She didn't make it up. In fact, it's not the first time

these domestic terrorists bought an abortion clinic.  Now, they "need a bigger office."

Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said that his group has discussed the idea of buying the tan, windowless clinic in east Wichita. He made the comment after the Tiller family announced that the clinic would be closed permanently.

"I would love to make an offer on that abortion clinic, and that's some of the discussion that we're having," Newman said in a telephone interview Tuesday from his group's headquarters in Wichita.

Tiller was shot May 31 while serving as an usher at his church. Scott Roeder, a 51-year-old Kansas City, Mo., resident, has been charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault.

Tiller attorney Dan Monnat declined to discuss Newman's suggestion.
"I'm just not going to respond to every irreverent publicity stunt or comment by these extremists," Monnat said.

Newman's group bought another former abortion clinic in Wichita in 2006 for its headquarters, but he said the group needs to expand. "We need a bigger office," he said.

 
Balance at:  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/10/national/main5079658.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._5079658

• How sick is this? - sm
  • Some honor - GhostMom
  • What's even more sick...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Some people need smacked. - Trigger Happy
    • Please tell me you just made that up!!! - Zville MT
      • She didn't make it up. In fact, it's not the first time - Marmann
  • This makes me sick. - Trigger Happy
  • I will not - sick
  • I see no "honor" in this at all........ sm - m

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

This issue is not funny.  It could be deadly for us all.  There are certain Christians who will defend Israel no matter what Israel does.  I think a legitimate question is why.  Jewish people obviously do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior.  So why do some Christians have such undying loyalty to these people?  Is it because they truly put them on a pedestal (again, if so, why?), or is it because of the real estate inhabited by Israel, which just happens to contain the holiest of cities?  Or is it because the Bible says they must not turn their back on Israel or they won't get into heaven?  Some of them are very excited about the prospect of the Rapture.  Coincidentally, these people also represent Bush's base.  Do they believe the Jews are worthy of heaven only if they convert to a certain form of Christianity?  And what happened to Pat Robertson's theme park plans in Israel, and why did it happen?  How does Jerry Fallwell feel about Jews' entrance into heaven?  And can't anyone else see how this could be interpreted as the Jewish religion being inferior to the views of certain Christians?

I personally feel the Jews are entitled to gain entrance to heaven as much as anyone else of any other religion is.  Why don't you?

These people don't represent all Christians, as Starcat pointed out in this thread.  I can't help but find it fascinating that when either Israel or the concept of loyalty to Israel is brought up, a nerve is struck, and attacks against posters asking the questions ensue, without any answers ever being provided to the questions that were asked.

This is not a religious forum, and religious comments really shouldn't be posted here.  Unfortunately, we have a President who has mixed religion and politics so intrinsically during his administration that they can't be separated now.

I have full respect for anyone's religious beliefs, and what they believe is none of my business, but if the entire world is about to end because its end was assisted by those of a certain religion to self-fulfill a prophecy they and the American President believe, then it becomes my business, as well as the business of every person in the world who may be harmed as a result of the religious beliefs of some - not all or even the majority in the world.

I apologize if you feel I made fun of anyone's religion.  That was not my goal.  I admit that sometimes my words don't come out right and what are questions may seem like confrontations.  I apologize for that.

#1:  Democrat Senority Minority Leader Harry Reid actually suggested to Bush that he nominate Harriet Miers.

#2: Some of most radical conservatives are beginning to whine about it.

Could it be that Bush, reminiscent of Rumsfeld's assertion that You go to war with the Army you have, realizes that he came into office with the Supreme Court HE had and is trying to maintain the structure of the court, and, in doing so, is actually doing something FOR Democrats??

I wonder how much his approval ratings will increase if Harriet Miers indeed turns out to be someone who is REASONABLE.

They don't come out.  Also, the colors obscure the names of the people who made the quotes making them worthless.  How is one to argue about who said the quote if you can't read it.  

That's right, Bush is still alive and well.  Check this out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28024676

Yeah, I know it's MSNBC, but how many other people are doing a lame duck watch?

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.

 The economy is growing. I don't care if it is exploding. The fact here is that more and more people are becoming more and more desperate. I think going to college is fine but what jobs are these people going to get when they get out of college. You mentioned something about trades...please, all the manufacturing jobs are gone. Small business...only a handful ever succeed. My guess is that most people wiped out of good paying jobs with benefits are supposed to go to Wal-Mart and just pretend everything is okay, and here in Florida, join the service industry. Money, the real god of our times, is what is killing a lot of people here in Florida. As an example, in my town, there are hundreds of small mobile home parks inhabited primarily by the elderly. The big money developers are coming in here, buying the parks and the people are out on the street. The owners of the park get millions of dollars and the people are usually offered a flat fee that would pay rent for about 2 years, or given 60 days to find a place to move their homes, On fixed income this, of course, cannot be done. Many of these folks lived all their lives doing the right thing, playing by all the rules. They moved to Florida, own a little bit of property and now they are expected to rent again and work again. An apartment 1 BR 1 BA that is decent would be around $1000. You do the math. Even those communities that are owned by the homeowners themselves have no say. Eminent domain comes into play and then they are really in trouble so...being elderly, forced out of your home, having Medicare screwed up beyond belief is okay because the economy is strong. I don't care about words or pie charts. I care about what I see and know to be true by looking at it with my own eyes. Just who is it benefitting from this growing economy??  Oh well, the market will straighten everything out, just wait.

Another thing is that everyone is not college material, even these days when a degree doesn't mean all that much anyway. It surely won't guarantee you a job and if you went to college after the 1970s you don't even have to be smart to get in; not that smart people are not in college, you just don't have to be anymore. You don't even have to know how to read..but that is for another day.  How many middle management degreed people have lost their jobs...quite a few. Airlines, GM, drug companies, utility companies...all these places hire degreed people. That old sheepskin won't save you anymore.

You say the poor will always be with us and I believe that as well. I do not believe that it is okay to walk over the additional bodies that greed has produced and there are legion. You call it lack of motivation on the part of the poor. I call it greed.

By the way, I see that the Iraq election is mysteriously mirroring the US election, split right down the middle.

Oh, and the drilling in Alaska. Why don't they drill in Detroit and make some cars that use some other form of fuel.  It just never ends.

Debacle...absolutely.

The teen was raised in that family, but as a human being she made her own decisions that her mother can't always control.  Just because she didn't fully coincide with her mother's platform of abstinence, she is with her pro-life stance and keeping her baby, marrying the dad.

that some of the associations he has had in his lifetime condone terrorist attacks on our country and others condone racism by spouting hate messages from the pulpit.  It has nothing to do with his name or his color.  It has to do with who he associates with.  If you want to know a true person.....look who they hang with.  Birds of a feather, my friend.

But putting all sketchy associations aside, the bottom line is that there are issues that I just don't agree with Obama on.  That is why I'm not voting for him.  I do not condone abortion.  I want to keep my guns.  I do not want to raise taxes for anyone.  I don't want to give welfare checks to people who are too lazy to get an education and work.  I want to stop government spending.  I want smaller government.  There are just so many issues where Barrack Obama and I do not see eye to eye that I really don't even have to use his race or associations as a reason to not vote for him.

I didn't say I was not a conservative.  I didn't say what I was as a matter of fact. It was the FACT that the poster ASSUMED I was something that frosted me.  This has nothing to do with the posts we are talking about, but you sure spent a lot of time looking for that didn't you?  How about finding the original posts that actually ARE being talked about?  It might take awhile, but they are there.  I know you either have a lot of time, or have printed off every post and have them neatly arranged in a three ring binder.