I didn't even know he existed 'til a few weeks ago,

• I know it's too late now - Is it just me?
  • Writing mine in because I don't care - for either one. sm
    • Tempting as that may be, this election is too important - to be wasting your vote on a write-in.
      • No? Poster should just compromise her - principles?? nm
        • What possible write-in candidate has all the necessary - 'good' qualities, and if that person even -s
          • Ron Paul.....I'll let you figure out the rest - nm
            • What party is he, and why was he not nominated? - ?
              • Ron Paul..... - sm
                • He is still around, only with a new campaign. sm - LVMT
                  • Maybe he should run for some other government office. - Might do more good than as prez, anyway.
                    • No, he can do what needs to be done as - President.........nm
                      • Is he actually running? - n/m
                        • Yea.........he actually is.... - sm
                          • I didn't even know he existed 'til a few weeks ago, - when a poster on this forum
                    • He will still be a congressman. nm - LVMT
                      • Probably for the best. Once someone becomes President, - see msg
      • Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. sm - LVMT
        • Well, then explain to us how voting for a write-in - candidate will achieve anything.
  • I agree! I can't decide who to vote for because there is so much bad on both of them (sm) - MeMT
    • I personally believe that they are both good men...sm - oldtimer
  • No it's not you. - I feel the same way.
  • It's not just you :) nm - Kiki
  • I've said that all along. I feel the same way. - pookie

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

reading this thread.  (Haven't been visiting these boards that long).  You seem to proudly wear the title like some kind of badge. From what I've read, those of your ilk are involved in all sorts of deceptive practices. Doesn't sound like much to be proud of, but it explains a lot regarding your frequent aversion to the truth and your relentless intrusion on this board.

I read an interesting article about you entitled, God Sees The Freepers.  http://www.apj.us/20010609GodFreepers.html

Indeed.

MY LAST POST TO YOU.

I've received several envelopes in the mail that were sealed with a few inches torn open at the top of the envelope.  One of them was a check from my part-time employer, and it was easy to see through the envelope that it was a check folded in half.  (At least they didn't remove the contents like they did with you.)

I've never experienced anything like this in my life, and I wonder if this has been happening to any other liberals out there. 

That's it.

The rest of my life as a single mom was spent working two (sometimes three) jobs at a time in order to support us.

Now, it's getting really difficult for me because I couldn't afford my health insurance any more, my car was repossessed, and even my phone was turned off because I can't work like I used to since becoming ill almost three years ago with pancreatitis (which was finally found to be caused by cystic fibrosis).  So my pancreas is a wreck, and my lung function is getting progressively worse.  I've filed a claim for Social Security disability, but I very well may have passed on by the time I receive a hearing date, since I'm getting sicker, and my disease is incurable.

another thing, which I find absolutely ridiculous - they are blaming the the pubs for all these investigations even though there were 250 nonprofit organizations unearthed that listed ACORN's New Orleans address.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/lawmaker-pushes-investigation-acorn-finances/

Obama started off saying he was confident in his FOREIGN POLICY experience ("Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"). He then proceeded to talk about his visit to Pakistan.

SO WHAT? I visited and lived in several foreign countries, too. Does that mean I understand foreign policy better than someone who may have spent less time but has had actual interaction and policy discussions with those countries' leaders? And with the leaders of 80 countries?

If 3 weeks in Pakistan is the extent of Obama's foreign policy credentials, then I am way more qualified on the "foreign policy" front.

My point is that Obama's claim is ridiculous. Better that he stick to his "better judgement" mantra, since the "3 weeks abroad = foreign policy experience" is just pathetically weak.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html

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.

in AR's post that she was against it.  Instead, she acted as if the topic has no place on this board and shouldn't be discussed... like some kind of dirty little secret.

The *attack the messenger* technique has been used constantly in the last 5 years by the current administration (and his followers) when someone gets too close to the truth.  Don't believe me?  Ask Valerie Plame.

Same old.  Same old. 

But, it IS the RNC, so they are damned either way with socialists oops I mean democRATS like yourself.