Man, what a sick reason for changing

Here is a blurb from an article I read..........changing a vote just IN CASE Obama becomes president........what a sell out.

Among the 21 converts was Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois, his chief of staff, Kenneth Edmonds, said.

Edmonds said Jackson was changing his vote because "he received assurances from (Sen. Barack Obama) that, if elected, his administration will aggressively use authority in the bill to prevent foreclosures and stabilize the housing market."

• Man, what a sick reason for changing - your vote...........sm

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

My original post merely pointed out that Olberman had a good question (which has yet to be recognized on this board).  Just as a refresher, the question was, why is Coulter trying to get on NBC to promote her book (in which she talks badly about NBC) when she has such a low opinion of the network.  This is not a battle of the networks, just a simple observation that anyone with half a brain can see.

I guess it's easier to change the subject than to actually answer a question or post an opinion on the subject matter.

My original post merely pointed out that Olberman had a good question (which has yet to be recognized on this board).  Just as a refresher, the question was, why is Coulter trying to get on NBC to promote her book (in which she talks badly about NBC) when she has such a low opinion of the network.  This is not a battle of the networks, just a simple observation that anyone with half a brain can see.

I guess it's easier to change the subject than to actually answer a question or post an opinion on the subject matter.

The solution is pretty simple.  If you don't like the liberal sermon, then don't attend the liberal church.

Other than that, I couldn't care less what you think.  Have a nice day.

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.

Its fascinating and I look forward to developing News. It is so much more important than what the girls on the Hills are wearing or who is dating who.  If I was sick of it, I just would not come to a politic board though.

I thought I would post this as a helpful hint for those of you who are being sickened by the celebration that is being covered on TV.  I understand that this sickness has some very compelling side effects, such as making the affected post derogatory comments on message boards.  It seems to have turned into an epidemic.  Thankfully there are people like myself who are concerned for those of you with the sickness.  I have studied it and have come to the scientific conclusion that there is only one definitive cure:

TURN OFF THE TV

A philadelphia, PA abortion clinic is going to offer free abortions (murders) in "honor" of george tiller, the murdered abortionist.  This country has become so depraved that we honor a killing by killing others (babies nonetheless; the most helpless in our society)!!! 

What a sick bunch of people!

Is anyone else just really tired of this election and all the crap that goes along with it?  I'm so sick and tired of political parties.  I'm tired of the families of the candidates being targets.  I'm tired of the mud flinging.  I think I'm going to take a break from all the political hoopla. 

**** Edited by Moderator ****

I say what I think is sacred, you dont have to agree with me just as i dont have to agree with YOU. get over yourself!

going to get rich somehow with Obama in the White House.  This stuff doesn't happen overnight.

Furthermore anyone with a 401K or stocks know that there is a downside.  You don't always win...  So who is looking for free money now?  Oh the stock holders are??????  These are the same people that live the good life.  Well too bad!   You lose because you put your faith in the stock market...  Oh well..  Do I feel pity?  Nope.  Not when there are people struggling just to make minimum wage. 

I was born with no money in my hand and I'll die with no money in my hand.  Makes no difference to me really. 

Anyone with any sense knows "you can't take it with ya'."  Savor the moment. 

All of you republicans out there that think McCain is going to somehow turn this country around are in for a big shock when he gets in there.  The joke is on him.  He thinks this Palin person is going to get him in, and he's oh so wrong!  I have to wonder if he really is demented.  Really?????

of constantly seeing black celebs on TV talking about no more white lies because they now have a black president.  All I've seen on TV since the inaguration are black people rejoicing because it seems they believe Obama will put all the crackers in their place now.  it is sickening.  I get so sick and tired of hearing about how prejudice white people are when there sounds to me like there are just as many black people spreading the hate around as well.  I see this comic as calling them stupid just like when they used the monkey with Bush. 

I don't know how many black musicians I've heard on TV shouting f*ck white people....we have a black president now.  But you don't hear the media calling them out and talking about how disgraceful that is.  Oh no.  You don't hear them discussing such obscene things on The View.  the double standards in racism never ceases to amaze me.  You don't dare use the N word (which I never would anyway) but it is quite alright for a black person to say f*ck white people.  It is okay for a black church to be strictly black and be total for the black community, etc but if a white church did that....it would be labeled as the KKK.