The reason it has become a big deal . . .
Posted By: lom on 2008-10-22
In Reply to: what in the heck - sm
this is a woman who is almost single handedly dividing this country into pro-American and anti-American. (Can you say McCarthyism?)She who claims to be so patriotic and pro-America. If she is so gosh-darned American, than why isn't she buying her clothes at Wal-Mart? Can't get much more American than that! She actually sees herself as some sort of grand presevationist of the great American ideal -- bullhockey!. She is nothing but a power-crazed, hypocritical megalomaniac. She gives us legitimate women a bad name and I am ashamed to share gender with her!
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
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.
The deal is
just like the war, embryonic stell research has been so politicized that any kind of logical even-minded interpretation has flown right out the window.
I think it is a very big deal -
I don't think it would be a very big deal at all if she were the one paying for it and not the RNC - I don't think that clothes and makeup and haircuts is where most people think their donations are going when they donate their money...
and I don't think it sends a very good message at this time when people are trying to figure out how to buy gas and food and pay their utilities that they are paying $150,000 a month for clothes for her to wear..
and they will be donated to charitable causes? Give me a break!
Here's the deal...sm
1. What makes it so profitable for foreign oil companies is the tax cuts provided to them by our government. I won't even bother arguing who did that as its pretty obvious.
2. The US Department of Energy last time I checked was a page or two before the "funnies."
3. Within the same time (or probably less) that we could drill for more oil here in the US (which wouldn't even come close to producing the quantity we use, and would not stand a chance on the market due to taxes that are already in place) we could implement other sources of energy. In the course of this we would be providing renewable energy, decrease the horrific environmental impact on the environment, and create new jobs.
I also think this was a done deal
before the DNC. Remember how pelosi said SHE would take care of it (meaning the nominee) before the DNC? I had the feeling when HC conceded, it was because she was made a sweet deal by somebody.
OK, hon, this is the deal.
Hitler was an anti-Semite, granted. Using his Holocaust against the Jews as a historical parallel to illustrate the Palestinian Holocaust is not.
I do not wish to waste my time beating this dead horse with you, especially since your entire argument is founded on a false premise (a kind reference to what, in fact, is a filthy lie that seeks to dehumanize and trivialize genocidal slaughter). As long as you dismiss the occupation and "myth" and try to present a case that rewrites a distorted and warped history by assuming an exclusionary myopic perspective based on such an outrage (occupation denial), nothing you have to say holds any credibility and merits no further consideration or comment.
As long as the Israel perpetuates its own myth-based myth and believes it can justify state-sponsored terrorist apartheid occupation, it will doom itself to living in a parallel universe as a hated global pariah and its population will never see a moment of real peace or security.
that was quite a deal, eh? sm
Being conservative and pro-life (and never having given birth to boot), "freedom of speech" is something I want to see more often--certainly more than "racist!" Talk about an over-played, lame-@ss word, ya know?
My only take on it is that, like Savage says, "I leave vengeance to God." But you certainly have every right to say whatever you want, and I'm glad you said it without apology.
What really ticked me off was when Greg Jarrett on Fox used the term for pro-lifers as "extremists." Excuse me? I have every right to be pro-life and hold anyone I elect to that same mindset. So that makes me an extremist? It escapes me if I'm also considered a religious extremist.
That frosts me far more than about any of the lame remarks like GJs, etc.
Here's the deal about prejudice. sm
Prejudice is prejudice. I don't differentiate prejudice against overweight people any differently than I do prejudice for race. The left seems to be able to do that with no problem. Why, you would think they are all slender and well groomed. However, the presence in their midst of people like Ted Kennedy, Jerry Nadler, Barney Franks, Linda Ronstadt, etc., etc., would prove differently.
it's politics. deal with it.
Wow, that sure got your panties all in a wad, now didn't it.
Wonder why ?
Gotta deal
It is time for her to put on her big girl panties and face 'em head on. Politicians get bashed. They get bashed before they are elected and after they are elected. If she can't deal with them now, how the heck is she going to do it as the VP or possibly the Pres?
I think she can handle herself, but who knows if we will ever find out.
I think the debate is a big deal
One of these guys is going to be elected president in the next 41 days. I want to hear them debate. This crisis is not going to get worse because a few hours are spent on a debate.
See my ad below for a great deal on
$700 billion delivers it right to your door!
Sorry you have to deal with so many cooks
nm
They sure won't be able to deal with it if he loses.
A $2M victory party already. If he loses what will he do? Many news casters both left and right say he should not be so bold to think he already has won. Nov 4th has not arrived yet. I'm hearing more and more democrats are voting for McCain. Polls are neck in neck (even though they don't mean squat), but they are all over the place. And we do have to factor in the 11% who are undecided. And factor in the people who are too afraid to publicly state they are not for Obama, yet when election time comes they feel more comfortable having someone in who has experience and knows what they are doing. So what's going to happen if they do lose. It IS a possibility after all. Even Michelle Obama at a rally said do not listen to the polls it is a close race.
I don't think for one second that there will be riots. I think that is a scare tactic being used by Obama supporters to put fear in Americans. "Vote for Obama or we'll riot". Pulleese. I know that if Obama wins there are a lot on the other side who will say the same. Illegal elections, votes stolen, it goes both ways.
So, I just sit back, hope the next 9 days go by fast and will wait until late 11/4 or 11/5 if it takes that long to see who won.
If Obama wins I will come back on the board and say "congratulations" but if he loses I will say "I told you so". It's at the time when people get too cockie that things don't work out the way they hope them to.
Of course you don't understand the big deal.
You could have written the scripts. A lot of it is identical to what you post on this forum.
Was a deal made??? probably. sm
And no matter what deal was made or how or by who, bottom line is that the American people are going to get the brown end of the stick....AGAIN.
I have an awesome deal right now too (sm)
My husband is a firefighter so we have insurance through the city (BC/BS). That's a relief all by itself! However, the city has gone one step further for its employees. They provide FOR FREE a clinic where you can go for the small stuff (cuts, colds, UTIs, etc). They also provide city employees with FREE medicine so long as they carry it. It has to be generic, but it's such a huge help. What this service provides us: For me: lipid-lowering agent, happy pills, sleeping pills, and PPI. For my husband: Blood pressure medication and PPI.
They did this because it is actually cheaper for them in the long run to provide this service to their employees with health maintenance drugs, thereby reducing the added cost to the insurance from people not being able to afford this medication and ending up in the hospital which in the long run increases the cost of insurance. I just hope they can continue to do this.
Geesh what is your deal?
I am laughing at this! Out of all the nasty, mean, down right horrible posts on this board, you pick this one to get your panties in a wad about? I dont get it? Abc posted that she could kill her baby in her tummy which is here opinion but what about that? why not be upset over that? is that cuz you agree with abortion and that is okay? you're like on a witch hunt or something.
The only ones making a big deal are
the liberals trying to argue that everyone is prejudice against him and a racist. Conservatives and independents could care less. Conservatives and independents try to argue about issues. The liberals (most but not all) are the ones who turn it into a race issue.
We all know he's half white/half black and I think the one making the biggest deal out of him being the first black is he himself.
big flippin deal
Desperately grasping at straws to stir up some kind of controversy.
no, here is the deal, the question was
did he give her a chance to answer the question or not? Yes he did. And since she did not, he looked it up for himself and gave us the the answer on tonight's show. She said her way of defending Sarah was by calling Bill-O a sexist during the campaign. SAY WHAT, how is that defending anyone?
Yes, I truly think we will get a worse deal...
...with universal healthcare than we have now. If you want to screw something up royally, give it to the gummint to run.
Good lord! Look at Canada or the UK, who have socialized medicine. You go into a Canadian clinic. It's a walk-in system. They don't make appointments. You take a number, which is 51. Number fifty is called. Then it's quitting time. You get sent home to come back another day and try your luck again. Need an MRI? Take a number. We'lll call you in 4-6 months - or you could go to the US for it. Need bypass surgery? We'll see about that.
It will become a triage system: You, sir, are 60 years old and overweight. Your cholesterol is too high. Why should we waste our precious resources on you when younger and more viable specimens are stacking up outside? No, you may not have an angioplasty - at least not this decade. NEXT!
Socialized medicine is a pretty good deal if you're young and don't need a lot of services - not so very good when you reach an age when you actually do need them.
U
what is the deal with the mob mentality...
is this gang up on old men day? And I say this with the utmost respect because I, for one, really like old men! Do you people have so little to say to actually bolster you stance on issues that all you can do to feel better is pick on one particular poster? Well, here you go--pick on me, too, if it will make you feel better about yourselves. I can, as I am sure TechSupport can, take it.
I just got my Dell, what a deal that was!
I have had Dells in the past, would have gone with them last year but I knew they had Vista, could not use with my platform and just recently learned you could still, for a price, have XP put on. Back to my story. Had always had really good machines from there, had put up with the language before, not as bad in years past like now. I got passed from pillar to post and back again ordering. I spoke with 1 person, completely unable to talk with them and told them I have to listen to different dialects each day in my job, not when I am ordering and told them wanted to speak to someone I can understand. I am older and don’t have time to play around. I placed order, delivery delayed and delayed and delayed. I thought it would never get here. Another delay and I was cancelling my order and it just showed up 1 day. I hope to get really good service, not from them because that just does not happen now, but from the machine itself. That was a chore to have to go through that and should never be that way. I was told about the delay that Dell could not get the parts needed for the computer??
No big deal. Everyone makes mistakes.
It's easy to do on this board sometimes. 
I don't think the phone call to CBS was a big deal....sm
This call has nothing to do with politics but more of a favor to a friend. He used his influence to help a friend out. Looks like CBS owed him the money anyway. Friends help each other out this way all the time, no harm done IMHO.
Travelgate is a different story. Firing the people for not reason to appoint friends is cronyism.
Obama is the real deal! lol
I've watched every debate in the primaries and in the champaign, every interview on CNN, watched the interview after interview and heard from so many polical analysts most than I ever have in my life about an election this year. I have always been a Rep from the day I was born 46 years ago, but this is the first time in my life I am voting Dem for Obama. There is no question he is going to make more of a difference, and just maybe, our jobs could be saved and not outsourced by his tax break to companies who DO NOT outsource! Obama 08! =)
Here's the deal. This kind of rhetoric is exactly
and does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of your broken down party and the dirth of leadership you are currently experiencing. This kind of disconnect between your party and the rest of us is exactly what you should be spending your time trying to come to terms with.
Being a democrat, it is fine with me if you persist along these lines, since it would serve to ensure similar election results next time around, but for your own sakes, you guys really do need to GET A GRIP.
Yeah, and why do none of you make a big deal re:
nm
Well I really didn't think it was a huge deal
and you are the only person who freaked out about it. Give it a rest!
$300 for health insurance is a deal.
cost $1,000 or more a month?
Health insurance premiums, plus their refusal to insure people with preexisting conditions, are becoming prohibitive costwise for many (millions of Americans) to afford.
Though the example you gave may be true for some younger folks, I believe that's the exception and not the rule.
There is a huge crisis in healthcare in this country today. Good for you that you can afford it and just blame everyone else who can't. Maybe someday soon you'll be in the same boat with the 50-odd million Americans who simply can't afford it. Who will you blame then?
They are not! They are factual. A great deal of research, actually
going and talking to people who were THERE over the years when Obama was growing up, a teen, a young adult, and adult. This is not speculation folks, this is downright brass tacks in person research. Don't be fooled. And, to the person below who posted that you have no problem with Muslims, then you need to reprioritize and realize that while there is a small portion of Islamic people who do no wish harm on Americans, most of them do. They were raised up to do precisely that.
Learned how to deal with the frustrations of politics
I am so much calmer now these days since I learned how to deal with the frustrating day to day news of politics. My solution - I now watch HBO, The Food Channel, BBC, Travel Channel, and any other channel that is not news related. If I want news I will look at Drudge. TV is just too overwhelming for me and all these so called "experts" commenting on the politics.
So...you shouldn't be seeing any more stupid irate comments from me anymore. I'll now just be a couch potato learning how to cook different foods and planning my vacation to all these far away places on the travel channel. Oh yes, I forgot...while I speak in a british accent because I watch so much BBC. HA HA 
Here's a deal - the pubs will take the wrap for troopergate if
Braaaaawk Osama takes the wrap for the rampant voter fraud he is perpetuating across the US.
He's a crooked scheister and the Dems are coming off looking like monkeys with their heads up their own heinies for swallowing his B.S.
Don't you think there's a reason Osamabinbama has to look for his voters by dredging soup kitchens and rock concerts and homeless shelters? I guess that's the voter 'base' in the Democratic party now. Air heads and pot heads. Greaaaaaaaat.
NYT ad alone cost $200,000 in taxpayer funds. Not a big deal?nm
z
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal With Saddam Hussein
Rumsfeld is full of history (among other substances), but he neglected to share this piece of history with the American majority he criticized.
(I suggest Breaking Up Is Hard To Do as the perfect background music for this.)
Published on Thursday, December 8, 2005 by CommonDreams.org |
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam |
by Norman Solomon |
|
Christmas came 11 days early for Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when the news broke that American forces had pulled Saddam Hussein from a spidery hole. During interviews about the capture, on CBS and ABC, the Pentagon's top man was upbeat. And he didn't have to deal with a question that Lesley Stahl or Peter Jennings could have logically chosen to ask: Secretary Rumsfeld, you met with Saddam almost exactly 20 years ago and shook his hand. What kind of guy was he?
Now, Saddam Hussein has gone on trial, but such questions remain unasked by mainstream U.S. journalists. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration, opening up strong diplomatic and military ties that lasted through six more years of Saddam's murderous brutality.
As it happens, the initial trial of Saddam and co-defendants is focusing on grisly crimes that occurred the year before Rumsfeld gripped his hand. The first witness, Ahmad Hassan Muhammad, 38, riveted the courtroom with the scenes of torture he witnessed after his arrest in 1982, including a meat grinder with human hair and blood under it, the New York Times reported Tuesday. And: At one point, Mr. Muhammad briefly broke down in tears as he recalled how his brother was tortured with electrical shocks in front of their 77-year-old father.
The victims were Shiites -- 143 men and adolescent boys, according to the charges -- tortured and killed in the Iraqi town of Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in early July of 1982. Donald Rumsfeld became the Reagan administration's Middle East special envoy 15 months later.
On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country. A couple of days later, the New York Times cited a senior American official who said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis.
On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name. Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million. And while no results of the talks have been announced after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq.
A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years. The story recalled that Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here, and the dispatch mentioned in passing that State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state.
Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam. He went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.
As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. In response to the gassing, journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House.
The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States, writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas against Iranians and Kurds while the United States looked the other way.
Of course the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were not just in the future when Rumsfeld came bearing gifts in 1983. Saddam's large-scale atrocities had been going on for a long time. Among them were the methodical torture and murders in Dujail that have been front-paged this week in coverage of the former dictator's trial; they occurred 17 months before Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad.
Today, inside the corporate media frame, history can be supremely relevant when it focuses on Hussein's torture and genocide. But the historic assistance of the U.S. government and American firms is largely off the subject and beside the point.
A photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983, is easily available. (It takes a few seconds to find via Google.) But the picture has been notably absent from the array of historic images that U.S. media outlets are providing to viewers and readers in coverage of the Saddam Hussein trial. And journalistic mention of Rumsfeld's key role in aiding the Iraqi tyrant has been similarly absent. Apparently, in the world according to U.S. mass media, some history matters profoundly and some doesn't matter at all.
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com. |
Why such a huge deal made about the auto LOAN
nm
Yeah, and I hear you can get a great deal on real
estate when you chum up with Tony Rezko, too.
Those were economic stimulus checks...a one-time deal.
what Obama is proposing is NOT a one-time deal. It will be part of the tax code. BIG difference.
Big deal.........he made a joke out of Biden's proclivities....
At least he has quick wit and doesn't embarass our country with some of the STUPID crap that came out of Ws mouth.
Just sounds like liberal garbage to me. Third person = lying. Deal with it.
.
most "BIG" dealers do not use - the small time ones do - they deal to get money for their own
x
We feel like we deal Obama fanatic zombies who only spout
hope and change, change and hope, ad nauseum. You guys have too much kool aid on the brain to make sense to anyone but yourselves.
Fitzgerald renews interest in Rezko-Obama deal...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=83760
Yeah, just heard today he decided to cut his vacation short to deal with the
huricaine. Sheesh.
New reason
Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.
Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.
Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.
''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.
The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.
After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.
Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.
It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.
The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.
This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.
At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.
The reason
Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board. The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.
You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE. You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.
You have your own board. Would you please just go back there? You are offensive to many on this board. This is the liberal board. You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine. It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option. But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board. I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well. You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.
As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board. You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person. She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses. You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board. Please. JUST GO AWAY.
There's no other reason.
All they want to do is start trouble. Ignore the gnats.
The reason for this. sm
and something that is not in this short article is the language of the bill and the loopholes it leaves open. I have no doubt at all that the NRA would back terrorists or suspected terrorists from getting guns. However, this bill is badly written and needs to be revised to leave no loopholes for further legislation not included in the bill, which often happens.
This is one BIG reason why
I don't want government involved in my health care. The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve. If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us? 
You are the reason I put it in here, to
see just how much it would bother you. Knew you would make a fool of yourself again and give us all another good laugh for the day. It's just another name to me, could be Tom Thumb as far as I care.
|
