 million jobs. Nice going Bush!
Martin Luther King was a republican, Mrs. M
nm
No tank you - sofa king wee todd id
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Martin Luther King would be sickened by him....
nm
|
