Unlike yourself, not everyone sees
Posted By: total perfection in the on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: Who put faith in what government? - Defend youselves? Against what? sm
Dem party, specifically Obama, and total imperfection in the Rep party. None of us have figured everything out as perfectly as you have yet, but that does not entitle you to call anyone a liar because you are too smug in your little world to listen to what anyone else has to say. All you want to do is keep arguing just for argument sake. You aren't worth bothering with, we have bigger fish to fry.
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
But I can guarantee you he sees himself a just
@
Huckabee sees sm
the One World Government coming and what is going to happen according to bible scripture. The people that you think are trying to scare you might be trying to warn you of what is coming. It is your choice of whether you believe it or not.
This guy gets it. Sees through the phony Obama
nm
Way to go. At least he sees the change coming.nm
my doc is so awesome -- sees me for free
i am so blessed. knows i don't have insurance, doesn't bill me. says if i pay for Rx's and lab work, he won't charge me. and, unbelievably, spends at least 60 to 90 minutes with me talking -- just amazing. small office, just doc, secretary and nurse. says he's not in it to be a millionaire. (put himself thru med school, 1 of 12 kids in his family.) i even know the names of his cats and all of his hobbies. he's in his mid 50s and i hope he never retires...
I don't care what Huckabee sees
believe in separation of church and state. That is the American way - whether it is popular or not.
Don't bother to warn me about Jesus coming, I'm ready. Please stop assuming you know things you don't.
I think that Obama sees himself as Christian, but
the Muslins see him as Muslim because his father is Muslim.
If O stays silent, believe me, it is not because he takes sides, it is because now it is better to be cautious than confrontational.
If O is a powerless puppet why do you then constantly put him down and criticize him?
Since Kennedy all president are puppets pulled by very elite people, true. And these elite people picked Obama as winner soon after he declared himself a candidate, because he is so charismatic, similar to Kennedy (I heard this also in this video 'The Obama Deception'), true.
Amd yes, the Iranian people are screwed, also true.
But believe me, Obama, puppet or no puppet, till now proved himself to be a very good diplomat.
I am much more interested in the foreign politics than in the domestic stuff, that's boring.
Democratic Hawk Now Sees War as a Mistake
Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
![src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645096.jpg]()
Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war. ![src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645169.jpg]()
JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003
U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.
Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake
By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau
WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.
Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.
The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.
Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.
During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.
There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.
Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.
And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.
Voted to back Bush
In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.
Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.
After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.
Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.
While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.
The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.
Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.
Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.
The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.
But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.
A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.
He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.
Norm ... has agonized
All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.
Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.
In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.
Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.
By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.
We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.
By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.
That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.
Growing doubts
On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.
Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.
That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.
Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.
Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.
The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.
Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.
The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.
Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.
The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.
Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.
But he added, We can't take forever.
Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.
I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.
Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
VERY much UNLIKE you.
We might as well be from two different planets. And, no we do not agree to disagree. Who are you to tell me? You started it by posting blather and you are grasping at straws. I never said he lied.
Here's a thought, stop reading propaganda. Yes, I do NOT watch Fox News. It is the single most unreliable and biased news source in the world today. It is for those of low intelligence and malleable people who can't think for themselves. I also watch very little CNN. When I watch American news it is MSNBC.
I travel the globe for information, because when you get more than one side of story, you can assimilate information and come to your own conclusion without having to rely on someone else to tell you.
You should try some of these on for size: World Press.org, Middle East Times, Iraqi News, Iraq Daily, The Independent, commondreams.org, WND Information Clearing House, and if you can possibly stand it, Aljazeera.com, and I could go on and on and on and on and on.
You want to be optimistic because you couldn't possibly face the fact that the whole thing is just WRONG. We shouldn't be there. You are looking to win something that isn't ours to claim.
Unlike yours, eh?
nm
special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005
Oh, no, gt. I keep MT all the time, unlike you. SM
 You don't know so very much.
Unlike you, I have been watching Fox along with CNN...
so I have seen the good things happening along with the bad. The surge is exactly what scaled down the violence in Baghdad. Anyone with half a brain knows that...unless you think it was miraculously coincidental that the surge and decline in violence happened at the same time. Now who is trying to oversimplify?
You totally disregarding the glaring point here. Knowing Murtha's history, knowing the outlandish and horrifying things he has said over and over about the soldiers and the war, that the words "surge is working" would even pass his lips should be indicative, because it must be a BIG difference between the time he was there before and this time or he would not have said anything. What on earth could he possibly have to gain by lying about it? The main has a military background; he should certainly be able to tell the difference. Yes, I find that encouraging, but I have been watching the news and where we used to hear about a roadside bombing every day we don't anymore. Where we used to hear about car bombs every day we don't anymore, even on CNN, because they can't report them if they aren't happening, even they are not that deviant. Things HAVE changed, whether you want to admit it or not.
The intent of my post was to show that there are some Democrats (even the most left ones as Murtha is) who are having to admit that it is working. To quote you again, anyone with half a brain would see that it is. And if you would watch Fox once in awhile, you would see the troops being interviewed, you would see Iraqis being interviewed, and you would see that there is light at the end of the tunnel. But, of course, you probably think you would go blind if you turned on that channel (or they are doing it with actors on a sound stage in Burbank...LOL).
Again, we agree to disagree. I prefer the optimistic view, you prefer the pessimistic. I believe what I saw this morning with people moving freely again, talking positively about the future again (Iraqis), thanking soldiers for help and protection and inviting them into their homes for meals...to me that is a very positive sign.
By the way, I read another article regarding Murtha and he is still for pulling the troops out immediately, even though the surge is working. But he also admitted that he had visited with the many Pennsylvania-based soldiers there (his constituents) and that they believed in their mission and that they felt the surge was working. Not that you believe a word he says or that I say. I prefer to believe them. They are over there. We are not.
At least she has character.........unlike some
xx
Sam, you are so smart! -and I mean that, unlike
nm
Well, unlike some, I don't decide what to think...
depending on what the candidate I support says. If he is fine with it, that's fine. That is up to him. I would just like to see some integrity again. She knows she has a conflict of interest, she should take care of it herself. She should have turned it down when asked. Because that would have been the right thing to do.
It has nothing to do with protecting Palin. I don't think Palin needs protecting. In fact, I wish they would quit trying to make a 30-year statesman out of her and let her be herself.
Tell me...what have all these savvy politicians who look good on camera and are so articulate (except for the every other day size 13 in the mouth)...what exactly have those statesmen done for us to this point? Only get us in the worst financial crisis since the depression. The fact that she is so UNLIKE them is one of the biggest things in her favor so far as I am concerned.
And yes, if she was first on the ticket, I would vote for HER before I would vote for Barack Obama. In a heartbeat. Immediately. Wish I lived in Ohio so I could do it TODAY.
Unlike our last administration....
at least Obama will not accept crooked politicians and they are on both sides of the aisle.
Well, unlike you I actually LIKE knowing when....sm
somebody is creating a future financial strain for me as a taxpayer. He should be, according to his professed "change," however, be letting us know what's going on and where the money is going. What's he got to hide? Or maybe you just don't care? I, on the other hand, do - this affects not only my future, but those of my children and grandchildren!
He won by a majority...unlike the last guy!
So what's your point?
German Lady Sees Obama and Recalls Hitler...
http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/german-lady-sees-obama-and-recalls-hitlers-call-of-change/
Right. Thanks for your mature post, unlike
nm
Unlike the Cheney Tool that was our
.
Why settle for a Harvard graduate who sees a vision of a kinder world.
I didn't believe him initially. I felt he had a hidden agenda, pay back time for the wrongs done to his ancestors until I saw his family photos, mom and grandpa as white as mine. This guy was raised as a white boy. And maybe that is why he expects more from the black men (raise your kids).
Give him a chance. Listen to his speeches over the years. Research him.
Though honestly, I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a New York minute.
Unlike Huffington Post I suppose...
LOL.
I am referring to Obama when saying (unlike McCain)
nm
That's just lame, no cheese here, I work but I will take care of the poor unlike YOU nm
nm
|
