Bush was told by congress about mass destruction.

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

...this is the SECOND time he snookered Congress: First with his Chicken Little rush to hurry up and go to war with Iraq (which most of us were stupid enough to buy hook, line and sinker, myself included).

Now the economic "crisis" that required us to hurry up and give more money to reward the Wall Street crooks who have already stolen from us WITH THE EXPRESS CONDITION that there be no oversight, that we simply hand the money over to former Wall Street guru Paulson (wink wink) and let him and Bush figure out (wink wink) with no questions asked regarding the identity of the recipients. (Apparently, they are changing the rules as they go along, as we saw today regarding where the money is going.)

If you REALLY want to get your blood boiling, read the following two articles. Seems everyone who is a decision-maker in the administration regarding this whole fiasco is a former employee of one of the failed companies.

Bush has always held America and Americans in contempt. I now hold Congress in contempt and place the blame squarely on them for being stupid enough to believe Bush again.

administration has blocked any kind of transparency and refuses to be acountable to the American citizens who are funding the Wall Street giant giveaway.

The General Accounting Office says the Wall Street bailout isn't being policed properly:

WASHINGTON � Lawmakers want the Treasury to do a better job of insisting that banking institutions sharing in the $700 billion bailout comply with limits Congress imposed on executive salaries and use the money for its intended purposes.

In the first comprehensive review of the rescue package, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday that the Treasury Department has no mechanisms to ensure that banking institutions limit their top executives' pay and comply with other restrictions.

"The GAO's discouraging report makes clear that the Treasury Department's implementation of the (rescue plan) is insufficiently transparent and is not accountable to American taxpayers," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The auditors acknowledged that the program, created Oct. 3 to help stabilize a rapidly faltering banking system, was less than 60 days old and has been adjusting to an evolving mission.

But auditors recommended that Treasury work with government bank regulators to determine whether the activities of financial institutions that receive the money are meeting their purpose.

In a response to the GAO, Neel Kashkari, who heads the department's Office of Financial Stability, said the agency was developing its own compliance program and indicated that it disagreed with the need to work with regulators.

Continued at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/the-bailout-isnt-being-po_n_147982.html

P.S. Neel Kashkari, formerly of Goldman Sachs (a/k/a the fox guarding the hen house), just recently got his job. His bio:

Bush�s Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times� eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper�s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn�t just out of concern about national security.

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate�he made it seem as if those who didn�t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda�but it will not work. We�re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president�s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden�s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists�in fact, all American Muslims, period�have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that �the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.� But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a �shameful act,� it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story�which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year�because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had �legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.� But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing �all necessary force� in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow�as the president seemed to claim in his press conference�or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason�and less out of genuine concern about national security�that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

I know Gov. Napolitano wanted to secure Arizona borders years ago. She was Attorney General back then and US attorney. She went to congress and fought for border control several times, but was ignored by Clinton. Finally Bush came into office and he signed (article below) Border Fence Act.

Book: Bush told reporter Jews are 'all going to hell'

09/02/2006 @ 7:53 pm

An upcoming book about presidential advisor Karl Rove reports allegations of anti-semitism by President George W. Bush, RAW STORY has learned.

You know what I'm gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don't you Herman? a then Governor George W. Bush allegedly asked a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman.

When the journalist, Ken Herman, replied that he did not know, Bush reportedly delivered the punch line: I'm telling 'em they're all going to hell.

This quip never received wider media attention. RAW STORY obtained a copy of The Architect late this week.

Bush's thoughts on the fate of non-Christian souls became a minor source of controversy after he told the Houston Post in 1993 that only those who accept Jesus Christ go to Heaven. However, the future president was also earlier briefly engaged to a half-Jewish woman.

The authors of The Architect assert that religion and ethnicity have been manipulated by Bush and Rove to divide and conquer the nation.

WASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not, said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.

Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview, Specter, R-Pa., said.

It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, he added. I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.

Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events, said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11..

Congress has been more active, the president has been more active, she added. The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.

There's less here than meets the eye, Cornyn said. The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed, said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?

If a conservative talked about an African-American woman like this we would be called racists and even worse.

If all you have to criticize is her shopping habit then you really have nothing to criticize.

Hopefully some of the dems will vote no on this tax funded killing spree on babies. I will be sending mine to Tim Moore, Dave Camp, and P Hoekstra, all Republicans. Since Debbie Stabinaw is in bed with the UAW she will probably make it part of our medical coverage. "Buy a Ford Kill a baby" no sense writing to her. Carl Levin is Jewish, but they don't seem to mind this type of Holocaust.

Catholic hospitals would loose their federal funding if they didn't kill these innocent babies, I suspect they will just eliminate all maternity services rather than do the unthinkable.

I was politely asking that you call us crooks and criminals on your board, where it will be better received and I was nice about it too.

As far as Foley goes, you will excuse me if I don't think running off to a secret rehab when you have been busted is an honorable thing to do. He got caught and he ran. Simple as that. Then blamed alchohol and a priest for his behavior. That doesn't fly with me. And he has not been convicted of anything, so I guess that makes it okay....neither have OJ or Robert Blake. They, let's see, how should I say it, got away with murder. And, last but not least, are you not the one who posted awhile back quite a sermon on passing judgement. I seem to remember Bible quotes and all sorts of Christian-esque cliches about judgement being God's to pass. Then, I hear McKinney is a joke, Jefferson is a bigger joke and Kennedy is the biggest joke of all. Yet they still get elected (by Democrats) which makes us all guilty of what...depraved indifference??? Judge not lest ye be judged. I believe you quoted that but here you are, on the liberal board, belittling Democrats, stating you don't care how we think or feel and that our Democratic senators are jokes. Not to mention how ridiculous it is to try to pin wrongdoing on one party, everyone included, you do it here on this board. All I asked was that you cease and desist with the mud. I do care what people think and feel and have tried to write respectfully keeping that in mind. It is not a bad practice and it is a practice, takes a looooong time to think before speaking or to filter through your heart first what comes out your mouth (or keyboard).

All stories, magazine articles, speeches are edited to reflect a point of view. That's the whole point (like inhaling). To condemn 60 Minutes which has been on for how many years and known as a vanguard of hard-hitting journalism as biased is facile.

because for some people....they just cannot seem to post anything worthwhile. All they do is repeat the same stuff and call people names. If you have nothing of value to bring to the table....please feel free to shut your trap as well. I know what our country is facing and I stand by my decision of picking John McCain. I believe him, what he stands for, and what he says. I do not believe Obama. If you differ in that opinion....that is your God given right. But bring something to the table other than insults.