OK then why didn't Clinton send Chelsea

• Hey, Bush, sign your daughters up for Iraq, such a *noble* cause - gt
  • I can't believe anyone actually compiled this information. - nt
  • Thanks, GT. - American Woman
  • Thank you, gt, interesting post - Observer
  • Going off the deep end, gt, getting even more bizarre as time goes by. nm - sm
    • Bush tell your daughters they are needed in Iraq for a *noble* cause - gt
      • OK then why didn't Clinton send Chelsea - Turn about
        • Do you think these guys would be crying for John Kerry's daughters to go if he had won? - nt
          • I actually agree with you, I don't think the president's children should - Democrat
            • They are not children. They are grown women. - nt
              • They are his children, grown or not. sm - Democrat
                • You have no way of knowing that. I wouldn't even make that guess. nm - sm
                  • Good don't guess. It's my guess though.nm - Democrat
        • Cindy isn't interested in helping the victims down there. She's just mad they are stealing - nt
          • Freeze...step away from the Kool-Aid. nm - Democrat
          • So now it is Cindy, not Bush who put the troops in danger. - Democrat
            • You might want to read the letter on the other board. - nt
              • They were in danger before Cindy even thought - Democrat
                • The father of the Marine daughter also said the same thing. sm - sm
      • Oh whatever, gt, you are full of it. nm - sm
        • It's not your right to bash her - this is the liberal board - Getting even sicker
          • It's okay for gt to wish people to burn in hell, THAT'S okay, but THIS is bashing. sm - So?
            • Whinners???? And how many times have we heard yall's complaints - Democrat
  • No parent can sign up their "child", none of which are "children" anymore BTW. - New argument please. nm
    • what about the noble war? - but but
      • So you are actually saying that children are not autonomous. sm - sm
  • This is a ridiculous suggestion - Reality Check
    • of course not - huh
      • Why won't you debate the issue - Reality check
      • What planet do you guys come from? - Reality Check
        • Shock? - American Woman
          • You are completely unhinged - Reality check
            • You have done nothing but attack - American Woman
              • I have many times tried to encourage debate - Reality check
                • No, dear, I understand fully what reality is. - American Woman
                  • No, I refuse to try and debate you anymore - Reality check
            • Oh and about the fingers - Reality check
              • Thank you for proving my point. - American Woman
                • Okay if you weren't shooting me the bird - Reality check
                  • I was trying to illustrate that you REFUSE to see what's in front of your face, that you must twi - American Woman
                    • At least have the cajones to admit when you do something. - nt
                      • A racial post shooting the finger. Must be a conservative thing. Point this out. - Democrat
                  • Uh oh, high and mighty might be construed as a Christian term. Don't make her mad. sm - sm
              • All the while telling us how hateful WE are. Totally clueless. nm - sm
        • posting politics - too funny
          • Yet still you want Bush's daughters to go to war. sm - sm
            • And you read this "where" in the post. Not gettin it. - Democrat

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

As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.

Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.

We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)

All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.

Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.

THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 

Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlf---13Q0g

Iraq without all his body guards and see if he is so smug and smiley when another citizen of democracy goes for his shoes.  Bush says that is what democracy is all about --- yet he always has US protestors cordoned off far away from where he speaks in this democracy. The biggest sissy-boy the country has ever been run into the ground by.

supplemental income, too.

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.

No way can Obama offer VP to Queen Hillary.  He should remember what happened to JFK (with Johnson being involved).  What a better way for the Queen to annoint herself to the presidency by getting rid of him.  Don't put it past her either - just remember Ron Brown, Vince Foster, Eric Fox, Sandy Hume, Danny Casolaro, Ronald Rogers, John Wilson, Gandy Baugh, Mary Mahoney, Suzanne Coleman, Judy Gibbs, Gary Johnson, Kathy Ferguson, Bell Shelton, Sally Perdue (didn't mysteriously die but was told if she didn't keep her mouth shut they would break her legs), Jon Walker, Johnny Franklin, Ed Willey, Barbara Alice Wise, Jerry Parks, C. Victor Raiser, L.J. Davis, Herschel Friday, Ron Brown, and the list goes on and on an on....

So no, I would not put it past either of them that something would happen and she would swear herself in as the anointed queen.  Lets just hope Obama has more sense - which I believe he does.

Where do I start?  I love Bill Clinton.  Hs is very intelligent, he can talk about anything and knows what he is talking about.  He did what the first person posted.  He was impeached but he could not be removed from office because he was impeached for was not govenment and it has to pertain to the government to be removed from office.  He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he earned everything he got.  He has worked very hard.  Funny, but I get the same sick feeling in my stomach whenever I see George Bush's face on TV and the man cannot even speak so how he can do anything else.   The trillion dollar debt, people with no jobs, and the list goes on and on.  Put us in a war we had no business being in.  He has never done anything on his own that turned out good.  Whatever he did was with the help of his father or someone else doing it for him.   He will not return to Crawford, they are going to build a house, but I forgot the location, and he will not be traveling around the world working to get meds for  AIDS patients, starving  children, etc.  Maybe he can help bring back other countries to like us again like they used to until Bush told just about everyone of them he did not need their help and made them angry with us.  I could go on and on but I am tired and going to bed. 

the Oval Office (that I pay for) and ''company time'' to get Lewinskyed on a regular basis.  He may even have gotten a Lewinsky on Fathers Day, who knows?

I believe it is called Fathers Day for a reason.  Obama went golfing on the sacred day, and I don't think Michelle and the kids were with him.   On Fathers Day, it's Daddy that gets the gifts, otherwise it would be called Family Day or Wife and Children's Day or something else. 

Some men give their wives a day at a spa for Mothers Day...should she be required to spend all day with Hubby and kids instead?  Technically, I think the honoree gets to spend their time the way s/he chooses on that day.

Sanford having his trist in Argentina was quite bad enough, do you really have to pile on with Fathers Day as well?