Lest we forget accountability, how-dare you ask?
Posted By: nm on 2009-01-15
In Reply to: You forgot Paulsen the-sky-is-falling - man-cried-wolf sm
x
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
The difference is accountability. There is no he said she said...
in this. The Republicans tried to get them to act before it happened and they refused. That is the bottom line.
Bush DID press it. But who has the majority in congress? You know, Congress, who has to pass any bill? That would be democrats. Look it up...John McCain tried in 2005, this is what he said:
join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
He named the problem, said what would happen, Democrats killed the bill...and here we are. Bush admin tried 17 times:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
It was the dems who did not listen to the Bush admin. None of them deserve to retain their seats. NONE of them.
It's called accountability...(sm)
That's something we never saw out of the last administration. Instead of trying to bully Europe, he listens, owns up to the mistakes of the US, and comes out with some pretty impressive results.
Examples: When was the last time you heard the French president say that he TRUSTS our president? Yep...that's what he said. A very important result is the fact that France is now willing to help with Afghanistan as well as willing to take select prisoners from Gitmo. 
Russia is now more willing to work with us on reducing nukes (You do know that those treaties were about to expire in the fall?). 
We have a consensus when it comes to dealing with North Korea (I think Hillary gets a big kudos for that one -- working with the 6 party talks). 
20 countries have now come to an agreement about how to work on the world economic crisis (including more effective regulation). 
These are only a few things that he has accomplished on this trip. All I can say is  Obama!!!!!
Speaking of truth and accountability....
or lack of it........good grief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html
War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; A01
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as outrages upon [the] personal dignity of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.
People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope, said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
The plan has provoked concern at the International Committee of the Red Cross, the entity responsible for safeguarding the Geneva Conventions. A U.S official confirmed that the group's lawyers visited the Pentagon and the State Department last week to discuss the issue but left without any expectation that their objections would be heeded.
The administration has not officially released the draft amendments. Although they are part of broader legislation on military courts still being discussed within the government, their substance has already been embraced by key officials and will not change, two government sources said.
No criminal prosecutions have been brought under the War Crimes Act, which Congress passed in 1996 and expanded in 1997. But 10 experts on the laws of war, who reviewed a draft of the amendments at the request of The Washington Post, said the changes could affect how those involved in detainee matters act and how other nations view Washington's respect for its treaty obligations.
This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.
The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1949.
U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.
Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars violence to life and person, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits outrages upon personal dignity such as humiliating and degrading treatment. And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S. military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3; it also created a system of military courts not specifically authorized by Congress, which denied defendants many routine due process rights.
The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.
U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard.
They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as constituting outrages -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable.
But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as outrages by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in inappropriate conditions of confinement, forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with physical, mental, or sexual violence -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.
It's plain that this proposal would abrogate portions of Common Article 3, said Derek P. Jinks, a University of Texas assistant professor of law and author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions. The entire family of techniques that military interrogators used to deliberately degrade and humiliate, and thus coerce, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib is not addressed in any way, shape or form in the new language authorizing prosecutions, he said.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Wednesday, however, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales complained repeatedly about the ambiguity and broad reach of the phrase outrages upon personal dignity. He said that, if left undefined, this provision will create an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack.
Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism at the hearing. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the military's top uniformed lawyers had told him they are training to comply with Common Article 3 and that complying would not impede operations.
If the underlying treaty provision is too vague, asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), then how could the Defense Department instruct its personnel in a July 7 memorandum to certify their compliance with it? Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who had signed the memo, responded at the hearing that he was concerned that degrading and humiliating are relative terms.
I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion, England said. And since it does have an international interpretation, which is generally, frankly, different than our own, it becomes very, very relevant to define the meaning in new legislation.
This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can elevate the War Crimes Act from an aspiration to an instrument by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing the ideals of the laws of war.
Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office, said it's not a question of being stingy but coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions. Former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and agents should not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the United States.
But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects. Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including dereliction of duty, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Take responsibility. Demand accountability.
Why do you cut Republicans to ribbons the largest financial disaster we have faced in decades can be laid at the feet of Democrats in Congress and all of a sudden you guys are saying stop blaming. You want to stop blaming Bush for the war?
yeah demand accountability -- keep
I love watching the stocks plummet, since my money isn't there.
Now wouldn't that bring accountability to the government?sm
If people could choose which programs they want to fund. I think we should all be given a form with our tax form and we get to choose where we which programs to fund. That way if no one supported a program it wouldn't happen.
The government should really do this.
Wanting truth and accountability = hatred?sm
Dissent, not loyalty to the almighty State is patriotic.
If we give up all this money now and do NOT demand full disclosure/accountability to these foul thie
despite all the duplicity in the banking crisis, are STILL in corporate positions, then we have just thrown good money after bad and our whole system will go down faster. These guys do not even know what accountability means, and someone has to TEACH THEM, if not, be replaced, no more hand-outs, and face stiff fines for misappropriation of tax payer's money/government funds. We need to act fast, but not BLINDLY AND RASHLY!!
How dare you!
Just because she differs from your view points doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed to be on this board. I for one agree with a lot of what Sam says. This board is way right-winged. It needs people like Sam on here to bring focus to the other side. If you don't care for her posts and opinions, be the bigger person and ignore them instead of whining and complaining.
I'M WITH YOU SAM!!! 
How dare you
You know, you really hurt my feelings today. I know that probably doesn't matter to you, but today I really realized that this is the world I am bringing my daughter up in and there is nothing I can do about it...nothing. Mean, hurtful people. I would lay down my life for my daughter without a thought to save her, but there is nothing I can do to save her from this cold, hateful world that we live in. How dare you treat me like that? How dare you be so mean! How can people act like this? I'm not some sheltered idiot who doesn't know which way is up, but I have never had anyone be so hurtful and mean in my adult life. If my FOUR-YEAR-OLD ever talked to anyone in the way that you just talked to me, there would be some serious disciplinary action. Shame on you.
How dare he!!
You mean Obama actually wants to encourage teenagers and young adults to be decent human beings and productive members of society. The horror of it is beyond comprehension!!
How dare they!!
How dare homosexuals want the right to be married and enjoy the benefits thereof, just like "normal people." How dare they "draw attention to themselves" demanding rights and equality.
Give me a break. Anyone that wants to commit themselves to a relationship should have the ability to do so. Why should a gay couple not be allowed to "live happily ever after" and have the rights (and problems) that go with it.
If you don't "believe" in gay marriage, than don't marry someone of your own sex.
Big Bad, How Dare You
Forget Rufus Wainwright in the music list? ;-)
Read if you dare
RUSH: My friends, there's another reason why the Sheehan thing is going to derail, why this train is going to derail, and that's because look at who her public relations outfit is. It's the mainstream press. They don't have universal respect anymore. They don't even have any concept of how they are harming her cause by championing it, but I want to talk about something larger here with you liberals. I know there are a lot of you here in the audience. We hear from you now and then, and it may be a waste of my time but I'm going to try it anyway. But I think you all need to look at things differently than you do. You need to take your focus off of government. You know how absurd it is for us to hear that a war is ignoble because the president's kids aren't there or because congressmen's kids aren't there? Do you know how irrelevant that is? Do you know who makes this country work? Can I ask you people on the left if you have the slightest idea who makes this country work? Because I'll tell you, it's not the president, I don't care who he is, and it's not Congress, and I don't care who they are. The people who make this country work are the people, and they're people you've never heard of. They are people unlike Cindy Sheehan, who are not seeking publicity, they are not seeking fame. They take life seriously. They try to mix their work and pleasure into a proper balance. They try to raise their kids the right way. They're doing everything they can to follow the straight-and-narrow. They sometimes slip off, but the people who make this country work, the fabled average American. That's who you liberals condemn, whether you know it or not. That's who you impugn. It's always been the case.
World War II was not won by Eisenhower. World War II was not won by FDR. World War II was not won by any particular leader. World War II was not won by Patton. Everybody played a role. But without the sons and daughters of the American people, this country wouldn't amount to anything. It is the people who make this country work, and the ease with which those of you on the left disparage the people in this country while you seek to focus all attention on government, is a sight to behold, and it is why you are losing elections; it is why you are losing favor; it is why you are becoming more fringe and extreme and kooky, because you've lost touch. You've lost contact. You've lost all ability to understand who it is that comprises the heart and soul of this country. You have no clue who the backbone of this country is; but I will tell you this: it's not Cindy Sheehan and it's not one member of her entourage in a ditch in Crawford, Texas. Those people are a bunch of squatters. Those people right now are contributing nothing to the greatness or future of this country. Neither are the members of the media who are down there trying to elevate all those people in the ditch to be superheroes. There's not one of them that comes anywhere near rating the title of hero. They are nothing but a bunch of squatters who are miserable and unhappy for who knows whatever reasons and deciding to take it out on people who they think have control over their lives. In this case, with a bunch of liberals, it's government. You want government to have control over your life, you want government to be able to do this and that for your friends and neighbors and help you, but the simple truth of this country is that it's the people who make this country work. It is the people who comprise the economy.
It is the people who comprise the morality. It is the people of this country who determine the ethics. It is the people of this country, and that's what you're upset about because you're in the minority. The people of this country, the people who make this country work differ from you in tremendous ways. They are religious. They are God-fearing. They respect values and morality. They know what's right and they know what's wrong, and they do their best to abide. You are offended by all that, claiming they don't have the right to make such decisions, while you sit around and make no decisions whatsoever because you're willing to totally put your life in the hands of some liberal politician and that will take you off the hook for having to make any decision about your life or anybody else's. Well, that's not how the country works. This country works on the basis of an educated and informed public seeking excellence in their own lives to whatever degree they wish it. People pursuing life the best they can, using freedom, God-given freedom -- and for you to call here and to come up with something as irrelevant as to say this war is not worth it because the president's kids aren't there or because nobody from Washington's kids are there doesn't say a thing about the war effort, doesn't say one thing about it, doesn't make it noble, doesn't make it ignoble, doesn't make it anything, because the war is taking place. Whether you agree with the fact that it's going on or not, we all have come to the decision that it's best that we win it. You haven't even joined us on that. You hope we lose it. You want to lose it because you want to embarrass the leaders of the country. What must your lives be like? |
|
|
Are your lives so endless, baseless, and void of substance that the only pleasure you get from life is through watching the misery of others and trying to cause misery for others? Are you so incapable of enjoying the God-given gift of life that you've got, that you can only do so when other people are suffering, hopefully as a result of actions you've taken? What must it be like to be you people? What must it be like to get up every day and to have to go to your calendar and write "Destroy somebody today. Destroy something today. Destroy America today"? What must that be like? When you look out across the country and you see a burgeoning economy, you see the lone world superpower -- and it's not because of any president, and it's not because of any weapon, and it's not because of any military, it's because of the people of this country and our values and our Constitution. We're no different than any other people, other than we have freedom -- and you don't even like that! You only want freedom for yourselves, defined as you define it. So people can't say things that offend you, they can't do things that offend you, we can't have stupid names for sports teams. The absurdity of this whole political correctness movement. We can't have some team called the Redskins, we can't have some team called the Seminoles. Don't you understand these team names do it, it's an honor? Do you think a school calls itself the Seminoles to make fun of the Seminoles or are they trying to build themselves up? It's a matter of pride. But you people are so miserably unhappy that you have to find ways to constantly make everybody else around you unhappy, and so you go hang around with a woman who's crazed out of her mind in a ditch in Crawford, Texas, and then you have the audacity to call here and tell us that you are the great ones, that you're the ones that care, that you're the ones that have this country's best interests at heart.
If it were up to you people we wouldn't exist as a country today, you would have given in to the Soviets long ago, you would have appeased the Soviet communists. You would appease Iran right now, you probably wouldn't have cared about the war on terror or the bombing on 9/11. You would have sought out bin Laden and tried to make a deal with him, and this country exists today only because we have been able to prevent you from gaining power to do that kind of thing. We've had our run-ins with Neville Chamberlain types and you're the modern incarnation. To sit here, to actually have the gall to call this program and advance something you think as an intellectual argument that Cindy Sheehan's cause is noble, because the president's daughters aren't in Iraq, or congressmen's sons and daughters aren't in Iraq, have you no shame? Do you realize whose sons and daughters are? Do you understand it's voluntary? Do you understand these are people who are offering their lives in sacrifice for things they believe in? And what do you do? You come along and you try to disabuse them of their belief by telling them that they're wrong and that their country sucks. Well, to the extent that they think their country sucks it's because of you and your efforts to constantly undermine this country's best interests and our desires and efforts to protect the people of this country and to bring freedom to as many others in this world as possible. You people on the left used to be the ones that were all for civil rights around the world. You were all for human rights. Now all of a sudden you couldn't care less about the status of Iraqis. You couldn't care less. It's gotten so absurd, now that Howard Dean said on TV that if this new constitution is enacted as written, that the women of Iraq are going to be worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein.
Do you realize how patently absurd and bordering on insane that comment is? No, you don't. Because you think so little of your own country, you think so little of this president, you have such little faith in the ideals that have combined to make this a great country, that you assume it's worse here than anywhere else, and the places that it is bad is because of us, either through environmental pollution, or whatever cockamamie, asinine, stupid, ignoramus idea you can come up with. It's gotten to the point now where it is common to go on Democrat websites and read about the pleasure it would bring if the president were assassinated. It is now common to read letters to the editors in newspapers which say it would be fun if bin Laden actually came over here and slit Bush's throat, which is what a supporter of Sheehan wrote to a letter of the editor in one of the newspapers in this country. Yes, it would have been better if bin Laden would have just come here and slit Bush's throat. Do you have any idea how you people are perceived? Do you have the slightest idea how the decent people who make this country work perceive you? It is not with any respect. It is with contempt and it's with sorrow. But it's also with this realization: This country, if it is to survive, cannot be turned over to you people to lead and to run, because we will cease to exist as the United States the day that happens, and mark my word. It ain't going to happen.
|
why not have him fired, I mean how dare he?
for that matter, fire anyone and everyone who ever says or does anything you do not agree with. There you go, problem solved. Maybe you could all go to Alaska to live and only allow people there who agree with you and you could have your own world while you are at it and never be bothered with the poor or the sick, you know - I mean, what nerve these people have right?
How dare you post here and not go through . . .
pages of past posts to make sure it hasn't already been discussed. You misinformed liberal!!! LOL.
how dare you say that anyone died for no...
reason!!!? Saddam was a terrible mass murderer and needed to be taken care of. We should have never let it get this far. I am sure that the men and women who died did not think that it was for no reason.
Yep....they don't dare leave the US
The Hague (World Court) has pretty much charged Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush with war crimes.
on January 26, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak insisted that the pursuit of Bush and members of his administration for the torture of terror war prisoners is crucial if justice is to be served.
Nowak added that he believes enough evidence exists currently to proceed with the prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense who was credited as being highly influential in the crafting and push for America's invasion of Iraq and the prior administration's abusive interrogation tactics.
And I'm told to forget about Bush - NO FREAKING WAY! This sucks out loud!!!
link posted here - don't ya dare look
http://meaningfuldistractions.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/news_national_enquirer_promises_more_on_alleged_sarah_palin_affair_78787/
Right on...freedom of speech...how dare we have that right
you included, of course.
You mean the other women who dare to present
Americans are not a monolith.
Don't you dare suggest we don't pray to the same God
you are bad
Puleeze -- dare we look at the dem posts?
Palintology, ageism, free trade (like that's a bad word), Keating 5, feminist's vote. My list could go on. It's not a 1-way street. I can admit that; too bad you can't.
That's how I feel. How dare the victims be judged.sm
while we sit cumfy in front of our PCs and eat popcorn. That kind of stuff makes me SICK!
How dare they assault SP the long suffering
su
While she does deserve our thoughts and prayers, I dare say...
some will say she deserves as much respect as the left showed to Mrs. Palin's handicapped child and pregnant daughter.
How dare you suggest that people are voting
for Obama based on emotion? The statistics are 25 million people that are voting don't even watch or read the news and don't have a clue what is really going on with this campaign, and guess what, those (I will say politely) UNINFORMED people are the ones that McPalin are targeting heavily. Boy, talk about desperation, when you have to resort to praying on the gullible ignorant to get a vote!
No it's not. Use google, if you dare. Some states are raising the age to 30
I have no problem with children who need healthcare. Children. Not adults.
It's just another social welfare program, when they raise the age to 30 (as if age 25 wasn't old enough to be still called a child).
Okay. I dared. *yawn* Now, tell me something *davebuoy* Do YOU *dare* to put on the uniform and go
Or are you like the rest of your lowly cowardly bunch who just don't have the guts?
That's a rhetorical question, davie. It's obvious that Rush speaks for you, so I already know the cowardly answer.
By the way, don't you think it's rather childish to post something about one of your heroes on the liberal board and then to run back to the conservative board, bragging about it, like you did something special? If anything, I'm guessing you're in the elephant dog house now, daviebuoy, because it didn't incite the anger and hatefulness that you were so obviously trying to achieve. I realize things have been slow for all you hate addicts lately, but don't despair. One of your beloved "ushes" (be it "B" or "R") is bound to do something else controversial, unethical or illegal before long, so things will heat up again soon enough, and all you hate addicts will get your "fix." Must be very painful for you, though, with all that hatred and intolerance just busting at the seams! 
You dare speak of character. Open your eyes to
nm
hahahah!! You are so insecure that you do not even dare to post a username and STICK to it..nm
nm
It's a dark day in America when voters dare to feel inspired and hopeful?
rasberries
Yes, AJ, don't forget the
**liberal media**. When all else fails, just blame them. I wonder how long before they start attacking Fitzgerald.
I will never forget what he said.
He conned me, just like he conned those in Congress who voted for the war against Iraq. I believed him when he said Iraq was involved with 9/11, and I wholeheartedly supported his war against Iraq for the reasons he gave.
But he didn't lie about his personal sex life, so his lies don't count to some people.
But don't forget -
Bush no longer cares about Bin Laden (and obviously Al Qaeda and the Taliban).
Also don't forget that Bush's reckless failure to nail 150 Taliban members is really Clinton's fault.
Don't forget
Reagan and G.W. Bush also have been accused of rape. Check it out. Please don't say that the Democrats have cornered the market on this. Even Eisenhower had a mistress.
Let's not forget...
:}
yea, and don't forget
--
Don't forget
the one I just used before reading your post..."airhead." LOL.
Lest we forget...
This is for those with poor memories:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
But let us not forget
Harry Reid, who said "The War Is Lost." How totally irresponsible, not to mention a total disgrace to our troops. I have such respect for their selflessness. I'm literally in awe of them. I get that lump in the throat thing when I see them. We owe them SO much!
Also, don't forget
his famous "signing statements," like when he signed the law against torture and then quietly came back later and basically added that he doesn't have to obey that law if he doesn't want to.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/27/bush_signs_statements_to_bypass_torture
I also find it astonishing that some people really believe that Democrats run Congress. The House may have a Democratic majority, but the Republicans still have the majority in the Senate. The Senate needs 60 Democrats in order to avoid a Republican fillibuster, and to my knowledge, they still don't have that number, even though they picked up a few seats in this year's election, so the Republicans can still continue to control the "do-nothing Congress."
(I hope this post makes sense. Not feeling well and need to take meds and go to bed.  )
As always, let's just forget anything that
for Obama and move on to other issues, such as how we never gave President Bush a chance to succeed, we never showed showed him an ounce of respect but we demand it for Obama, yada, yada, yada....whatever. Just be sure and ignore anything about Obama that is a little iffy, shove it under the rug and bow down. But, of course, there is no bias here.
lest you all forget.....sm
The electoral vote has not yet taken place and will not taken place until ---shoot, no calendar so I may be off on the date, but I believe it is December 10th. Not that I would want to actually see a change to the outcome of the election because I can't even begin to imagine the chaos that would ensue, but nothing is yet concrete. Don't come blasting at me; I am not expressing an opinion, simply stating a fact.
How soon we forget about
Or whatever name the woman was dubbed for going on TV and shouting that after he's in office her..."mortgage will be paid...gas in her car...bills paid...yada, yada, yada"...how soon we forget about that huh?
I am saddened that most people cannot see past the fact that Obama is a black man, period. To some, that's all the qualification he needs. He may very well be the perfect man for the job, be he black or white, or whatever, but I'm afraid he'll never be given the chance to prove that because so many are just fixated on the fact that he's black...so sad.
I do have to add that I did not vote for Obama, not because he's black, but because I disagree with his views. Even my 10 YO son said today that it doesn't matter what color his skin is, it matters what kind of a man he is, and he is so right. Obama is much more than that, but most just can't see past his ethnicity and that's so sad and surely not what he (or MLK) would have wanted.
Don't forget
The 200 million for grass on the national mall. I'm not a repub and this angers me.
Oh, how could I forget?
Acorn.
Oh, how could I forget?
ACORN.
And don't forget
those neat webby things between your toes while you're evolving.
How could you forget....
OPRAH? People are sheep.
Let us not forget the
lobbyists in which Obama stated that there would be no place for lobbyists in Washington. Then he later said lobbyists were okay but set up certain guidelines in regards to appointing them. Then when that kept him from appointing certain lobbyists.....he totally disregarded the guidelines that he himself stated.
Oh....and he didn't bow to the Saudi King......yeah right. That's like Bill Clinton saying he didn't have sex with THAT woman. LMAO!
lies lies lies and more lies.
Please....if anyone else can think of lies that I have missed....feel free to add.
|
