Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Note that the democratic talking points memo of the week must contain sm

Posted By: LOL on 2005-07-09
In Reply to: I'm tired of talking to hateful people - vs

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.


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

    Democratic talking points 101. nm

    Yea, they were talking about him this week.....
    He's only about 35 but, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean he can't do the job. It might be a breath of fresh air to have someone younger up there who hasn't been around so long as to become jaded and corrupt like so many.....time will tell.
    great talking points
    1. I do believe there should be some sort of civil union, marriage, whatever you call it to allow homosexuals the same basic rights as married couples. As far as Christian marriage - it should be up to each individual denomination to decide. My own, PC USA is debating this issue every year. I am still on the fence about it.

    2. As to welfare, I don't think the current program works. Some welfare-to-work, or something similar would be better. I have a friend who gets a child-care subsidy to help pay with that. If she gets a job making just 25 cents more an hour, she completly looses that, so there is no incentive to get a better job. Same with welfare, food stamps, etc. Maybe phase them out as income increases, to encourage better jobs, growth, etc.

    3. As for abortion, I agree with pxmt. Don't like it, don't have one. No matter how I personally feel about it, it is not my place (or anyone elses) to tell a woman what to do with her body, or make someone carry a child to term. As far as I am concerned, it is a medical procedure and should be between the woman and her doctor.
    wow.....the talking points are down cold....
    what structure? The free enterprise system for one...through hard work able to move up in the world as far as your talent and ambition will take you. Obama wants to penalize those people by talking their money and redistributing it those who did not have the talent or ambition to EARN their way to the "top." Yes, socialism will destroy what makes America great...ingenuity, ambition, and working for what you want or need. And Barack Obama is more of socialist than Hillary Clinton ever thought about being. Yes, she is a socialist...Obama is to the LEFT of her on that issue.

    The propaganda and war machine? Good grief!! We were ATTACKED on 9-11, which brought about this whole Iraq thing. And please, do your research...the Iraq Liberation Act was authored during the CLINTON administration, enthusiastically supported by both Clintons and the entire Democratic congress. So please...don't give me the old Bush lied chestnut. It is just not true. If he did, it was because he believed George tenet and Richard Clarke (Both of whom he kept over from the Clinton administration...his first mistake).

    Decaying economy? It is not as bad as Carter's term. Our economy was MUCH worse then. Yes, gas prices are high. So for Pete's sake, can we finally drill here???

    Shameful health care system? What a ridiculous statement. We have one of the best health care systems in the world. Why does everyone come HERE to be treated? Have you ever transcribed notes for the premier facilities in this country? How many patients come from other countries? How many doctors from other countries come here to train? That is PRECISELY because we don't have "universal" government run health care. If it is so great in Europe, why do those people bring their children to America to be treated for serious diseases? Can we please be serious about this? It is NOT the responsibility of government to insure us. Wait..let me rephrase that in a truthful manner. It is not the responsibility of our fellow citizens to insure us. All government-controlled universal health care will accomplish is a lower standard of care for everyone, premier teaching hospitals will cease to exist, and THEN you will have the shameful health care system you THINK you have now.

    Well...while I would not use the words "My way or the highway," we have not been attacked on our oil soil against since 9-11, which is a direct result of our action in Iraq. There are those who will bury their heads in the sand and deny this, but it seems pretty obvious to me with all their actions everywhere else in the world (the terrorists).

    As to Europe being our allies....I would again refer you to history. The only allies we have who are still grateful for us pulling their fat out of the fire in WWII is England. France...Italy...oh they wanted us there when we liberated them from Nazi Germany and facism...but have now conveniently forgotten it. Let them be attacked or feel threatened today and who do you think they are going to call? The EU? Yeah, right. Yo, America....helppppp.

    As to a little input from them...did not work out very well last time, did it? Whose intelligence agencies agreed with the intelligence Bush was getting? Well....France...Germany...toname two. Yeah, input from Europe is JUST what we need.

    As far as hatchet job we have done on ourselves...again, France and Germany have never cared a whit about the US...a lot of jealousy there in case you had not noticed. They will take, take, take...comes time to give, they run like scalded dogs. If that is what you consider an "ally," maybe so. Me, not so much. Compare what we have done in the world and what they have done...what we have contributed to poor and needy all over the world compared to what they have done...and there you will have your story. And again...first sign of trouble and you know who they will go running to? Not each other or the EU...Us. And because we are who we are...we will go and help. History has proven that time and time again. We give everything and get nothing and keep on giving. And these are the opinions you care about??

    Wimpy regarding Russia? You have GOT to be kidding. You think Sarkozy of the EU was the least bit influential in getting Russia to dial it down? You SURELY are kidding. It is that hateful stupid "cowboy" Bush who got it done and don't think for a moment it isn't. If Obama was in the White House today he would be kissing the toukas of Russia and Georgia would be a smoking mess and dragged back into Russia under their rule. To quote Teddy Roosevelt you have to talk softly and carry a big stick...Russia knows as long a we have a Prez like Bush there is definitely a stick to contend with. With Obama, more like throwing a sack of daisies at them. There is no way he could ever put up a tough enough front. "Can't we all just get along?" Uh...no, we can't. Because to get along, all parties gotta want to. In what alternate universe does Russia WANT to? The only thing that keeps them from rolling over every country around them is the fear that the US would intervene. Once that is removed...Katy bar the door. And if you look at the history of how russia has behaved...and think anything else, then, I am sorry, you are naive. You have to look at countries and their histories...

    Don't know about mtmt's vision of the future, but mine is with an Obama presidency we might just get what little old ugly bald-headed Kruschev told us years ago...we will be taken from inside without firing a shot. Food for thought.
    talk about republican talking points
    Can't you people say one thing that isnt a direct quote from fox news? Im beginning to see why people have T-shirts that say vote rpublican its easier than thinking. Yes and your right, due to the lies of this administration, we have on big mess on our hands. and you wonder why people are ticked off. But ill be sure to tell my daughter how the terrorists love her because she wanted her husband out of iraq before he was killed for a lie. Unfortunately, that did not happen. But hey Ill just tll her how he was spreading democracy, im sure tha will make her feel bettr. Its only the what..27th rationalization this administration gave for this war?
    Biden did nothing but regurgitate talking points....
    nothing original in what he said. Same old, same old...just like what he said: "I will not change. I have been in the senate for 30 years. I will not change." and then a breath later, said "Barack and I will bring change." Hmmm....I won't change. I have been in the senate 30 years and I won't change. BUT Barack and I will bring change. puleezzeee.
    The staple far-left talking points. Do you have a
    brain to think for yourself?
    Wow, they squeezed every Democratic talking point in that article. Congrats. How is this helpful?

    The lawsuit I am talking about was just filed this week...by some Democrat attorney...
    in Pennsylvania. It may be the same material Bill and Hillary were going to go to court with...this is the first I heard that they personally were going to do it.

    And Rendell said just this morning...saw it on the news...that he was "ashamed" of the way the press and fawned over Obama during the primaries much more than on Clinton. He did not say anything against Obama per se...just harangued the press for its biased coverage.

    Also just heard a guy, and can't remember for the life of me what his organization is called...basically disgruntled Hillary supporters...who says that some 30% of her supporters are firmly deciding to support McCain...according to him, that's almost 3 million people. If that many Dems vote for McCain...don't know if Obama can overcome that.

    I still say Hillary may say she supports Obama to the public, but in private I am thinking she is behind these people making waves because she wants Hillary in 2012.

    It is really fascinating how this is playing out.
    The talking points must have mentioned using the word *impeach* as often as possible, too. NM

    Lots of confirmation of the talking points you mention.

    Especially the inevitability of New Orleans. You can research the local papers and find articles that go back years. The funding to research and fix this has been the last 3 years W. has been in office. That is a fact. The Army Corps of Engineers chief quit in disgust over this issue some time ago and the former FEMA chairman was fired; the one who got things done, by the Bush administration..I don't know why.  Our leadership is lacking. We need a leader. We need someone to step up to the plate and start the ball rolling; to date, doctors, nurses, entertainers, basketball players and ordinary everyday people with some necessary skills have been on the ground working in a haphazard manner because there is no leadership. Bush 41 and Clinton have started their tsunami crusade a la New Orleans and I have to tell you, the both of them sitting on my TV screen asking for money, were more believable, more compassionate than anything we have seen from the WH. A lot of defensive people up there. Why doesn't someone lead. As the mayor of New Orleans said, Washington sent one John Wayne guy down there and he is evidently kicking butt, getting things done. Where are the leaders???


     


    He has precisely identified the viable talking points.
    nm
    Nope. I don't just post talking points. I back it up.
    see above.
    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.


     


    Here are a few facts from the memo.
    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.

    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






    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

    Republicans are Stuck to Bush

    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
    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


    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


     


    On a serious note...

    ....I thank you for your response.  While I agree boxes probably arent' the best idea sometimes they make complicated ideologies a little simpler to understand, I guess.


    Actually I would be very interested in learning all the posters on these boards beliefs/ideologies/hopes for the future.  I think we could do this without undermining each other or bashing.  Perhaps I'll post it at the top of the board some time as a new topic.


    and on that note...
    Who gained the most benefit from keeping it a secret, and/or keeping the rumor afloat that he is still out there somewhere?
    Note to sam
    Sam, just wondering if when you post a legitimate question on the board could you please change your name. It seems like anything you ask anymore people are bashing you. You put up some very good questions (sorry can't answer this one as I'm not knowlegable enough to know what the outcome would be -it's all too confusing), but it seems as though people are going to attack you for anything. Now if there is an argument you want to make that's one thing, but its not right that you put up a question and people are attacking you for that. - just a suggestion.
    One more note
    Was curious to see what people would say to my post. I expected the O supporters to bash me for my opinion. That's the way this board is run, but I was curious so came back. For all of you thinking this is one sided - I voted for Obama! I supported Obama! I donated money to his campaign. I fought tooth and nail on this board to defend Obama. I got into some rough ones with some of the republicans on this board. But as time has gone on I have researched and learned more about Obama and I do not like what I am finding out. I come to this board to hopefully get some insightful information and it IS mostly the democrats bashing and attacking posters who are for McCain. I would say 95% dems bashing republicans and 5% republicans defending themselves by coming back at the posters who originally bashed them. Facts are facts and its in black and white on this board. And they bash Palin without cause. I just say it like it is (sorry you don't like to admit it). Like the poster below said - guess only half the pixels on your monitor work.

    If you had any type of open mind you would read through every single post and you would see the Obama supporters bashing the McCain supporters more, calling them every name in the book while in the same breath saying its all them against you (and the posts below are proof of that). The posts below show you don't have open minds, you don't search out facts. You are blindly led around like a bunch of sheep.

    God help us if Obama gets in there. I for one don't want to live my life with the likes of Farrahan, Wright, Resko, and Ayers (to name a few) dictating how we should be living. Farrakan's the creepiest of all, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you want to live like that.
    Please note....(sm)

    I think Phelps and his daughter were banned back in Feb.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm


    There are also a number of people on the list whose names have not been published.  I would love to see the entire list. 


    Note, what I said was
    You prepare for what an opponent might do, not what he appears to be doing at the moment.  Situations change in an instant, stuff happens, appearances may be misleading.  You don't encumber both hands when you could be attacked, especially if there's more than one.  Doesn't mean attack them first, but you stay ready for the possibility that they might attack you.  Military training and just plain common sense. 
    Please note....(sm)

    We are talking about Obama here, not Bush the war monger. 


    "There will always be a war that he needs them for and if there isn't one he will create one." 


    You do realize that Obama was one of the few senators who voted completely against the Iraq war?  What makes you think he wants to stay in a war when all he has done is talk about how we need to get out of it?  That is just completely irrational.


    "Why do you say the GOP is not funding the troops."


    Ummm....because the vast majority of pubs in the house just voted against a funding bill?


     


    How many did it take to write this note?
    Just wondering.
    Note to gt......off topic

    It's me - the one who's been posting under all the gt alias joke monikers.  I just had to blow off steam after the conservative board debacle last night.  Don't know why I get involved in it.  My fall equinox resolution will be to inform, not condemn.


    Thanks for tolerating my not-that-funny-ha-ha little joke.


    note: this was in no way gay-bashing, as i am gay too,
    but i just had to laugh at the mental image of a pitbull with lipstick, trying its best not to look like a 'klondyke'.
    On a side note..
    Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
    just a note from factcheck.org

    A second false quote has Obama saying he would "stand with the Muslims," words that don't appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:


    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html


    On a lighter note.....sm
    Stuff I didn't know about.......




    Meet Obama's bodyman: The White House 'Chief of Stuff' who caters to the President's every whim





    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127223/Meet-Obamas-bodyman-The-White-House-Chief-Stuff-caters-Presidents-whim.html


    Agree and just want to add to your note that
    that Bush WOULD NOT meet with those of the fallen.  He out-and-out dissed them.  So, even though none of this mess is Obama's making, he met with those who mourn and actually listened to their views.  He did so much more in that 45 minutes than Bush ever did. 
    Note to mythbuster...(sm)

    Off our meds, are we? - Mythbuster (Views: 33, 2009-03-10)


    You might want to clean up your own backyard before you start on someone else's.


    I think the thing to note here...(sm)

    is not so much that he had an affair.  People do that all the time.  I personally think it's nobody's business, and that's how I felt about Clinton as well.  However, what we have here is a guy who has been preaching "family values" as a campaign slogan for how many years? and then this comes out.  It's the blatant hipocrisy that I can't stand. 


    Also, this guy was supposedly a good candidate for VP next time around.  If something like this had been found out about Biden, the rght would have had a field day with it, just like they did with Clinton.


    More on that note....France, that non...
    judgmental open-minded country....their Prez says France cannot accept Burqas...this is just part of it....PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the "debasement" of women.

    In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France's Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.

    "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.

    "The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

    Hmmmm. Oh my. Muslims world wide (not to mention the 5 million that live in France) are going to LOVE that.

    And people say WE aren't open-minded? LOL. Where is the French version of the ACLU?? Hey...they can borrow ours. HEY, Sarkozy...take THEM ALL. :-) lol
    Please note that American Woman is not AG

    Thanks Brunson for you objective views....it is refreshing.  You know how to respectfully post and carry on an adult conversation.


    The only reason I am posting here is to state this even though it's blatantly obvious American Woman is not me. 


    I read here, but I don't post here.  I might post my responses to posts here on the C board....but other than to clarify like I'm doing now I don't post here....I made a mistake on Friday posting here, but I got my boards mixed up.  Have a great day!


    Note to uptight liberals
    It was s-a-r-c-a-s-m.   Humor is lost on you all...
    OK, on that same note you answered your own question..sm
    You believe abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. I think the same thing about this war. Yeah congress passed it, so for all intents and purposes on paper it is legal, but it should be illegal to preempt war against a dictator and his followers (because technically we are not at war against Iraq) that is not a eminent threat to us.
    Please note sources within this article...
    http://ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/oil-drilling
    Here's a funny for you. Note the date.

    James I. Blakslee


    "Pledged to vote for Woodrow Wilson and support the reorganization of the Democratic Party"


    "Democrats in every county in Pennsylvania have been betrayed times without number and to-day trickery and deception walk hand in hand to again mislead them"


    "Canidates have been found, who, for a price, are willing to represent the twin-machine traitors."


    "Every alert, active Democrat will easily detect the tricksters, and on Saturday, April 13th, 1912, between the hours of 2 PM and 8 PM, will register his vote for the Purification of this Party."


    I get a kick out of that.


    A note about your socialism comment sm
    We do not have socialism except for that big bank bailout that was under Bush's leadership, (lack of leadership). All your sorry arguments of months ago are now moot points. Stop being a sore loser. Nobody cares about the birth certificate, about Ayers, about Rev Wright, about fake socialism, about your phoney crooked republican manipulations. Suck it up and be a real American and follow the new president.

    And as a side note...anyone who posts here has a right to speak...
    no matter how bad that chaps you. And the fact that it does chap you so much...is definitely food for thought.