When will you learn? She didn't

buy those clothes. The RNC did and most of them went back right away because they didn't fit. She didn't ask for those clothes. They figured she has to "look the part of a VP." Since when do VPs have to look like a million.

• My question is: How many of you would vote for SP? - Amanda
  • NEVER... may I remind you of your last poll on this board sm - Mrs. M
    • Sorry - that was not my poll - - Amanda
  • aye for me. n/m - true blue
  • I think I might..... sm - m
  • Quite frankly....sm - ms
  • I think I would if she didn't have the 'pubs behind her. - Backwards typist
  • I am comparing SP to other repubs - not democrats - in my question - nm - Amanda
    • Too early to ask this. Palin has not said SHE is - running either. Lets worry about Obama!.nm
      • but she did not say she is not - I am not worried - just interested - nm - Amanda
        • also, quite obvious she is setting herself up for it - nm - Amanda
  • NEVER! - Marmann
    • I WOULD CONSIDER VOTING FOR PALIN - WITH A LITTLE MORE TIME.nm
      • That is very sad. You are in a minority. nm - Mrs. M
      • Palin over Biden any day. Make fun of Palin all you - want. Joe has gone senile or something.nm
        • That senile old man ....(sm) - Just the big bad
          • Yes, and he was born in "coal country" and also said - Backwards typist
          • Fine. I am more worried about Natl Security. - I dont trust Obama OR Biden.nm
            • Yes. Natl Security. Biden said O was not - experienced enough, but now fine? hypocrite.nm
              • Loved it when Biden called Obama - "Barack America"-didnt catch himself.nm
                • LOL...Kind of like saying *my fellow prisoners*.. - Just the big bad
  • I would never vote for Palin under any circumstance!! - Palintology
    • Some of us would NEVER vote for Obama either. - No landslide -48% felt same way.nm
      • Obama won by a very large margin... i f you sm - Mrs. M
  • Nope; never, she spends too much on clothes. - sm
    • let's face it, none of those people - linda
    • When will you learn? She didn't - Backwards typist
      • I heard she was told to buy 6 suits - ??? nm - Amanda
    • LOL. SHE will spend too much in govt? - O will spend tons more!! OMG. nm
  • Why should anyone answer this question, when they will only get - bashed by the potty mouth ..nm
    • Potty mouth? LOL..... - Just the big bad
    • Exactly what I was thinking. - nm

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

Just because people do not believe or think the way you do about Obama does not automatically mean they have some underlying dark secret for hating him.  I voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean I hate McCain.  I simply do not agree with his policies or his record.  I think you are just waiting for someone to say anything on here that you can misconstrue into some kind of racial argument.  The fact that YOU are the one bringing this up speaks much louder than your question ever could.

the truth, maybe more of us would like him.  It's hard to like someone you can't believe or trust.

Bush probably had 100% support when the U.S. attacked Afghanistan after 9/11.

And he USED that tragedy, and on the blood of every victim of 9/11, he led us into HIS war against Iraq.  He fooled everyone, not only Americans in general but also Congress, who believed him.

What if there really WAS a threat to this country tomorrow?  What would happen if he wanted to invade another country based on his "word" that we were in imminent danger?  Who would believe him?  I doubt he'd be able to fool Congress again.  He's supposed to be on TV Tuesday night, supposedly to explain more about Iraq.  There's no point in my watching it.  I'm not willing to subject myself to more of his lies.  I'm just treading lightly and hoping this country, if not the world, can survive the next 3 years of his administration and that he doesn't do too much more harm.

Bush lied about the Iraq war.  Plain and simple.  If someone lies to me, it doesn't matter whether I like them or not.  I simply can't trust someone who lies.  PERIOD.

The biggest issue (for me, anyway) is trust. 

Since you apparently don't think you're paying enough in taxes, here's an idea.  Instead of my paying even more in taxes, why not have you go ahead and do it?  You seem to think that gov't can run your life better than you can and that you would obviously make wrong/poor decisions otherwise. 

Look up the words in the dictionary.  Donald Trump said the same thing last PM on Greta about taxing us even more, and how it'd ruin things even more.

Just take the cash out of your wallet and hand it over to those who can make it just fine w/o living under socialism.  Your naivity is just scary. 

do you think? With all the crap out there on the dems, you still think they had nothing to do with it? Rose colored glasses is what you wear. Better get your ears and eyes examined.

'Nough said. I'm not getting into an argument with you but it's all out there in black-and-white.

I agree with you 200%.  I did not vote for Obama.  I always vote based on the Bible as does my family and at our Bible Chapel.  I always vote against abortion and always towards marriage of one man and one woman,  I do believe that Obama is a socialist and he will be introducing social medicine.  It makes me think that we're closer to the rapture than we think.

I scrolled down a few lines and saw nothing, so I thought you had said all you wanted to say.  Exited out.  Could you not have deleted all those lines?

Again, I am telling you that you are breaking copyright laws here by your posts, no links, just a name, a posting of a full article.  You cannot do that.  It is infringing on copyright laws.

By the way, are you capable of presenting your own thoughts on any subject without posting someone else's opinion/editorial/comments?

Just wondered if that was a left-wing propensity?

So today we get these "conciliatory" advances from Ahmadinejad regarding their nuke program.  Only someone living in fairyland will fail to recognize this old ploy from Iran for exactly what it is.   Like Iran's invested $billions in their nukes and they're just going to throw it all away.

If Ahmadinejad can show that Washington is "negotiating" with him, he will shore up the position of his highly unpopular party for the elections in June.  He can say "Look - for years we've taken it to America, and now they're coming our way."

It will also undercut the democratic opposition in Iran if Washington has any truck with this deceitful regime, which has never been any more trustworthy than the most psychopathic liar that you've ever known in your life.  It will only give them more time to continue to work on their nukes, and will also undercut Israel.

Rope-a-dope is one thing, BO, but even Mohammad Ali's punch-stupid opponents weren't this easy.  Your kumbaya fantasies are incredibly naive, and frighteningly dangerous.

Israel, looks like you'll have to do the job again.

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.

in AR's post that she was against it.  Instead, she acted as if the topic has no place on this board and shouldn't be discussed... like some kind of dirty little secret.

The *attack the messenger* technique has been used constantly in the last 5 years by the current administration (and his followers) when someone gets too close to the truth.  Don't believe me?  Ask Valerie Plame.

Same old.  Same old.