Take responsibility. Demand accountability.
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-29
In Reply to: blameblameblameblame. Stop. No more blame. - fix it!
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?
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
yeah demand accountability -- keep
I love watching the stocks plummet, since my money isn't there.
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...
//
take responsibility
and if *they* were in office, you can bet *they* would probably have been impeached, tarred and feathered by now. A capitain goes down with his ship. Bush needs to take responsibility for Iraq but one thing you have never heard from this administration is sorry, I was wrong. Never, the guy does not have those words in his vocabulary although there are many things he should be sorry for. Well, things are happening quite fast now and all the crap, dishonesty and deceit he has loaded on this country and the world will come down on him soon. I cant wait. Gonna be fun to see shrub squirm. Finally honest decent Americans are speaking out. Yippee.
you said it - take responsibility for
your loathsome actions.
It is a responsibility...
equal treatment? There will always be special healthcare for the elite. But, I think a generic plan would work for most people, and I don't feel because I make more money than some that I should have to pay more for my healthcare. NOT FAIR! We are talking about health here! Keeping everyone healthy should be important!
I asked my husband what was the difference between the "gals" that were working for the dude in New York (what was he governor?) and the "gals" that walk the trashiest neighborhood for a buck (prostitution)? He said "the rich ones don't have to do it 24/7... Now there is a male perspective for ya'...
What makes the rich customers or prostitutes any different? There's definitely a pattern here.
Responsibility
I made no comment. My posts contained no text at all. I simply linked to a news report. I never claimed that Sarah Palin was responsible for anything. My oh my, aren't we hostile today!
HA! See, I do take responsibility
I'm not the one hollering about how thanks to Obama I'll no longer have to pay my mortgage or pay for gas in my car.
They really should add "no responsibility"
to their talking points.
This is about the judgment and responsibility of
a woman who could possibly be the next Prez if something happens to the old man. This is not about who will conduct the next PTA meeting.
cant accept any responsibility
for her own actions -- the dems MAKE her do it. Yeah, she's an independent. You can put your shoes in the oven but that don;t make 'em biscuits
Exactly, pubs had to take on the responsibility
to handle the junk the dems left them with. Glad you understand.
is it a right, privilege, or responsibility
Just curious - this question was raised at the 2nd debate. Is health care a right, privilege or a responsibility? How do you all feel about it? I feel it is a right but one that comes with a price, that one does not deserve health care simply because one is alive but that one deserves health care and must be willing to take responsibility for expenses (not all, obviously, because no one could afford that) but premiums, etc., and that one should have to be responsible about their use of health care (no ER abuse, use preventive care, etc.). How do you feel about it? What would you like to see done to reform health care in the US?
Does personal responsibility mean
get off your lazy a$$, find a job, don't expect a handout, free healthcare, free college, maybe work for a living instead of expecting those of us who have been responsible to foot your bill??
Obama has already taken responsibility, and
he takes his responsibilities seriously, that's why he has his cabinet already in place and is all he can do for now until he is sworn into office. When will Bush be held responsible? HE hasn't taken any responsibility for anything, and he's not made to take responsibility by anyone. Why is that?!!! Tell me Bush is not responsible for killing over 4200 troops for no good reason, tell me Bush is not responsible for 100s of 1000s of dead innocent Iraqis, and I'll call you a LIAR.
Right on! Why take personal responsibility for
nm
When it comes to fiscal responsibility......you can't believe anything a pub says.......nm
Q
Preacher of personal responsibility: When do
nm
yeah, go back 50 yr, and take responsibility
for your behavior -- ie, get pregnant, you HAVE the child, even if you choose to give him/her up for adoption. yeah, go back to when we still had some morals, ethics, courage, determination, etc etc. that would be The Way !!
Al Qaeda did claim responsibility for 9-11 sm
and I believe they were. However, AL Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded. Rather, they were in the mountains of Afganistan and Pakistan. Invasion of Iraq gave them a venue to distract from where Islama Bin Ladin was and keep him safe.
Why not exercise responsibility with your rights?
In this day of myriad methods of birth control, there is absolutely no reason for 1.2 million abortions a year. It has grown from endangering life of mother, rape and incest to why bother with birth control, if I get pregnant I can have it flushed. It is amazing to me that any person with a heart in their chest is not appalled by that.
And a great contributor to this has been the gradual relaxation of any kind of moral responsibility...no right or wrong, only shades of gray, no consequences, sex introduced to kids earlier and earlier and earlier, not even allowing them to be kids...saying sex is fine, multiple partners is fine, heck, you don't even have to like the other person.
We are reaping what that kind of lifestyle change has sown.
Do pubs ever take personal responsibility for anything?
Ridiculous considering the investigation was gong on way before anybody ever knew she was the VP pick.
really, sex education is the parent's responsibility...
in my opinion. Also, I am sure that the poor quality of the educational system as a whole also contributes to this high rate of pregnancy in teens and we all know that low income teens are more likely to get pregnant and Mississippi is a poor state. I think that there are several contributing factors and it is very difficult to isolate just one. However, before anyone gets too upset, I am not against educating kids about safe sex, I just think that abstinence should be included, as well, which it was not in my California high school.
Take Responsibility - You Voted for the moron...
Mr. Mission Accomplished - I'm the Decider - YEAH! So far, the worst president in US history............keep whining, it's as entertaining as a Viagra commercial!
Why is it our country's responsibility to evolve with
The purpose of those coming to this country in the first place was to be their own person, not to live for their government, not to have laws forced down their throats by their government, NOT to pay taxes to support royalty or government and to escape religious persecution.
There was NO republican party....these were people who wanted freedom from the overbearing government. They didn't come here to "evolve" with anyone but to make their own way or does the thought of having to always think for yourself scare the daylights out of you?
We don't need the rest of the world to agree or disagree with us. Believe it or not, we were perfectly capable of making our own way because the world trade garbage was implemented and all the trade agreements is also a part of why we are in this ..............
Republican or democrat, that has no bearing on what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. For those that seem to think in terms of republican or democrat only, that is the problem in the first place.....they can't think independently. They have accepted the notion that government is their only hope........get it????
Yep, personal responsibility out the window.
nm
This is what a republican taking personal responsibility
su
No....I am advocating taking responsibility for your actions...
and not killing the result of those actions. But why teach responsibility when you can flush the problem right on out, right? sheesh.
Obama advocates personal responsibility
-
Good grief! I take responsibility for the psychopath comment, but....sm
I somehow posted it in the wrong place. Look below for explanation. The message should read that the GOVERNOR OF Illinois was exhibiting typical psychopathic behavior. Too many thin-skinned people around here.
Personal responsibility and pride is hard to find
nm
Obama heading the Fiscal Responsibility Summit is like
Yup, bout sums it up right.
Typical sentiment from the party of no responsibility. Cohen that is, not England.
The Republican Congress did a good job with fiscal responsibility, didn't they?
bout sums it up
|
