Here are a few facts from the memo.
Posted By: ctmt on 2009-04-28
In Reply to: You are kidding, right? Are you referring to the waterboarding in the prisons? - duh?
According to the "memo" (cue sinister dun-duN-DUN music)
"A single "application" of water may not last for more than 40 seconds, with the duration of an "application" measured from the moment when water - of whatever quantity - is first poured onto the cloth until the moment the cloth is removed from the subject's face."
And there was, indeed, a doctor and a psychologist present at the interrogations to (as you so aptly put it) "rescue" the prisoners.
I'm not sure why you would just "assume" that "some are really drowned." Perhaps you know something the rest of us don't. Please share.
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
Memo for the President
Memo for the President
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
t r u t h o u t | Statement
Wednesday 24 August 2005
Memorandum for: The President
From: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Subject: Recommendation: Try a Circle of "Wise Women"
By way of re-introduction, we begin with a brief reminder of the analyses we provided you before the attack on Iraq. On the afternoon of February 5, 2003, following Colin Powell's speech before the UN Security Council that morning, we sent you our critique of his attempt to make the case for war. (You may recall that we gave him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq and a "C-" for providing context and perspective.) Unlike Powell, we made no claim that our analysis was "irrefutable/undeniable." We did point out, though, that what he said fell far short of justification for war. We closed with these words: "We are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
To jog your memory further, the thrust of our next two pre-war memoranda can be gleaned from their titles: "Cooking Intelligence for War" (March 12) and "Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem" (March 18). When the war started, we reasoned at first that you might had been oblivious to our cautions. However, last spring's disclosures in the "Downing Street Memo" containing the official minutes of Tony Blair's briefing on July 23, 2002 - and the particularly the bald acknowledgement that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of war on Iraq - show that the White House was well aware of how the intelligence was being cooked. We write you now in the hope that the sour results of the recipe - the current bedlam in Iraq - will incline you to seek and ponder wider opinion this time around.
A Still Narrower Circle
With the departure of Colin Powell, your circle of advisers has shrunk rather than widened. The amateur architects of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seem still to have your ear. At a similar stage of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson woke up to the fact that he had been poorly served by his principal advisers and quickly appointed an informal group of "wise men" to provide fresh insight and advice. It turned out to be one of the smartest things Johnson did. He was brought to realize that the US could not prevail in Vietnam; that he was finished politically; and that the US needed to move to negotiations with the Vietnamese "insurgents."
It is clear to those of us who witnessed at first hand the gross miscalculations on Vietnam that a similar juncture has now been reached on Iraq. We are astonished at the advice you have been getting - the vice president's recent assurance that the Iraqi resistance is "in its last throes," for example. (Shades of his assurances that US forces would be welcomed as "liberators" in Iraq.) And Secretary Rumsfeld's unreassuring reminders that "some things are unknowable" and the familiar bromide that "time will tell" are wearing thin. By now it is probably becoming clear to you that you need outside counsel.
The good news is that some help is on its way. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey has taken the initiative to schedule a hearing on September 15, where knowledgeable specialists on various aspects of the situation in Iraq will present their views. Unfortunately, it appears that this opportunity to learn will fall short of the extremely informative bipartisan hearings led by Sen. William Fullbright on Vietnam. The refusal thus far of the House Republican leadership to make a suitable conference room available suggests that the Woolsey hearing, like the one led by Congressman John Conyers on June 16, will lack the kind of bipartisan support so necessary if one is to deal sensibly with the Iraq problem.
Meanwhile, we respectfully suggest that you could profit from the insights of the informal group of "wise women" right there in Crawford. You could hardly do better than to ride your bike down to Camp Casey. There you will find Gold Star mothers, Iraq (and Vietnam) war veterans, and others eager to share reality-based perspectives of the kind you are unlikely to hear from your small circle of yes-men and the yes-woman in Washington, none of whom have had direct experience of war. As you know, Cindy Sheehan has been waiting to get on your calendar. She is now back in Crawford and has resumed her Lazarus-at-the-Gate vigil in front of your ranch. We strongly suggest that you take time out from your vacation to meet with her and the other Gold Star mothers when you get back to Crawford later this week. This would be a useful way for you to acquire insight into the many shades of gray between the blacks and whites of Iraq, and to become more sensitized to the indignities that so often confound and infuriate the mothers, fathers, wives, and other relatives of soldiers killed and wounded there.
Names and Faces
Here are the names, ages, and hometowns of the eight soldiers, including Casey Sheehan, killed in the ambush in Sadr City, Baghdad on April 4, 2004:
Specialist Robert R. Arsiaga, 25, San Antonio, Texas
Specialist Ahmed A. Cason, 24, McCalla, Alabama
Sergeant Yihjyh L. Chen, 31, Saipan, Marianas
Specialist Israel Garza, 25, Lubbock, Texas
Specialist Stephen D. Hiller, 25, Opelika, Alabama
Corporal Forest J. Jostes, 22, Albion, Illinois
Sergeant Michael W. Mitchell, 25, Porterville, California
Specialist Casey A. Sheehan, 24, Vacaville, California
Mike Mitchell's father, Bill, has been camped out for two weeks with Cindy Sheehan and others a short bike ride from your place. They have a lot of questions - big and small. You are aware of the big ones: In what sense were the deaths of Casey, Mike Mitchell and the others "worth it?" In what sense is the continued occupation of Iraq a "noble cause?" No doubt you have been given talking points on those. But the time has passed for sound bites and rhetoric. We are suggesting something much more real - and private.
Questions
There are less ambitious - one might call them more tactical - questions that are also accompanied by a lot of pain and frustration. Those eight fine soldiers were killed by forces loyal to the fiercely anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shia cleric with a militant following, particularly in Baghdad's impoverished suburbs. The ambush was part of a violent uprising resulting from US Ambassador Paul Bremer's decision to close down Al Hawza, al-Sadr's newspaper, on March 28, 2004.
And not only that. A senior aide of al-Sadr was arrested by US forces on April 3. The following day al-Sadr ordered his followers to "terrorize" occupation forces and this sparked the deadly street battles, including the ambush. Also on April 4, Bremer branded al-Sadr an "outlaw" and coalition spokesman Dan Senior said coalition forces planned to arrest him as well. In sum, before one can begin to understand the grief of Cindy, Bill, and the relatives of the other six soldiers killed, you need to know - as they do - what else was going on April 4, 2004.
You may wish to come prepared to answer specific questions like the following:
1. Closing down newspapers and arresting key opposition figures seem a strange way to foster democracy. Please explain. And how could Ambassador Bremer possibly have thought that al-Sadr would simply acquiesce?
2. Muqtada al-Sadr seems to have landed on his feet. At this point, he and other Shiite clerics appear on the verge of imposing an Islamic state with Shariah law and a very close relationship with Iran. With this kind of prospect, can you feel the frustration of Gold Star mothers when the extremist ultimately responsible for their sons' deaths assumes a leadership role in the new Iraq? Can you understand their strong wish to prevent the sacrifice of still more of our children for such dubious purpose?
Perhaps you will have good answers to these and other such questions. Good answers or no, we believe a quiet, respectful session with the wise women and perhaps others at your doorstep would give you valuable new insights into the ironic conundrums and human dimensions of the war in Iraq.
A member of our Steering Committee, Ann Wright, has been on site at Camp Casey from the outset and would be happy to facilitate such a session. A veteran Army colonel (and also a senior Foreign Service officer until she resigned in protest over the attack on Iraq), Ann has been keeping Camps Casey I and II running in a good-neighborly, orderly way. She is well known to your Secret Service agents, who can lead you to her. We strongly urge you not to miss this opportunity.
/s/
Gene Betit, Arlington, Virginia
Sibel Edmonds, Alexandria, Virginia
Larry Johnson, Bethesda, Maryland
David MacMichael, Linden, Virginia
Ray McGovern, Arlington, Virginia
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Ann Wright, Honolulu, Hawaii
Steering Group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Oh, you didn't get the memo? O, of course!
nm
Newest memo..(sm)
I'm sure there will be many more to come.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/30395296#30395296
In other words, they knew it was torture, they knew it was illegal and were warned that it was illegal, but went on with their plans anyway.
Goodness I meant memo!
too much transcribing today!
2003 Rockefeller Memo
The 2003 Rockefeller Memo:
Politicize the war, run down the country, sink Bush
Memo to My Critics on the Left: Get Over It.......sm.............
Memo to My Critics on the Left: Get Over It
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Mike Baker
This past week the PWB mailroom, which does extra duty as the foosball arena and beer locker, has been inundated with letters from our readers who reside on the left side of the teeter-totter. It appears that our recent columns on the new administration have irritated some who think we are fixating on President-elect Obama. Many, in language unprintable and at times not entirely well spelt, seem to think that the PWB is being churlish, harbors a grudge over the election results and should, in the words of one fellow, “… get over it.”
Frankly, I think these surly members of the liberal world have missed the nuanced approach we try to take here. If you’ll flip through the PWB archives held at the National Library of Congress, you’ll see that I didn’t have a dog in this hunt. Neither side blew my skirt up and once again there wasn’t a viable third-party candidate.
However, while I didn’t vote for him, I’m actually rooting for Obama and his administration to do well. A successful, efficient and well managed government is what we should all want. But wishing them well and hoping for the best doesn’t require us to not disagree or to not express differences.
After all, the PWB was established back in the spring of 1927 with one overriding purpose … to raise our hand or ask “huh?” anytime the crap-o-meter goes off. And if memory serves me correct, the left side of the liberal bench took eight years to “get over” Bush. During that time, if I’m not mistaken, there was constant criticism, whining and churlishness. So telling me I’m being churlish four weeks after the election does seem a bit hypocritical.
It is interesting to note that the nastiest mail we receive, on a regular basis, is from what I suppose we could call “hardcore liberals”. Look, you won, congratulations. Now tone down the rhetoric, not to mention the unimaginative really foul language, and, in the words of one of your own, “get over it.” Enjoy the moment. Soon you’ll be wondering how the administration ended up governing from the center.
The center. As in, the middle ground. That appears to be where the new administration is headed based on recent pronouncements and some of the cabinet selections. This selection process is our best opportunity to date to get a look at Obama’s management style. After all, the campaign season didn’t exactly give us a detailed picture of the man.
Someday I’d like to get to the point where the candidates have to announce their cabinet selections before the election. Not only does it give you better insight into who would be running your government, it says a lot about the presidential candidates.
I know some on the far right who were fully expecting to see folks like Charles Schumer, Barney Frank and Keith Olberman appointed to cabinet positions in the new administration. There were dire predictions of the government taking a hard left turn, maybe with AL Franken as Information Minister and Chris Matthews as Director of Media Compliance.
Given those expectations, surely conservative Republicans, while not being happy, can at least admit that the likes of Robert Gates, James Jones and even Hillary Clinton are solid, pragmatic individuals. While Gates' selection is likely more about providing cover and won’t be a long-term pick, it’s better than yanking him out and installing new leadership during a critical time.
In the political world, it’s much better to keep him around. If Iraq and/or Afghanistan worsens, Gates can always be tossed overboard as the party faithful scream “he’s a Bush guy, it’s all their fault.” They might even throw in a Palin joke while they’re at it. Keeping a sacrificial scapegoat on hand is just good strategy.
All in all, I was feeling pretty safe and sound with the national security selections. Right up until Eric Holder got the nod for Attorney General. By all accounts smart and certainly experienced, the concern is over his ability to be a realist rather than an idealist when dealing with some of the very tough issues affecting our national security.
Hopefully he’ll find the center when dealing with interrogation questions, intelligence collection matters, Guantanamo and the like. After all, it’s easy to take the high road when you’re not the person responsible for making the decisions. Sometimes the high road looks less attractive, not to mention less secure, once you get the full picture.
And we’re waiting to hear who might be named to run the Central Intelligence Agency, currently under the steady leadership of Michael Hayden. Here’s a thought… keep Hayden. If he doesn’t want to stay on, how about we select someone based on criteria other than “are they acceptable to CIA bashing liberals?”
Recently there was talk of naming John Brennan, a former senior agency officer, a smart and good man. That possibility was derailed when some liberal critics of the CIA cried that Brennan was connected to the agency’s detention and interrogation efforts. What a load of crap.
He, like everyone else at the agency, is against torture. Apparently his transgression was stating the obvious: that enhanced interrogation techniques can be effective and important in select cases. For this, the liberals deemed him unsuitable.
According to the logic used by these critics, anyone at the CIA during the past several years shouldn’t be considered for the director’s role. Did I already say what a load of crap? We’ve discussed this issue before, and it’s a topic that inevitably makes me smash the glass on the emergency bourbon cabinet.
Liberals frame the argument in a clever way … essentially saying that anything other than talking to a detainee is torture. They claim there are no enhanced techniques (such as stress positions, temperature variations, sleep disruption) … it’s either chatting or its torture. Now, that’s a fine debating technique if you’re in a debate on a leafy campus surrounded by lofty thoughts of world peace, unicorns and fuzzy warm puppies.
Unfortunately, the real world is a crappier place and sometimes involves violent jihadists and terrorists who would like to blow up as many innocent men, women and children as possible. If you think this is just a typical Republican scare tactic, review last week’s events in Mumbai. And that’s after Obama won the election. Apparently the terrorists involved in that attack didn’t get the memo that we can all get along now.
The point being, in carefully selected cases, there are times when the allowable interrogation techniques of the Army Field Manual aren’t going to get the job done. That doesn’t mean the next stop on the express is torture. Despite the carefully framed argument of the left, we don’t torture.
Between chatting and torture lies a small window of opportunity for enhanced interrogation techniques. They aren’t used often -- you’d be surprised how infrequently they have been used in the past -- but you better have them in your tool bag.
Here’s hoping the choice for CIA director, as well as for director of national intelligence, reflects the pragmatic, center-leaning approach taken with nominees such as Gates, Jones and Clinton. These positions are critical to our national security. Play politics with other positions if you want … I’m OK with a far-left secretary of transportation.
But fill the CIA and DNI slots with strong persons who have relevant experience in the world of intelligence and operations.
And frankly, if you don’t agree with me, get over it.
As always, we look forward to your comments, thoughts and insight. Send your emails to peoplesweeklybrief@hotmail.com
Till next week, stay safe.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461686,00.html
downing street memo investigation
Republican Congressman Breaks Ranks, Joins Demand for Documents on Downing Street Memos
By David Swanson |
|
Related stories: antiwar
![src=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/images/1x1.gif]() |
8-24-05, 10:58 am
Congressman Jim Leach (R, Iowa) has informed Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D, California) that he will co-sponsor her Resolution of Inquiry into Bush Administration communications with the U.K. about Iraq at the time of the Downing Street Memos. Leach is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly support a demand for an inquiry into the Bush Administration's pre-war claims. The 131 congress members who have signed Congressman John Conyers' letter to the President about the Downing Street Memo are all Democrats. The 11 Senators who have asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to do the investigation it committed to in February 2004 but never did are all Democrats.
The Resolution, H. Res. 375, is a privileged resolution which must be brought to a vote in the House International Relations Committee by September 16th, or Lee is permitted to demand a vote of the full House. Fifty-two Democrats, including Lee, have co-sponsored the Resolution. Leach is the first Republican to join them, and he is a member of the International Relations Committee..
The International Relations Committee has 27 Republican members and 23 Democratic members. Thus far 10 of the Democrats have co-sponsored the Resolution. If the other 13 vote for it as well, then along with Leach, one more Republican vote will be needed for a tie, or two more for passage.
Leach has questioned Bush's war policies for years and was one of five Republicans in May to vote for Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's amendment requiring an exit strategy. Another of those five, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, also serves on the International Relations Committee.
Congressman Leach has broken the silence of the Republican Party on the Downing Street Minutes, said John Bonifaz, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition. His willingness to co-sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry is bound to make the White House nervous. It is not possible for the President to paint this demand for documents as coming solely from his opponents. This is a demand for the truth. Did the president deliberately deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq? We as a people -- from Crawford to Des Moines to Washington, DC, regardless of our political persuasion, deserve to know the answer to that basic question.
Congress returns to Washington from its summer break on September 6, said David Swanson, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition. The first 10 days will test the Democrats' ability to stand together and challenge the Bush Administration, as well as Republicans' willingness to break ranks on an issue where public opinion has diverged widely from White House policy.
The text of the Resolution, H. Res. 375, a list of current co-sponsors, and what you can do to help: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902
From AfterDowningStreet.org
|
Memo to Hillary: Road Trip!
Memo to Hillary: Road trip to that place between King City and Coalingo
Dear Hillary:
I know you've been real busy with sniper fire and 3:00 a.m. phone calls, etc., but have you ever seen that commercial for AT&T internet service, where the guy says he's on the road between "King City and Coalingo" (sp?) (There are several commercials out there for this product, and the theme for them is people's "moments.")
In the one I'm referring to, there's a guy is standing near a big field with a bunch of cows, explaining how his service lets him do business anywhere, and after he's through explaining how it works and how his bid was the first one in, he gets a text message and says, "It looks like I got the account."
An old man appears and says, "Congratulations on your moment."
Hillary, PLEASE drive yourself have your chauffeur drive you (with or without your cell phone) to that field "between King City and Coalingo" and take a L-O-N-G walk through that field. (Be sure to fill up have one of your servants fill your gas tank first.) Pet a cow or two. Resist the urge to whip out that gun yer granddaddy taught you how to shoot if you become hungry for a filet mignon; maybe you could make a have your maid make a PBJ before your departure (you know, the kind of food that more and more of us hard-working white people are forced to rely on in today's economy). Along the way, don't be afraid to step into the very thing that comprises your soul. Take a deep breath (lots of them). Try to place yourself into Barack Obama's shoes (sans cow dung) and explore WHY it is that YOU believe you must control everything -- even when you're the loser. Why is it that YOU think YOU get to dictate the terms of everything, even if you don't have the right to do so?
You have repeatedly said you're "in it to win it." You didn't win it. Now pretend to have some grace and/or just some personal decency and do NOT try to strong-arm the person who DID win it. There are a lot of women who would be good Vice Presidential candidates, all of whom believe in and would be loyal to President Obama, none of them potential orphan-makers.
Take a good, long look at those cows, Hillary. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two about "moments." Hopefully, you'll even learn a thing or two about yourself.
Edited by Moderator for aggressive and strange language.
Uh oh, I didn't get the memo that he was God! Thanks for clarifying that...have some more O juice
//
Republicans are Stuck to Bush - See RNC Memo Link
In a memo to RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, GOP pollster Jan van Lohuizen argues that it's dangerous for Republican congressional candidates to distance themselves from President Bush.
President Bush drives our image and will do so until we have real national front-runners for the '08 nomination. Attacking the President is counter productive for all Republicans, not just the candidates launching the attacks. If he drops, we all drop.
Yeah, Iraq didn't attack us. There was a memo. nm
x
Note that the democratic talking points memo of the week must contain sm
stuff about utilities, cuz I sure see it on here a lot. I guess it was okay when Saddam was in power cuz people could flush their toilets and drown out the screams of those being tortured and raped.
GOP alert memo states intent to bust the union
With 3 million jobs hanging in the balance.
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.
Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout
Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:
1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.
2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.
The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better. Please contact me if you need additional information. Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes. If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/12/1713569.aspx
Facts are facts - sorry you don't like it cos it doesn't support your candidate
You can't change facts. That's what makes them facts. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
Bush memo instructs officials: "Say I had honor and dignity."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this! "Honor" and "dignity" are NOT words that would come to mind to describe Bush.
What is INCREDIBLE to me is that Bush's "memoir," "A Charge to Keep" is referenced here. The original ghostwriter (and long-time Bush family friend) for that memoir was fired and his reputation tarnished (in usual Bush fashion) because Bush talked TOO much during his interviews with the writer, including how he wanted to invade Iraq back in 1999 -- 2 years before 9/11. I've posted that link on here before, but here it is again:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure
Administration officials get a memo from the White House suggesting what to say about the last eight years: President Bush upheld 'the honor and the dignity of his office,' for one.
By Peter Nicholas
December 9, 2008
Reporting from Washington -- In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.
A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.
Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."
The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.
It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.
As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."
The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.
A copy of the memo was obtained by The Times' Washington bureau. A spokesman for Bush said Monday that the White House routinely sends out suggestions to officials and allies on ways to talk about the administration's record.
"What we have in mind with these documents is we feel the president's many accomplishments haven't been given the attention they deserve and in some cases have been purposely ignored," said Carlton Carroll, a White House spokesman.
No one is required to recite the talking points laid out by the White House, Carroll said.
The memo closes with a reference to Bush's 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":
"Above all, George W. Bush promised to uphold the honor and the dignity of his office. And through all the challenges and trials of his time in office, that is a charge that our president has kept."
One accomplishment cited is passage of the No Child Left Behind law, Bush's attempt to improve education. "He promised to raise standards and accountability in public schools -- and delivered the No Child Left Behind Act," the talking points read.
On the presidential campaign trail this year, Democratic candidates found that any criticism of No Child Left Behind was a surefire applause line.
President-elect Barack Obama promised to revamp the program, contending that it elevated test-taking at the expense of a well-rounded education.
Nicholas is a writer in our Washington bureau.
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush9-2008dec09,0,4145069.story
Facts are facts. No bash intended.
It will be this stellar record from which voters will be assessing her and her running mate.
If you're offended, too bad. Facts are facts...
I know Muslims in this country who have turned from the hateful evil beliefs that were forced down their throats. They did not have the freedom to learn anything else growing up. But after they gained their freedom and came here, they were able to receive the Word of God and they have told me that NEVER were they taught anything about loving others, just other Muslims, and that the God they learned about spoke of nothing but killing and hate... so if Obama is receiving large donations from those middle eastern countries, as you say, and he is grounded in Muslim culture, being taught this in school for years as a child, do you honestly think he doesn't carry some of those beliefs with him? He's never denounced it.
Here ya go.........
http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
stating facts folks, just the facts....if it's getting
xx
Folks want facts, you give'm facts and still
xx
This poster wants facts, facts, facts...
xx
Poster wants facts, facts, facts.....
xx
When you can't fight facts for facts
then it's buh-bye....well buh-bye to you too....I'll have a dicussion with someone who will discuss and not blame.
When you can't fight facts for facts then it's buh-bye.
Facts, stick to the facts...sm
The subject here is the media and their treatment of Gov. Palin, which continues to this day, to this minute, by the liberal left.
Tthe media threw down their gauntlet as soon as she was picked on that Friday, and hounded her for almost a full week.
And you think she should have waved a white flag at them in her acceptance speech? She put them on notice, that she is above them. And continues to be, with grace and style.
She's not whining, and neither are we.
I just shake my head at your audacity.
The media is the one that started this with her, and you would do well to remember the facts in her case.
IN this case, the facts are the facts.........
--
You don't have any facts. HELLO???!!!!! NM
You don't have any facts! sm
Are you actually saying you know more than those doing the investigation? My, you are a powerful person! Will we be seeing your name soon in the headlines as "she who knows all" heading the investigation? Share your knowledge! Inquiring minds want to know!
Oh I'd like to see what facts you have
to back that one up.
My facts came from....
the Summary of Ferderal Individual Income Tax Data and yours came from some self-proclaimed non-partisan watchdog group. Tell me who I am going to believe?
Facts
Thanks for the FACTS.
Facts
We know for a fact that the person impersonating Stephen Crockett is not actually Stephen Crockett and we know for a FACT that people who have been trolling the conservative board for the past week spouting profanity, vile innuendos also posts on the L-board under different monikers. This person's posts has been turned into the FBI for their implied threats on the president, so this is serious. This is no longer a game, so if you truly are not the one posting under several different monikers on the C-board then you have nothing to worry about. However, somebody here does have something to worry about.
And oh, BTW, I am not Nan, Brunson, or any of the usual suspects you might think.
Some more facts
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm
Above is the web site for IPCC, everything you ever wanted to know which is not much if you are a nonbeliever. They have been around since 1988 and include the World Meteorology Organization among others. It is a worldwide, inclusive organization with contributors from just about everywhere.
I don't know how global warming is seen as a step towards socialism, quite a stretch. All we want is for people to act more responsibly towards the earth we all share. Alternative fuels have been around since pre WWII. We know how to do it. We just don't and again, it's all about money all the time. What is wrong with using alternative sources of energy, it hardly makes one a socialist. If we used natural oils, say corn oil for cars.. the farmers who have suffered financial losses and loss of family farms would be back in business. Somebody would have to grow all that corn. Then it would have to be refined. Then, automobiles would have to be converted to be able to run on oil. All the automobile workers who have been laid off (13,000 Chrysler over the next 3 years - another one bites the dust) could work again. Cars would need to be built differently and the existing cars would need to be converted. Seems like the whole thing would be putting a lot of Americans to work. Whether you believe in global warming or not how could implementing these changes be harmful or turn us all into socialists. Its a good thing.
whose facts? Yours? Or the ones fed to you?
it's your choice......that's for sure....
The Facts
Obama's father was raised Muslim but not a radical Muslim and was NOT a practicing Muslim when he met and married Obama's mother. Obama's parents split, and his mother married an Indonesian oil manager, and they moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. Obama attended various schools in Indonesia for 4 to 5 years, including a Catholic. The only way any school he attended could be called Muslim is that most of the students who attended this school were from Muslim families, as Indonesia is primarily a Muslim country. He received a few hours of religious instruction per week in these schools. Obama's mother then sent him back to the U.S. to live with his grandmother. Obama has been a member of the United Church of Christ since the ྌs. Obama never received any indoctrination from his father, as his father was absent from his life since the age of 2. Obama was sworn into office with a Bible.
Get your information from somewhere else than false, inflammatory mass emails.
What facts do you need? sm
This is the whole article so a link won't do you much better. It was an AP article. The article was not complete rhetoric.
Yes, both sides do have problems. I am not disputing that at all. I'm just trying to prove again that you can't take everything at face value, politicians like to twist things and take snippets out if it is to their benefit. Notice, I said politicians - as in the whole species, not just Dem or Rep.
That's because you don't want facts and won't look for
.
Know your FACTS first
I am not afraid of a black man raised by a white family or a black family or any other family. Interesting post as you do not know my ethnicity but jump with in with your own assumption. What I am afraid of is ANY racism because I do believe in equality.
They are facts
that can be verified.
Facts
Perhaps if you stopped rah-rahing the Republicans and bad-mouthing the Democrats you could see the facts and realize that both parties and all 4 candidates are as crooked as a barrel of snakes. Both sides are to blame for this mess!
facts about him
It sounds to me as though you may be afraid of the truth. I'd love to hear that you watched it and then come back here and continue giving him a free pass.
It already changed many voters' minds.
This is what happens when you have no facts
xx
FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS
Biden Has Served As Obama's Top Foreign Policy Critic, Even Saying Obama Is Not Ready To Be President:
Biden Said Obama Is Not Ready To Serve As President. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked is he ready. You said 'I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'" Sen. Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement." (ABC's, "This Week," 8/19/07)
Biden: "If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistake..." (Sen. Joe Biden, "The Diane Rehm Show," 8/2/07)
Biden: "Having Talking Points On Foreign Policy Doesn't Get You There." ("Biden Lashes Out At Obama," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)
Biden Attacked Obama For Voting Against Funding U.S. Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan, Accusing Him Of "Cutting Off Support That Will Save The Lives Of Thousands Of American Troops." Biden: "And, look, Tim, if you tell me I've got to take away this protection for these kids in order to win the election, some things aren't worth it. Some things are worth losing over. That would be worth losing over. Hundreds of lives are being saved and will be saved by us sending these vehicles over which we are funding with this supplemental legislation. And I want to ask any of my other colleagues, would they, in fact, vote to cut off the money for those troops to protect them? That's the right question. This isn't cutting off the war. This is cutting off support that will save the lives of thousands of American troops." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/9/07)
Biden On Obama's Leadership On Iraq: "I Don't Recall Hearing A Word From Barack About A Plan Or A Tactic." (Jason Horowitz, "Biden Unbound: Lays Into Clinton, Obama, Edwards," The New York Observer, 2/4/07)
Biden On Whether He Would Meet Unconditionally With The Leaders Of Rogue States As Obama Said He Would: "Absolutely Positively No." Biden: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely positively no." (Sen. Joe Biden, Remarks At The National Press Club, Washington, DC, 8/1/07)
I realize it is painful to read but PROOF nonetheless.
I don't think you have your facts exactly right.
Even McDonalds pays better than minimum wage.
And you get your facts where?
You mistake "facts" with heresay. You dismiss FACTS by saying McCain was absolved of any wrongdoing in the Keating 5 scandal. Not quite.
You want facts? So do I.
One would do. Give me facts that he was born in the US. Make him show his real birth certificate.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
He does not state truth and if he does, he changes it. New middle age class now 120,000K. He now has to kill expectations of what people think he can do if he wins. I could go on and on. Where did he get all this money for his campaign? Through unauthorized prepaid credit cards and who from? His aunt now may be living here illegal and I fear he is too. No wonder he wants to change all illegals to legal here in the US. There is something about him that is not right. By the way, I am a democrate, not a pub. I will admit he sure is a smooth talker.
the facts are
All Americans vote for their reprsentatives. That's the Constitution.
Millions of babies? How about hundreds of thousands of American lives plus millions affected by those deaths by a war founded on LIES.
Abortion, gay marriages, and the right to bear arms only works politically when things are going right in American and we have nothing else to fight about. They are nonpolitical issues and are things that God will deal with when we get there (sans bearing arms).
You can actually make these statements in the face of what has gone on in the past 8 years?
I'm not quite sure what your last paragraph meant, but I make my own bed. I just expect certain things from my leaders, honesty and decisions made in the best interest in the majority of the citizens being first on my list, not just the elite. That priority has not been met by our previous leader/party. So I voted for change. I guess I'm not the only one who felt this say.
Oh no! More facts (sm)
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
That's where I get my facts too. n/m
x
facts are facts
myths are myths. Believe as you wish; it doesn't matter now. Again, how is that book and recording deal coming along?
YOU have no facts. You believe what you want.
nm
The facts
1. The OPs post was about how he is like one of us because he eats Chilidogs and cheese fries. Even read the post again and that is what it says (and other posters said the same thing) - he is not one of us.
2. It was replied to with the usual kool-aid laced reply of how wonderful for our god to be out there in public at a time we need him most, I feel safer already, etc etc.
3. I was not the only poster that thought that was absolutely ridiculous and nauseating. And all my post said was get off the kool-aid and that message was weirder than the OP.
4. I was then called chubby and tried to be ridiculed (which it didn't work) and told to keep my negativity to myself. Which was quite strange coming from a poster who has been attacking anyone below who doesn't agree with her.
5. I replied back that I am far by anything chubby. The poster I replied to was implying I have no freinds and am miserable and alienated. Well I guess we all know what they say about people who assume. I replied I am certainly not chubby and I have many friends who are on different waves of politics but we don't cut each other down because of the way we feel politically. My response was a positive one, not a negative cut down that was directed at me.
6. You then felt the need to reply to that and add some more insults and was quite negative.
7. I replied to you that you have a lot of negativity and you should try an activity to release some of that negativity. Still not a negative post, to which you then decided to reply with more negativity. Oh and on top of that you just happen to be a bike rider. Wow, what a small world we live in.
I actually didn't read any further than that line because I new it would be more of the same insults and the same. The negativity coming back to me does me no good. I would say if your not releasing your negativity by bike riding you might want to try a good comedy. It does wonders for the soul and brings one into a wonderful uplifting mood.
Gotta laugh in life from time to time otherwise...well life just wouldn't be any fun.
|
