I didn't say anything about having anything both ways....sm
Posted By: ms on 2008-09-13
In Reply to: cant have it both ways - Sandy
However, I do agree with the first part of your first comment here:
She is a tough, expereienced mayor and govenror and has and will face down the big boy club. She just did it with Charlie. She will continue to do so. Keep watching.
I called the interview as I saw it.
You called the interview as you saw it.
You think she's a novelty, which is fine, and is your viewpoint.
Two completely different sets of viewpoints.
I think we can agree to disagree, don't you?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
There are ALWAYS two ways about everything, gt.
Of course, it takes a reasoning fair minded person to do it. And that is very rare, practically nonexistent anymore. One of William Bennett's best friends is Thomas Sowell. If he is a racist, explain that. You can't, because he isn't. You and others like you do more to divide the white and black peoples of this country. Anything to drive a wedge in and portray the Democratic party as the saviors of the blacks. They don't need saviors, you know. They are perfectly able to fend for themselves. In fact, many blacks are coming to realize that they have been used as pawns by the Democrats. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. And frankly I don't care if you do. Just keep spouting your leftist propaganda. People are listening and they are running the other way. 
That goes both ways...sm
cant have it both ways
Either she is a tough, experienced mayor and governor who has and will face down the big boy club, or else is an novelty, inexperienced candidate who must be sheltered from from reporters. You can't have it both ways.
it certainly does go both ways
If you're a dem, it's obvious what he was saying when you listen to the full context.
If you're repub, it was a freudian slip and he's really a Muslim.
It annoys me when people's opinions are already predetermined based on their views - conservative/liberal.
I usually vote republican, but I have a sister-in-law who is republican and very conservative, and she is so predictable it kills me.
Sad in many ways ...
First of all, it is sad. However, for everyone to jump to the conclusion that it was an Obama supporter is taking things a little too far. All the man said was "I'm going to teach you a lesson." He did not say, "This is because I'm carrying out my crime on behalf of Barack Obama." For all we know, (a) he could simply hate McCain, or (b) it could have NOTHING to do with politics whatsoever. That he "noticed" a McCain bumper sticker is a thoroughly subjective guess on the victim's part, until we hear otherwise in the form of a confession or a direct quote that he attributed it to being an Obama supporter.
No one is to blame for this, however, save the man who carried out the crime. The story should be covered, but with that angle and that alone. One really, really messed up person did a really, really messed up thing. Clearly he was neither emotionally nor mentally stable to be robbing an ATM in the first place.
And, in regards to "there are probably many other people out there who have the same opinion," that's postulating a theory that will only incite more anger and violence.
We let politics divide us far too much. It's so disheartening.
Well he is asking to have it both ways isn't he? sm
To keep abortion legal through all 9 months and to take more of our money as well, right? I do understand that there are reasons people do this and I do believe it is between that person and God. I don't want it to be illegal altogether because I know what would happen with backyard illegal abortions then. However, I do think children should be protected after a certain gestational age, yes.
Oh my. So many ways one could go with that. LOL. nm
nm
You can't have it both ways, you know
If you take a strict constitutionalist, you may be setting yourself up to lose the gay marriage debate. A strict reading of the constitution, without putting any empathy or thought as to what the electorate wants, would simply stop at that "all men are created equal thing", meaning that a man has the right to marry...period. Nowhere does it say what gender he has to marry.
you can't have it both ways
"I didn't say it was always OUR choice in some instances, as obviously most of us don't commit suicide." Another quote from you. I didn't put the words in your mouth. I quoted you. First you say our choices, then you say not our choices but someone else's choices. I don't know if you are cold but I do believe you are awfully self-righteous. Also a bad choice. One for which you will have the opportunity to repent. Another human being was denied that chance, and you seem to be just fine with that because you didn't approve of what he was doing.
Let me count the ways...
1. Behaving as if he had a mandate from day 1.
2. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and Iraq (this includes everything from the phony buildup to the quicksand of today).
3. Leaving Afghanistan to go to Iraq.
4. Tax cuts for the billionaires.
5. Restoring integrity to the WH??? Libby, Rove, Cunningham, Goss, DeLay, Cheney, Wilkes, Allen, Watergate redux (we are not only replaying Viet Nam, we are replaying freaking Watergate).
6. Staffing his cabinet with old fogies from his Dad and even Ford's time who see the world quite differently from what it has become in reality.
7. Gross incompetence in domestic and foreign affairs.
8. Making the United States a laughingstock.
9. Turning us into a third world country with outsourcing, offshoring, hiring illegal immigrants, importing much more than we are exporting, the glorification of cheap Chinese stuff at Wal-Mart and on and on....
10. Medicare fiasco.
11. Education fiasco.
12. The reuniting of church and state.
13. Job losses.
14. Healthcare fiasco.
I'm just sayin' it goes both ways
I'm sure that you want voter fraud to work in your favor .....jus kiddin'
Yer always saying we "cant have it both ways", yet
can objectively look at 'both sides' of the issues and parties involved. If WE can't 'have it both ways', then why do you think YOU should?
I think that works both ways -
I think there are a lot of people who will not publicly acknowledge to people that they will vote for Obama, but when the time comes and nobody knows what they really do, they will choose him.
You cannot have it both ways. On one hand you...sm
say he is not doing enough and on the other is is asserting himself and being disrespectful. Which is it? Nothing he does or says is going to be right for you repubs.
Pubs want it both ways....(sm)
Having it Both Ways: Republicans Take Credit For 'Pork' In Stimulus Bill They Opposed
Of course, no one's really surprised, right? I just wonder if the Democratic communications staffers will kick into gear and capitalize on this kind of story:
WASHINGTON — Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.
"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.
Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.
Republicans echoed their party line over and over during the debate: "This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the majority's favorite government programs," as Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., put it.
But Mica wasn't alone in touting what he saw as the bill's virtues. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, also had nice things to say in a press release.
Young boasted that he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."
One provision would have made it harder for minority businesses to win contracts, and Young explained that he "worked with members on the other side of the aisle to make the case for these programs, and was able to get the provision pulled from the bill."
Yet later in the day Young — who recently told McClatchy that he would've included earmarks, or local projects, in the bill if it had been permitted — issued another statement blasting the overall measure.
"This bill was not a stimulus bill. It was a vehicle for pet projects, and that's wrong," he protested.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/having-it-both-ways-republicans-take-
It goes MANY ways. For example, I see racism
nm
They want it both ways, Cyndiee.
They don't want the lowest-paid workers to make a decent living wage, and they don't want social services to assist these people either. Their solution to the economic crisis is to have the government pay off their mortgage, so they can buy a big-screen television for their bedroom and put a new deck in the backyard. They talk about McDonald's but, in actuality, they are more like Burger King...they want it their way!
Let me count the ways
1. Really poor choice of Republican presidential candidate (republican lite).
2. George Soros's backing.
3. Mainstream media gave him a complete pass as far as any close scrutiny. Still are, although the honeymoon may be ending.
4. He's gonna fill my gas tank and pay my mortgage.
5. Political correctness.
6. The teleprompter.
7. Etc.
She's trying to save us from our evil ways
:o)
There are other ways to serve one's country
Some are big, and some are small. Just having a job, working hard and staying off welfare is one way. Being a legal immigrant and not an illegal one is another. Donating time and money to charities, philanthropic organizations (even the SPCA) are all little things that serve the greater good. Not committing crimes, voting in elections, working with the PTA, the local soccer team, or participating in 'cleanup day' in your town... those all count, too. I have the greatest respect and empathy for a man who served in the armed forces and suffered at the hands of the enemy. But that doesn't necessarily qualify him to lead the country in these particular times. In another time, perhaps. But not now. He's too old, his time is past, and his ideas (basically the same as Bush's, just painted over to look different) are outdated. They don't address the everyday problems this country and its people face today. His way has been tried, and it's not working very well. (Unless, of course, you breathe the rarified air of the wealthiest communities in the country.) Just about EVERYbody in the country needs a break, small & medium-sized businesses included, and there are ways to do that so that everyone benefits, and yet everyone pulls their fair share of the load.
If the everyday citizen of the country is doing better financially, and if big business is paying its share and not jumping through countless loopholes each tax season, then there's more money to support the country's infrastructure. We have potholed roads, rotting bridges, and our hospital emergency rooms are so overloaded with people with no health insurance, either there for their everyday care, or for the rash of gunshot casualties we have, that many of them have closed their doors.
So yes, it's time for a younger President and a fresh outlook, because what's gone on in the last decade or two has grown very, very stale.
that knife cuts both ways
I am reluctant to say it but...biden wasn't the only one. Palin got in her fair share, too. Take a look at "fact check." They both spun things their own way. That's what is so very sad. They all lie and expect us to swallow their crap like it's gospel and they leave people knowing we can't trust anyone in our own government. I think people now vote not for someone they actually like (because we can't trust them) but for whoever will be the lesser of 2 evils.
That questioning thing goes both ways, ya know.
Racism works both ways
You say your white relative may not vote for a black man but where I live racism is alive and well coming from the black community as well. It is taught to their children, which is very sad, and they bring it into the schools as well.
Road runs both ways......... sm
Time will tell.
Sorry, but Kool-Aid works both ways.
You can drink Republican Kool-Aid or Democratic Kool-Aid, it just depends on who is serving it.
Yeah, it works both ways...
What if homosexuality was outlawed???? That would be forcing our views upon the homosexual community and shoving that down their throats!!!! Nobody is doing that as it would obviously be ridiculous and cruel to homosexuals.
The institution of marriage should not be changed, plain and simple. Civil unions fit the bill for G/L, but marriage is only for a woman and a man.
There are other ways of paying taxes.......... sm
than just in your paycheck each week. When the tax goes up on anything, that cost is passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Wait until cap and trade passes and see if you don't pay not only higher utility bills but also higher grocery costs because the cost of the store's utilities increasing.
Okay, so our income tax is not necessarily going up, but the increase on everything else is more than offsetting any small rebate I see in my paycheck. Heck, even ramen noodles went up from 11 cents to 14 cents per package recently. At that rate, I wonder how long I will be able to afford to eat!
Harry Reid wants it both ways, and has tried to play JM...sm
for a fool in this.
Somehow, I think it's going to backfire on Harry Reid.
hope you have a lot of recipes for ways to eat crow
nm
We are alike in some ways - I agree with you totally.
Oh yeah, since I can't be sarcastic with DH here without it turning into a full blown battle, this is where I can be sarcastic. HA HA HA. Like you, if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't be here. And we have shown that you can be sarcastic without being disrespectful.
I have not always agreed with everything you said but have agreed with others things you say. So seeing as you share some of my viewpoints you can't be all that bad then. HA HA HA (just kidding).
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
I understand completely....people can see the same situation in 2 different ways....
I am not trying to bash your opinion either...and I will just touch on this briefly and leave it alone. Wanting regime change in Iraq did not originate with George Bush. It originated during the Clinton administration:
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.
US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.
U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.
More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.
Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.
Pentagon unveils details of Operation Desert Fox
Transcript:Text of Blair's remarks on Iraq attack
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
RELATED VIDEO
Clinton statement from the Oval Office on attack against Iraq
Windows Media 28K 56K
Pentagon outlines 'Operation Desert Fox'
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
British Prime Minister comments on the airstrikes
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
Watch as anti-aircraft fire erupts over Baghdad
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
In this story:
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
In-depth special:
Strike on Iraq
Related stories:
Explosions in sky over Baghdad - December 16, 1998
Iraq not cooperating with U.N., chief inspector says - December 15, 1998
Visiting U.N. weapons inspectors depart Iraq - December 14, 1998
Iraq oil sale wins approval from U.N. chief - December 12, 1998
Cohen: Iraq could be attacked at any time - December 10, 1998
U.S. reacts sternly to Iraq's rebuff of inspectors - December 9, 1998
There were limited bomb strikes at that time. And then we had not been attacked. George Bush did not invent the idea of regime change in Iraq. No, it did not turn into full fledged war at that time...but we had not lost 3000 of our citizens either.
Also, please check out the Iraq Liberation Act passed and endorsed enthusiastically by Democrats. And if you check closely...the same democrats who are decrying going into Iraq now were all for it then. When I look at the entirety of it...and I remember well Clinton saying from the oval office he was going to bomb Iraq and why he was going to do it...I agreed with him and I agreed with Bush. That is what I absolutely hate about politics...that partisan lockstep. If a Democrat President thinks we should bomb and/or invade Iraq, the Democrats are all behind him. Remember, the majority of Democrats voted this time to go in too. It was not George Bush alone. And the intelligence he used to make his decision is the same intelligence Bill Clinton had. I don't want to make argumentative. Just stating facts. And it is the totality of it that makes me say what I said about Bush. I do not believe for one minute that he went into Iraq knowing there was no WMD, any more than I think Clinton bombed Iraq knowing there was no reason to do so.
So far as I can see, John McCain did not say he was for more war. Even Obama has said that we cannot just pull out. So no matter who is elected, we are there for awhile. The say in Iraq for 100 years was misquoted and misrepresented by the Obama campaign and others...what he said was that there "could" not will be an American presence in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, like bases, advisors, etc. Not fighting soldiers. Like we had bases in Germany, bases in Korea, etc. Those wars had been over a long time and we still had bases there. He did not say we would be fighting in Iraq in a hundred years. That being said, if we are attacked again, he is certainly not afraid to fight. We can't afford a President who is not willing to fight. Clinton did not react to the first world trade center bombing, the khobar towers bombings, the embassy bombings, or the bombing of the USS Cole. Had he done so, we might not have had 9-11 and we would not have gone into Iraq. If Clinton had accepted bin Laden from the Sudan when they offered him...if, if, if. The war in Iraq was not the product of one man.
Again, not trying to be argumentative, but I do not understand how a huge group of people can blame one man for all the ills of this country and congress gets a pass. Bush by himself can't do very much. I mean I got pretty disgusted with Clinton at the end, and I didn't much care for a lot of the things that happened during his admin, but I did not blame him personally for it. That is not how the government works.
Yes, there are some things I did not like about the Bush admin and still don't like...but I don't demonize him and make him the poster chld for everything wrong with the country...I blame Congress. THey are the ones who can change things. And they haven't done diddly.
Intolerance goes both ways, and your post should be directed to all on this board....sm
not just the conservatives.
In fact, you yourself, have posted to the extreme pro-Obama, if I'm not mistaken. (unless I'm thinking of someone with a similar name, if so, a thousand pardons).
Depending on which day you come, either side of the political agenda has their say and sway, way to the extreme.
Some of us tend to be in the middle, sometimes more to the right, sometimes more to the left.
Myself, these days, I'm sick and tired of McCain, and still can't stand Obama.
But you and anybody else are free to have your say.
Just don't attempt to say it's all one-sided, because it's not. And if you were fair, it's usually one-sided in favor of Obama, not McCain.
I, personally, am sick of politics in general, all ways around, with no good candidate, really, on either side of the spectrum.
pardon me, racquet - well, I guess it can be spelled both ways
x
Nothing wrong with that, my daddy was a gardener, I know 1,000 ways to make zucchini, if you are int
nm
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
you want it both ways, it is dem fault with control, and when they had no control
it was their fault as well. yes GB did not get anything done, no deregulation, no war, no shift of power to the corporations, nothing.
so you are saying he was utterly incompetent?
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
I didn't know that.
Thanks, Democrat. I wasn't aware of that point at all, and to me, that makes a huge difference. I will visit the site and check it out. Thanks again. 
I though you said you didn't
Sorry, but I didn't see anywhere
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.
I didn't say that.nm
It is me, but I didn't get it...sm
I think there is a problem wiht the email on forumatrix because I tried to send an email to the poster ????? who posted on the conservative board today and got an error message as well.
Nevermind it though. Have a good day! I have to get ready for my mini vacation later this week, so I will be working mucho hours til Wednesday.
I didn't know it was q/yours/q.
I just made a fast post. I don't know what the rest of the stuff is you are talking about. ForuMatrix is a worldwide board. Some of us don't even live in the United States. People here might want to realise that when making responses. It is of no consequence to me one way or the other. Just asking a question.
I didn't think so.
Same old. Same old.
No way. He didn't say that, did he??? nm
.
I didn't think of it this way.
I really didn't think of that, but you are right. My brother-in-law made over $20K in a few months. My sister has paid off just about everything, including the mortgage.
But, that is a heck of a risk to take for a little cash.
Didn't know about that one.
nm
You'd be #$%*@ing if they didn't do anything -
But, it IS the RNC, so they are damned either way with socialists oops I mean democRATS like yourself. 
Please tell me he didn't say that
I received a call from an friend who was so upset and said Obama called Palin a pig in lipstick. I responded, surely no, you must be mistaken. Obama is running for office of the President of the United States. Why would he ruin his chances of winning by calling this lady a pig. That doesn't sound like rational behavior for a presidential candidate. However, to my surprise I opened several different news sources (both liberal and conservative) and sure enough he did. I'm thinking why, why in the world would you fall down that path of being so low that you would call Palin a pig saying "you can put lipstick on a pig and it will still be a pig". If he was trying to make a joke in reference to her joke about the difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull is lipstick, this joke could not have come at a worse time for him. How in the world is he going to explain that one.
Shame shame Barack Obama. This has to be one of the lowest comments anyone can make about another candidate. - Not funny! Why would you go and ruin any chance you had that people may have thought you had a little bit of "class" to you.
I haven't watched MSNBC but am curious as to how they are going to respond. How can they support someone when this is his opinion of other people.
Talk about low class. One more reason I will not be voting democrat this election.
I didn't know this either, but....sm
I was a little disappointed in McCain yesterday, blaming Bush for the current crisis, just like Obama.
What he needs to do, is link Obama and Biden to this, as they both took bribes from the lobbyists, from these corporations, that went under.
Where's the outrage against the dems and the democratic congress, that knew these things were going on, and refused to step in and stop these from happening?
Once again, it's blame George Bush, and McCain has to remember he's running against Obama, not George Bush.
|
