so true

I've always liked that one... and this is one a friend gave to me to post above my desk:

"I was always looking outside myself for strength and confidence, but it comes from within, it is there all the time." Anna Freud

dreaming up excuses...

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.


so they where thinking of bring some evidence about WMD knowing full well there was no evidence to support it

I wish Powell would finally get mad enough to speak out

and so much for the "Bush always said it would be a long struggle" crap...

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

it's a complete waste of time.

yeap.

just one example of how misinformed you are...

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=s...

p.s. be sure to read the whole article

I was just going to post that article... shows clearly that Bush was pushing for war regardless of circumstances... that the excuses he gave were just that, trumped up excuses.

Anyone still in denial is brain dead IMO... it's obvious by some comments here yesterday that it's their refusal to do the small amount of reserach to find out the facts involved that allows them to remain in denial.

...showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

A Woman Without Importance

well worth reading if you've subscribed...

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26kristof.html?th&emc=th

I like Jeff Daniels... put it in my netflix cue.

'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush

<< great post from goodluck on Zeev's board... sums the situation up perfectly and from someone who obviously would know >>

By David Kronke, TV Critic


Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for "Inside Delta Force" (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for "The Unit," CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against "American Idol," "The Unit" shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.
Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.

We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of "The Unit."

Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

Q: What is the cost to our country?

A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say "we," because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.

Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.

The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed ñ which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.

I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...

A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.

THE UNIT

What: Action-adventure about special-ops unit.
Where: CBS (Channel 2).
When: 9 p.m. Tuesdays.

---
David Kronke (818) 713-3638 david.kronke@dailynews.com

http://www.dailynews.com/entertainment/ci_3641046

#msg-10364838

great post that really sums things up perfectly.

here's the latest from Ron Paul... what do you think?

#msg-10364730

What I said about Bush and Nazi Germany is a matter of public record. Have you read all my posts in the last few days? I sited specifics that you can check.

I don't have a person. I would like to see someone like Ron Paul run... some one with 1) a brain and 2) integrity and 3) isn't a complete sell out to big business... have you read some of what he's written? If not, do so and let me know what you think.

guess they needed our help in starting one

LOL

and I see you provide nothing to back up your point of view. Have you read American Dynasty? What do you base your opinion on? Fox News?

I've been waiting for a long time for this to be mainstream news...

LOL

V for Vendette

I had low expectations for this one and it suprised me... lots of political undertones. Good story line... but I could have lived without the ridiculous looking mask.

4 out of 5 stars

Inside Man

I'll give it 3.50 stars out of 5... interesting, good cast...
if you go see it, be sure to notice the picture behind the bank owner near the end :)

I liked this one even better...

#msg-10358917

and those are the traits that also make them good little Bush loyalists too

repeating my questions:

so you believe Bush's excuses for starting this war? or you don't think innocent people are dying daily? or you don't think people are profiting heaviy from the war? and you approve of the Bush's families investments in Nazi Germany?

no to all. Bush invaded a country illegally and immorrally and without just cause. Many innocent people are dying in Iraq and include in that our soldiers and Iraq women and children. Bush's family and friends are profiting obscenely from this war. I do not approve of Bush's family investments in Nazi Germany and NEITHER did this country as demonstrated by it's actions against the Bush family during that period.

NOW YOUR TURN.

Some developer is going to clean up

yeap. Are people there up in arms about it? Out here we are pretty environmentally conscious.

following the board a while and I think'll you'll find out

personally, I want to see Bush impeached and some in his administration investigated for war crimes (re torture and disregard of the geneva convention).

good point lol

ROFL!!!

and for a moment, assume it was a terrorist... by holding the funds, you've now tipped them off that something is amiss...

bumpkins is putting it nicely

just one example...

#msg-10327233

I could care less

if you don't pay attention to what's going on... if you don't pay attention to history, you are bound to repeat the mistakes over and over

what I am saying is that the Bush family has known track record of profiting from war... WWII to present. If you want to know more, you could start by reading American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips

that's no answer

do you approve or disapprove then? Do you agree he needs to be removed from office as a first step to straightening things out?

more will live? how do you figure that???

good service? obviously you haven't been following the many overcharges and abuses. you're being naive.

It was illegal and wrong AND more importantly immoral.

On October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," seized the shares of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder. The largest shareholder was E. Roland Harriman. (Bush was also the managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, a leading Wall Street investment firm.)

The UBC was established to send American capital to Germany to finance the reorganization of its industry under the Nazis. Their leading German partner was the notorious Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, who wrote a book admitting much of this called "I Paid Hitler."

you're not aware that the Bush family was heavily involved financially with Nazi Germany?

so you believe Bush's excuses for starting this war? or you don't think innocent people are dying daily? or you don't think people are profiting heaviy from the war? and you approve of the Bush's families investments in Nazi Germany?

ah, so you think it's okay to start or support unjust wars where many innocent people get killed so the rich can get richer

Selling the Forests

Published: March 25, 2006

It's rarely a good idea to sell off assets to pay normal operating expenses. It's an even worse idea when the assets are chunks of national forest. But that's exactly what the Bush administration wants to do.

Washington has long sent money to isolated local communities surrounded by national forests. The communities cannot tax federal property, so the money helps pay for schools. The grants were calculated as a percentage of timber sales. When the annual harvest declined, partly as a result of court rulings in favor of various endangered species, the money was taken from general revenues.

President Bush's 2007 budget proposes to raise the money by auctioning off about 300,000 acres of federal forest in 41 states, at an anticipated price of $800 million. The administration recently sent a bill to Congress that would give the Forest Service the authority to conduct the sales. The bill has many defects, especially a provision that would sharply limit the public's opportunity to comment on the sales, short of embarking on expensive litigation. But its most glaring defect is its underlying strategy of trading long-term assets for short-term gain.

Gov. Mike Easley of North Carolina, which would lose 9,828 acres, or nearly 1 percent of its national forest acreage, put the matter eloquently in a letter to Mark Rey, the under secretary of agriculture who helped concoct this scheme. The plan, he said, would blatantly contradict North Carolina's efforts to preserve open space for future generations by removing priceless resources "from public access for all time in order to provide temporary funding."

This page has objected on many occasions to the administration's efforts to roll back protections for the national forests, chiefly its decision to rescind President Bill Clinton's "roadless rule," which would have shielded nearly 60 million acres of national forest from further commercial intrusions. Though it involves much less acreage, the proposal to sell forest land reflects the same insensitivity to environmental values, not to mention misplaced budget priorities. In addition to the forest sale, the administration also proposes to sell a half-million acres managed by the Interior Department, not for any purposes related to stewardship of the public lands, but simply to reduce a national deficit already bloated by tax cuts.

Congress should reject both ideas out of hand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/opinion/25sat3.html?th&emc=th

Biggest Drop in 9 Years for New-Home Sales

In addition, orders for nonmilitary capital goods excluding aircraft, a proxy for business spending, dropped 2.3 percent. Wall Street analysts had expected a 1 percent increase.

By REUTERS
Published: March 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) — Sales of new homes fell 10.5 percent in February, the biggest decline in nearly nine years, while prices fell and the number of homes on the market rose to a record, the government said Friday.

A separate report said new orders for durable goods outside the transportation sector fell short of forecasts, suggesting weakness in business spending plans.

The reports may influence the Federal Reserve as it considers interest rates at its meeting Monday and Tuesday. The Fed is expected to raise borrowing costs for the 15th time since June 2004.

"This is what the Fed wants; they want housing to slow," said Robert B. MacIntosh, chief economist at Eaton Vance Management in Boston. "That is the place where they can most affect wealth creation and spending. The Fed is that much closer to being done. I think they are done after next week."

According to the Commerce Department, the sales pace of new single-family homes slowed to an annual rate of 1.08 million units in February, from the downward revised January rate of 1.21 million units.

Economists had expected new- home sales to decline to a rate of 1.20 million units from January's originally reported rate of 1.23 million units.

While new-home sales slowed, supply surged. The number of new homes available for sale climbed to a record 548,000 by the end of the month. At the current sales pace, that represents 6.3 months of supply, the largest inventory of new homes since January 1996, the government report showed.

Median home prices declined for the fourth consecutive month, hitting $230,400 in February, the lowest level since July 2005.

The Commerce Department also said new orders for durable goods rose 2.6 percent in February, twice forecasts, but a drop in demand outside transportation hinted at weakness in business spending.

New orders for durable goods excluding transportation fell 1.3 percent, below Wall Street forecasts for a 0.9 percent rise. Transportation orders surged 13.4 percent.

In addition, orders for nonmilitary capital goods excluding aircraft, a proxy for business spending, dropped 2.3 percent. Wall Street analysts had expected a 1 percent increase.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/business/25econ.html?th&emc=th

Biggest Drop in 9 Years for New-Home Sales

By REUTERS
Published: March 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) — Sales of new homes fell 10.5 percent in February, the biggest decline in nearly nine years, while prices fell and the number of homes on the market rose to a record, the government said Friday.

A separate report said new orders for durable goods outside the transportation sector fell short of forecasts, suggesting weakness in business spending plans.

The reports may influence the Federal Reserve as it considers interest rates at its meeting Monday and Tuesday. The Fed is expected to raise borrowing costs for the 15th time since June 2004.

"This is what the Fed wants; they want housing to slow," said Robert B. MacIntosh, chief economist at Eaton Vance Management in Boston. "That is the place where they can most affect wealth creation and spending. The Fed is that much closer to being done. I think they are done after next week."

According to the Commerce Department, the sales pace of new single-family homes slowed to an annual rate of 1.08 million units in February, from the downward revised January rate of 1.21 million units.

Economists had expected new- home sales to decline to a rate of 1.20 million units from January's originally reported rate of 1.23 million units.

While new-home sales slowed, supply surged. The number of new homes available for sale climbed to a record 548,000 by the end of the month. At the current sales pace, that represents 6.3 months of supply, the largest inventory of new homes since January 1996, the government report showed.

Median home prices declined for the fourth consecutive month, hitting $230,400 in February, the lowest level since July 2005.

The Commerce Department also said new orders for durable goods rose 2.6 percent in February, twice forecasts, but a drop in demand outside transportation hinted at weakness in business spending.

New orders for durable goods excluding transportation fell 1.3 percent, below Wall Street forecasts for a 0.9 percent rise. Transportation orders surged 13.4 percent.

In addition, orders for nonmilitary capital goods excluding aircraft, a proxy for business spending, dropped 2.3 percent. Wall Street analysts had expected a 1 percent increase.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/business/25econ.html?th&emc=th

the good thing is that the conversative republican base is waking up to Bush's lies... and the media is reporting it... thank goodness!

"We support our troops" banners. But Dalbey, a Republican and a self-described conservative who voted for Bush, says he is fed up with the President's lies.

"Enough is enough," he says. "It's time to bring the boys home."

In San Marcos, retired Navy veteran Herb Ranquist, 77, sits in the local VFW hall and says Bush is a failure.

"I voted for him two times, and I wish I hadn't," Ranquist says. "It was probably one of the worst mistakes I ever made."