yeah demand accountability -- keep
Posted By: playing the blame game!! on 2008-09-29
In Reply to: Take responsibility. Demand accountability. - sam
I love watching the stocks plummet, since my money isn't there.
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
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?
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!!
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
Lest we forget accountability, how-dare you ask?
x
Demand the truth, regardless of R or D
Ah, the drive-bys: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN for starters. The facts are literally everywhere to refute many of the stories being discussed. NBC/MSNBC is the very worst for being in the tank for Obama. PBS and NPR are also on the list, among plenty others.
It's shocking that so many people would literally give any network (and I said any) a free pass and take what they say as gospel, esp. when these "reporters" as they call themselves are very well aligned with the Dems. I scrutinize what the right says, too. Giving a free pass to reporters is not only foolish, it's dangerous. I don't ever want my candidate of choice to win by cheating or distorting things. Of course, politicians deserve a great deal of scrutiny. Just like we work for MQ, politicians work for us. We should demand the the same from politicians as our employers expect from us.
Tonight on Hannity & Colmes will be part 2 of Sean's interview with Sarah Palin. I copied it below from FNC.
Also, The Obama campaign has distorted Rush's words about Latinos. That will be disputed tomorrow on his show (and in Spanish). He also has an op-ed coming out in Friday's Wall Street Journal about this. It's disturbing to me that Univision & Telemundo didn't run the RNC convention on their networks. Not even close to fair and balanced. If I were Hispanic I'd be furious that both sides weren't presented so I could make my own decision. Next they'll be selecting our cars, etc.!
Exclusive: Sarah Palin on accepting McCain's VP offer and reforming the economy
I've also put a link below where news stories can be verified.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
This isn't meant as a "shootin' match." It's simply an avenue many may have not considered.
Supply and Demand
What gives you the right to impose your beliefs on others? Ever hear of supply and demand? Do you really believe that it is only those of other religions that are participating in the sex, drugs, and violence to which you refer. Since Christians are the majority, according to one poster, there must be plenty of Christians who are living the lifestyles you want to suppress. There are all kinds of Christians. Which Christians do you want to be in charge of all of our lives...the fundamentalists, the KKK, the Aryan Nations?
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.
I don't demand anyone respect Obama. However,
I feel certain he will more than earn his respect in the way he's planning to deal with Bush's depression whereas Bush never earned any respect.
With all the supply and demand stuff...
...I'm guessing the price of tea may have increased since yesterday.
With all the supply and demand stuff...
...I'm guessing the price of tea may have increased since yesterday.
I noticed yesterday that several food items went down in price. (Maybe others went up in price and I didn't know it because they wouldn't be items I would normally purchase.)
Things like butter being $2.00 (last week was $2.68), bread $1.12 a loaf (last week was $1.36 a loaf), American cheese $2.38 a pound (last week was $3.36) -- stuff like that.
With all the supply and demand stuff...
...I'm guessing the price of tea may have increased since yesterday.
I noticed yesterday that several food items went down in price. (Maybe others went up in price and I didn't know it because they wouldn't be items I would normally purchase.)
Things like butter being $2.00 (last week was $2.68), bread $1.12 a loaf (last week was $1.36 a loaf), American cheese $2.38 a pound (last week was $3.36) -- stuff like that.
Nobody wants to listen to liberal talk radio..look at bankrupt Air America. No demand for it...
//
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've said before that you're leaving, but you and your goons can't sta
yeah, yeah, yeah.....what he failed to mention...
is that the Dems are responsible for the mortgage meltdown which is responsible for the wall street meltdown. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank...totally to blame. Blocked every attemmpt by Bush Admin and yes, McCain, to regulate fannie/freddie. Dems certainly have selective memories...convenient bouts of amnesia. lol.
Oh, yeah yeah, whatever. There's plenty of satan here, that is for sure!
Yeah, yeah, everything is funny. Wont
nm
Yeah, yeah, yeah....still protesting too much. (nm)
nm
Oh yeah. It says a lot.
Yeah, you are probably right. sm
After all, everyone must be lying. Everyone on the right, all liars. Al Franken says so, so it must be true. You know what is wrong with you guys. You cannot handle confrontation or anyone who doesn't agree with you at all!
Well, yeah.....nm
nm.
Yeah really.nm
x
yeah, you are sure right about that.
Almost every single post on that board is like it was written by a bunch of annoying, redneck teenage boys!!!!
Yeah.
Whatever.
Yeah? So what?
That's exactly what I said. Scarborough has always supported Bush. There is a difference between supporting and blindly following. For example, you see nothing wrong with how this case was handled. You see nothing wrong with Bush lying every time he opens his mouth. That's blind faith.
Scarborough is an objective Republican who believes in honesty. I realize this is a difficult concept for some CONS to understand. Once upon a time, honesty was considered a good thing in the United States. People who were honest were considered to have moral character and integrity. Scarborough is one of those rare of Republicans, totally foreign to you, I'm sure.
To blindly follow (which I'm sure you're quite familiar with) means worshiping a man as if he's some kind of god, believing every single word he says, even when you see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes. He lies every day; those who follow blindly believe him every day. And when it becomes common knowledge that he's lied and when they can't twist and manipulate the lie out of recognition any more, then his blind followers make excuses for him, usually blaming democrats or anyone else who is handy but never blaming the liar himself. And they justify all the lying because they have that special *connection* with God. They can lie all they want and God just winks at them and says it's okay because their place in heaven has already been guaranteed, unlike the rest of us poor slobs out there without that special connection.
The only thing that scares me more than Bush having the same credibility as Al Qaeda is the fact that there are so many morons who blindly follow him, who just aren't smart enough to figure out that Bush was never on their side - he's only on the side of big money. He even joked about his *base* - the *haves* and the *have nots.*
By the way, you are on the liberal board. If you don't care for the liberal point of view, the CON board is ---->
Yeah.
Whatever.
Yeah, whatever!!! ....nm
Yeah probably, but it's only okay when you do it?
Right? The rest of us should be ashamed.
Yeah. Whatever you say.
I was responding to this: *And know a lot PK. I know A LOT about your posting habits more than you could ever imagine.* I was accused of doing something I simply didn't do, so that just shows me how much you people really DO know, and, yes, I can *imagine* a LOT when faced with this kind of ominous post.
Those of your ilk have dark histories of murdering people of different beliefs (for example, personnel at abortion clinics), and the latest tactic of the Neocons is intimidation and retribution. Just ask Valerie Plame, who used to have a career before her husband spoke the truth.
If someone said that to you on your board, you'd be accusing them of threatening to assassinate you and contacting the FBI. Who are you KIDDING? Typical neocon double standard and hypocrisy at work again.
Yeah, so did LBJ.
but the point is, the far left hates Cheney as much or more than Bush, so impeach Bush, get Cheney, then what? Impeach Cheney? Then you get Hastert. I know the far left doesn't like him. Impeach him and get Ted Stevens. He's a Republican, too. (President pro tempore of the Senate). Impeach him and get...Condi Rice...if she isn't buying shoes. What have you gained. Absolutely nothing. Well...maybe some payback for Clinton, which is what this is all about anyway. Why not just wait until 2008 and vote the bums out.
Yeah...I know...sm
And I didn't agree with Pat Roberson calling for his death, and in the wake of Katrina Bush could have accepted his olive branch for fuel.
However, I think Chavez's speech was disrespectful being how the UN is hosted by the US. We can't think Dem vs Rep. He disrespected the US.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Two posters identifying themselves as liberals stated it was more important to investigate Bush than to concentrate on terrorism. That does not stem from anything but hatred and revenge. Fact, ma'am. No bumper sticker talk. Nancy Pelosi yelled impeachment right up until two weeks before the election and how it was first on her list when they got power. Had they not filled the seats with conservative Democrats rather than liberal ones I am pretty darn sure that would have gone forward. And that also stems from hatred of conservatism first, George Bush second, and a desire for revenge. She talks about ridding Washington of corruption on the one hand, and then supports Murtha (I will not go into his corruption) and Hastings (a Federal judge who was impeached and who she voted to impeach) for a chairmanship. She has absolutely no credibility in my eyes, and apparently the new conservative Democrats in the house don't think so either, as they did not goose step in line and vote in her choice. Good for them! Also had another liberal post that aborting a child was like removing a wart or a cancer. That is not hate, that is completely morally bankrupt. Somewhere along the line the liberal morality meter has gone wonky, and in my humble opinion it is BECAUSE of rational and analytical thought devoid of emotion, and stopping listening to that small still voice inside you, that soul that God put in you when he created you. Yes, I am emotional, because I believe it was leading to the decay of the American soul. I will fight it the best way I know how, and that is to stand for what I believe in, and kneeling to pray for this country and EVERYone in it. God bless, Lurker.
Yeah, I know.....
you would think I would stop trying. However, I keep thinking that maybe, somehow, somewhere, something might sink in....sighhh.
Yeah, it goes like that. SM
Teddy says they all communicate by e-mail or are related, so it's not surprising since they all kind of show up at one time. It's been that way so long. Anyhoo, we can take and they can't!
Yeah, you are right. SM
And you guys stalk people, wish them to die, and wished the president and his family burn in hell. That's so much better.
Yeah!!!
Gave me goose bumps! His wife must be beside herself ~ Thanks for the heads up
yeah
nn
Yeah, right. We can all see just how
nm
Yeah...right. LOL. nm
nm
Oh yeah.....
Michael Moore's INfamous quotes:
"Should such an ignorant people lead the world? How did it come to this in the first place? 82 percent of us don't even have a passport! Just a handful can speak a language other than English."
He thinks you are ignorant.
"I like America to some extent." Yeah, that's patriotic.
"There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them."
He thinks you are gullible. Although I disagree about religion. I think political parties are the best way.
"white people scare the crap out of me."
I don't EVEN know where to go with that statement. lol.
"Clinton was a pretty good president for a Republican."
ROFL. He really is up on American politics.
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win."
'Nuff said.
Yeah!!!!
nm
Yeah I'm an MT. What does that
have to do with anything? Have heard it all, can transcribe it all. Palin gets on my last nerve....what's it to ya?
oh yeah? and just how are you going to do that?
nm
Oh yeah?
PFBBBLLLTTT!!!
yeah right, like her
BIL who self-admittedly tazed his own kid, and who abused his wife, etc. I applaud Sara Palin on every level including this one!
Yeah!
Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws.
yeah and if...sm
they would have chosen Fox for the first interview, boy, what the outcry from the left would have been then.
They were actually quite wise to choose ABC, in my opinion. She walked into the lion's den, and came out virtually unscathed.
IMHO.
Yeah, that is what they would like you to believe...
but the last line seems to pretty much describe the democrats nowadays...a cycle of hatred and intolerance.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.......
.
|
