Lindaland
  Global Unity
  article: Bush asks GOP to back terror acts (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   article: Bush asks GOP to back terror acts
Planet_Soul
unregistered
posted September 14, 2006 11:17 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush asks GOP to back terror bills By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - President Bush visited Capitol Hill Thursday where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans on legislation to give the government more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.



Bush's proposals would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.

But a former member of his administration endorsed efforts by three Republican senators to block President Bush's plan to authorize harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday said that Congress must not pass Bush's proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

Powell sent a letter to Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., one of the rebellious lawmakers seeking limits to legislation on interrogations, in the latest sign of GOP division over White House security.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Republican dissatisfaction with the administration's security proposals is becoming more prominent as the midterm election season has arrived. The Bush White House wants Congress to approve greater executive power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.

Walking through the Capitol to a basement conference room, Bush was flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and White House adviser Karl Rove.

For Bush, the election season visit capped a week of high-profile administration pressure to rescue bills mired in turf battles and privacy concerns. It also gave GOP leaders a chance to press for loyalty among Republicans confronted on the campaign trail by war-weary voters.

"I have not really seen anybody running away from the president," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters this week when asked about the caucus' split. "Frankly, I think that would be a bad idea."

Bush was expected to ask for support for two key pieces of legislation he says are crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. One would meet CIA demands that Congress reinterpret the nation's treaty obligations to allow tougher interrogations of detainees, but it's snagged in the Senate between the leadership and a trio of powerful Republicans.

At nearly the same time Bush met with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.

The White House on Thursday said the alternate approach was unacceptable because it would force the CIA to end a program of using forceful interrogation methods with suspected terrorists.

"The president will not accept something that shuts the program down," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.

Two other Republicans — Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina — have joined Warner in opposing Bush's bill.

The administration didn't allow such a direct challenge to pass without criticism. On Wednesday, the White House arranged for a conference call with reporters so National Intelligence Director John Negroponte could argue that Warner's proposal would undermine the nation's ability to interrogate prisoners.

"If this draft legislation were passed in its present form, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency has told me that he did not believe that the (interrogation) program could go forward," Negroponte said.

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn't take prisoners. "The prisoners they do take they behead," he said.

The other bill Bush is pushing would give legal status to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It was approved on a party-line vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, but is stalled in the House amid staunch opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned that the program violates civil liberties.

With Bush preparing for the House caucus, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Wednesday, "This is a chance for members to ask their questions and express their concerns."

House Republicans have plenty of those, and some aren't shy about sharing them with the president.

One, Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., earlier this year confronted Bush over his wiretapping program at a GOP retreat. Now she is the sponsor of a bill embraced by House GOP leaders — but not the White House — that would restrict the domestic surveillance program and step up congressional oversight.

A member of the National Security Council under Bush's father, Wilson is facing a tough election challenge in her home state. A day earlier, Republicans abruptly canceled a scheduled committee vote on her bill that was expected to send it to the floor where the administration would push for amendments.

The atmospherics stand in stark contrast to Bush's visit to the same group in July 2002, amid debate over a trade agreement and brisk legislative momentum for his war on terrorism.

"I talked to them about how pleased I am with the progress we're making," he told reporters after that meeting.

This time, happy talk is hardly on the agenda.

"We hope to hear from the president how urgent it is that we pass measures to fight terrorism before Congress leaves for the November elections," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Email Story IM Story Discuss Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:

Average (269 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Bush Administration
Off the Wires
Bush asks GOP to back terror bills AP, 16 minutes ago Plame sues Armitage over CIA leak AP, Wed Sep 13, 9:00 PM ET Feature Articles
U.S. facing diverse security challenges AP via Yahoo! News, Sep 13 Bush Speaks to a Changed Nation, Where Unity and Clarity Have Evaporated at The New York Times (reg. req'd), Sep 12 News Stories
Bush Politicized a Solemn Day, Democrats Say at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Sep 13 Secrecy Dispute Snarls Nomination at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Sep 13 Opinion & Editorials
Max Boot: Democracy, Our Best Protector at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Sep 13 Tortured logic at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Sep 13
Politics News
Sens. challenge White House terror bill AP Former Texas Gov. Ann Richards dies AP Lamont: U.S. weaker because of Iraq war AP House battles over 9/11 resolution AP S. Korea says alliance with U.S. strong AP Most Viewed - Politics
Ex-Texas Gov. Ann Richards dies Reuters U.S. moves to reduce diplomatic presence in Syria Reuters Sens. challenge White House terror bill AP Congress helping track spending AP Senate Republicans defy Bush over terrorism trials Reuters
AP Photo: This photo released by the White House shows President Bush shaking hands with the Prime...
Slideshow: President Bush
Add headlines to your personalized My Yahoo! page
(About My Yahoo! and RSS)
White House News - AP

Politics - U.S. House of Representatives

Terrorism

Politics - Republican Party

George W. Bush

» More News Feeds
NEWS ALERTS

Get an alert when there are new stories about:


President Bush
Colin Powell
Dick Cheney
Dennis Hastert
CIA

» More Alerts

Elsewhere on the Web
CNN.com
GOP split on tribunals
ABC News
The Note Futures Calendar
USATODAY.com
Cost may kill travel program


Talk to Power

Ask a senator
Share your thoughts on Iraq and more with Sen. Jack Reed.

Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone

Our journey so far
We look back on year one: 22 conflict zones and 19 countries.

Featured IN YAHOO! NEWS

Election coverage and analysis from Congressional Quarterly.
» More from Congressional Quarterly

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! - My Yahoo! - Mail
Search: All News & Blogs Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced

Primary Navigation
Home U.S Business World Entertainment Sports Tech Politics Science Health Travel Most Popular Odd News Opinion
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback


What is your stand on this? I'm stuck in the middle. I'd hate to see terrorist continue to slip through the cracks, and if the means justify the ends... On the other hand, it is scary and worrisome to completly do away with the humane treatment of POWS....

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 11:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good, the Republican Congress should accede to the wishes of the Commander in Chief of US military forces, especially since he has the inherent Constitutional Authority and Duty to protect the United States and it's citizens in the first place.

Neither are international terrorists captured in the act of fighting or plotting terrorist operations against US or coalition forces or other nations..."prisoners of war". That status is reserved for uniformed military personnel fighting in the service of their country who are captured on the battlefield.

Terrorists hide in civilian populations, use civilians as shields, do not wear the military uniform of any nation and are not engaged in a war on behalf of any nation. They are not by definition..."prisoners of war". If anything at all, they are out of uniform spies, illegal combatants and should be interrogated harshly when they are apprehended and then tried in military courts for their terrorist activities.

Perhaps you do...but most Americans do not have a death wish. Nor do we agree with any policy which ties the hands of the President in attempts to detect terrorists, track terrorists, disrupt terrorist operations or capture and kill terrorists whether here or anywhere else we find them.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 12:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not good. Thanks for sharing.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 01:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sept. 13, 2006, 10:29PM

Negotations on terror legislation snag
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The White House and three powerful GOP senators reached an impasse Wednesday over a Bush administration plan to allow tough CIA interrogations, underscoring election-season divisions among Republicans on the high profile issue of security.

ADVERTISEMENT
In a direct challenge to President Bush, Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said his panel would meet Thursday to finalize an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes. Warner, R-Va., said the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.

The White House said Warner's proposal would undermine the nation's ability to interrogate prisoners and arranged an extraordinary conference call for reporters in which the nation's top intelligence official criticized Warner's plan.

"If this draft legislation were passed in its present form, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency has told me that he did not believe that the (interrogation) program could go forward," National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said.

The unusually public dispute between the White House and the senators comes as Republicans face a robust Democratic challenge this November for control in Congress. The GOP is trying to sell voters on its tough stance on national security, and Bush has said legislation allowing him to prosecute terrorists is a key component to winning the war.

The dispute echoed last year's showdown between Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over legislation banning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees. The White House threatened to veto that proposal, contending the language would hamstring interrogators, but eventually bowed to overwhelming congressional support for McCain's measure.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have joined Warner this year in opposing Bush's bill. Several other Republicans and the majority of Democrats were expected to support their plan, potentially giving them the votes needed to defy Bush.

Bush planned to visit the Capitol Thursday to try persuading GOP lawmakers to back his proposal and another measure, also stalled, that would legalize the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Bush's latest proposal would create military commissions to prosecute terror suspects and would redefine acts that constitute war crimes. Bush was forced to propose the measure after the Supreme Court ruled in June that his existing court system established to prosecute terrorism suspects was illegal and violated the Geneva Conventions.

The court ruled that Common Article 3 of the conventions, which sets a baseline standard for the treatment of prisoners of war, applies to members of al-Qaida _ an assertion Bush had disputed.

The administration responded with legislation that would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the standards for treatment, a move that would allow tough interrogations of terror suspects and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.

More than two dozen retired military officers and former defense officials weighed in Wednesday in a letter to Warner, urging Congress not to attempt to redefine violations of Common Article 3.

"If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners," they wrote.

McCain echoed their concerns. If the United States redefines abuses under the treaty, "then every nation in the world will amend Common Article 3 to their satisfaction," McCain said. "Then the next time a special forces soldier is captured out of uniform, then that government will have their own interpretation."

But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration's bill, said he did not think it would endanger U.S. troops because "al-Qaida doesn't take any prisoners. The prisoners they do take they behead."

Warner's decision to press ahead without GOP consensus came as the House Armed Services Committee approved the Bush administration's proposal. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., pushed through a bill that largely mimicked the White House legislation, including a provision that would bar a defendant's access to evidence used against them if doing so would expose classified information.

A substitute amendment by Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, top Democrat on the panel, was defeated along party lines.

While the House is expected to pass the legislation next week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has held off scheduling a vote.

Separately, the administration's drive to preserve the president's power over its domestic wiretapping program hit snags in the House.

The House Judiciary Committee abruptly canceled its scheduled vote on a bill by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., amid tense negotiations between GOP leaders who endorse it and an administration that says it places too many restrictions on the program.

On the other side of the Capitol, however, the Senate Judiciary Committee gave a party-line endorsement to a wiretapping bill favored by the White House.

The bill would submit the warrantless wiretapping program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court for a one-time constitutional review. It also would extend from three days to seven days the time allowed for emergency surveillance before a warrant application is submitted and approved by that court.

___

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman and Katherine Shrader contributed to this report.
____________________________________________________

Working against the law: that's our George.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 02:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners," they wrote."

Well, it's just utter bullsh*t that Bush has proposed physical torture be part of any interrogation technique used by US personnel.

But I now see where I went wrong. How could I not have seen it sooner?

Imagine, as the situation is now, Islamic terrorists who capture US service personnel merely behead them then mutilate their corpses.

Imagine how pi$sed terrorists will be if Congress fails to pass the Terrorist Protection Act, McCain, Graham and Warner favor.

Instead of the humane treatment terrorists give captured US military personnel now, God only knows what barbaric treatment they might resort to.

Postscript:

Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Chuck Hagel can forget about ever sitting in the Oval Office of the White House as President of the United States.

IP: Logged

Planet_Soul
unregistered
posted September 14, 2006 02:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
~Neither are international terrorists captured in the act of fighting or plotting terrorist operations against US or coalition forces or other nations..."prisoners of war". That status is reserved for uniformed military personnel fighting in the service of their country who are captured on the battlefield.~


Thanks for the clairification of the term. I had falsely confused the term to refer to any person (presumed terrorist or otherwise) captured/detained during wartime. P.S. I agree with you that terrorist are indeed cowards.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 03:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"the term (prisoner of war) to refer to any person (presumed terrorist or otherwise) captured/detained during wartime."

Planet, your definition for "prisoner of war" is accepted by the vast majority of people and were it not for the legalistic language found in numerous Conventions the US signed on to, it would be mine too..except in the case of terrorists who are not in uniform, not fighting in the service of any nation, not fighting in their own country and who are themselves committing war crimes as defined in some of those same Conventions.

In fact, the US Supreme Court recently elevated these out of uniform, out of their nation terrorists to the status of "prisoners of war" by mangling Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 03:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
jwhop,

Don't you find it maddening that the lefties here and in the Congress that support a terrorst protection act, are the same one that never seem to shed a tear over the torture and beheading done to our Soldiers at the hands of terrorists?

In fact, so many Leftest Terrorist sympathizers seem to regard the practice of "the underwear on head and leash around neck treatment" as some how more brutal than the "Physical torture, beheading and cutting off of ones genitals and then stuffed into ones mouth" that is routinely done to our Soldiers captured by the Terrorists.

Underwear on head - No head........


I am thinking many would perfer the former and terrorists must be loving our traitor congressional leaders. I cannot stand McCain and I am ashamed to be an Arizonan right now.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 04:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Your point is well taken Pid. The words coming out of leftist congressional members mouths are music to terrorist ears. They are after all the very same rhetoric the terrorists use in their own propaganda.

It's telling in the extreme that leftist congressional members never seem to get around to condemning terrorists or their actions. They reserve their bilge and bile for the United States military.

It's also telling that leftists here don't have and haven't had a word of discouragement for Saddam, for the terrorists, terrorist regimes like Iran, Kim Jong Il, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad et. al. They reserve their bilge and bile for the United States, the US military and the Bush administration who are protecting leftists along with everyone else.

There is something about John McCain which just doesn't ring true. He's always seemed like a constructed personality to me. On the other hand, he is a true military hero who spent years of torture in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.

BTW, Viet Nam is and was a signatory of the Geneva Conventions when John McCain and other US POW's were being subjected to daily physical and psychological torture there...along with being fed a starvation diet.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 05:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Perhaps Colin Powell could give some perspective:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/14/politics/main2010515.shtml

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 05:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I suppose Colin Powell is entitled to his perspective. I have no faith in Colin Powell nor do I respect 90% of what the man says.

But hey AG, thanks for reposting what was already posted by Planet Soul. I suppose you did that because we may not have comprehended that the comments quoted by Colin Powell were really from Colin Powell.


"Powell sent a letter to Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., one of the rebellious lawmakers seeking limits to legislation on interrogations, in the latest sign of GOP division over White House security.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

------------------
The democratic world believes that it is not the terrorists that are to blame, but us. Us, the westerners.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the sooner you eliminate this misconception from your minds, the better.
We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life. They are, pure and simPle, EVIL!!!!! Behind all their political manipulations, if you carefully look at the actions of these MONSTERS, they are EVIL!!


http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000489.htm

Provided by the lovely Lady Lioneye :)

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2006 05:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"On the other hand, he is a true military hero who spent years of torture in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp."


That is true jwhop and I respect his sacrifice for our Country and what he did in Vietnam. No one can take that away from him and although I have not liked his politics for quite awhile, I still respect his background.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted September 14, 2006 10:21 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bush was defeated today. Not by the "lefties" as they could not have done it alone in a majority Republican Congress, but also by Republican moderates in Congress.

This is a breaking news story:

WASHINGTON -- A rebellious Senate committee defied President George W. Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over terrorism and national security in the middle of an election season.

Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, normally a Bush supporter, pushed the measure through his Armed Services Committee by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.

Earlier in the day, Bush had journeyed to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation.

"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House.

The president's measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting U.S. interrogators against prosecution for using methods that violate the Geneva Conventions.

The internal GOP struggle intensified along other fronts, too, as Colin Powell, Bush's first secretary of state, declared his opposition to the president's plan.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a letter.


Powell said that Bush's bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, "would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Firing back, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Powell was confused about the White House plan. Later, Snow said he probably shouldn't have used that word.

"I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists too," he said.

Countering Powell's letter, the administration produced one from the current secretary of state to Warner. In it, Condoleezza Rice wrote that narrowing the standards for detainee treatment as Bush has proposed "would add meaningful definition and clarification to vague terms in the treaties."

In the committee vote, Warner was supported by GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. Warner, McCain and Graham had been the most active senators opposing Bush's plan. The vote by the moderate Collins underscored that there might be broad enough GOP support to successfully take on Bush on the floor of the Republican-run Senate.

As the battle mushrooms, it threatens to undermine campaign season assertions by the administration that it has shown a steady hand on security matters and that Republicans should be trusted over Democrats on such issues.

Amplifying Bush's threat to block the committee's plan, White House spokesman Snow said, "The president will not accept something that shuts the program down" for interrogating detainees. His comments came a day after National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told reporters that the Senate plan would be likely to end the CIA interrogation and detention program.

Bush still has many congressional allies, including House and Senate leaders and conservatives who want to align themselves with the president's tough stance on interrogation and prosecution.

McCain, a leader on the issue of treatment of detainees, spent more than five years as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. Last year, he overcame Bush's objections to pass legislation banning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees.

Leaving his closed-door meeting with the House GOP caucus, Bush said he would "continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation." He complimented a House bill but did not mention the Senate version.

"I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland," he said. Bush was accompanied by Vice President Dick Cheney and White House political adviser Karl Rove.

The White House also released a letter to lawmakers signed by the military's top uniformed lawyers. Saying they wanted to clarify past testimony on Capitol Hill in which they opposed the administration's plan, the lawyers wrote that they "do not object" to sections of Bush's proposal for the treatment of detainees.

Two congressional aides who favor McCain's plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the Pentagon's general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Bush's plan.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Asked if Haynes had encouraged them to write the letter, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "Not that I'm aware of."

Another bill Bush is pushing would give legal status to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It was approved on a party-line vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, but is stalled in the House amid opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned that the program violates civil liberties.


Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 15, 2006 09:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The three amigos, Warner, Graham and McCain are shining examples of the "peter principle" in action. They have risen to the level of their incompetency. It is wishful thinking for anyone to believe Republicans would accept any one of them as a nominee for President.

As for Colin Powell, he has known from the beginning who leaked the name Valerie Plame and her CIA job to Robert Novak. Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, who was the leaker..and no friend of Bush or the Bush administration in the prosecution of the Iraq War, set on their a$ses for the better part of 3 years while the leftist press and leftists in Congress took potshots at the Bush administration for outing a so called covert CIA operative. They set on their as$es while the congenital liar Joe Wilson was making speeches about "frog marching" Karl Rove out of the White House in handcuffs and they never uttered a peep in defense of the truth.

They are both..Colin Powell and Richard Armitage...guilty of the same mindset which would permit innocent people to be executed for something they didn't do while they, knowing the truth of their innocence, stood by silently...and one of them was the guilty party.

The Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair was a leftist press and leftist democrat lynching of Bush administration officials in every way and these two moral midgets stood by silently. Not only did they stand by silently, they didn't even tell their boss, Bush, the President of the United States so he could fight off the false charges against his administration and administration officials.

They are finished in Republican circles and the only place they could or would be accepted is among the utterly corrupt democrat left...and by the way, you're welcome to them.

More than enough stupid to go around
Posted: September 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Hal Lindsey


The other day, the Pentagon released a video of a group of top Taliban officials, (approximately 190 of them) packed together so tightly that the whole group fit into the Predator drone's gun-sight targeting box.

One would expect the next frame to show the explosion from the bomb that the Predator dropped on such a tempting target.

After all, the Taliban are the declared enemy of the United States, and they were targeted in a war zone. But all the film showed was the target. The Predator left them untouched.

What in the world was the problem? Was the drone unarmed? Had it already expended its ordnance? No. The cadre of top Taliban officials and fighters were attending a funeral.

The U.S. rules of engagement, inexplicably, declare funerals off-limits to attack. I wish I were kidding.

"During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of a cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day," a coalition spokesperson told reporters.

"A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time."

Even though U.S. military officials in Afghanistan had positively identified those gathered as Taliban fighters, including some "high-level Taliban leaders," they told news organizations they "have no regrets" in refusing to authorize the attack.

According to U.S. rules of engagement, every airstrike must first be approved by the regional Combined Air Operations Center. Depending on the value of the target, the decision keeps getting bumped upstairs until a general officer gives the go-ahead.

By which time, the target often is no longer there. But in this case, when the decision not to fire was handed down, all 190 Taliban fighters were still lined up in formation.

First off, how ridiculous is this? It isn't like the enemy would hold his fire out of respect for a fallen enemy. Indeed, funeral processions are among the Islamo-facists favorite targets.

Last week, a Taliban suicide bomber attacked the funeral of provincial Gov. Abdul Hakim Taniwal in the eastern Khost province. They killed six and wounded 25. Most of the victims were civilians. (The Taliban evidently wanted to kill the governor twice.)

Secondly, having such a ridiculous policy is one thing. Telling the enemy that funeral processions are immune from attack is like giving them a "get out of danger free" card. In the event a threat is spotted, all they need to do is scramble to the nearest cemetery. Not to worry. It gets dumber.

In Congress, Republican lawmakers, fearing for their seats, broke ranks with the administration and, with Colin Powell leading the charge, voted essentially to grant enemy combatants the protections afforded uniformed combatants under the Geneva Conventions.

But wait! There's more! Sens. John Warner, Lindsey Graham and John McCain explained that failing to afford enemy combatants full Geneva protection could "adversely affect enemies' treatment of captured U.S. service members."

There are no living U.S. service members being held by the enemy. Not because none have been captured, but because those who were captured were immediately murdered!

Most U.S. service members with whom I have spoken say they save one bullet for themselves in the event of potential capture. So what is going on here?

Former Gen. Colin Powell explains: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." I couldn't believe my ears – and this from a (formerly) highly respected general.

If the murders of 3,000 innocent civilians are an insufficient moral basis for the fight against terrorism, then there is no moral basis for any military action. America might as well surrender as allow world opinion to dictate the terms of U.S. security. Am I missing something?

Such political cowardice must have Osama bin Laden splitting his sides with laughter. He has always made it clear that he considers the United States to be governed by craven cowards. He can now add the modifier "incredibly stupid" for emphasis.

The only ones happier than Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are the liberals to whom anything is fair game if it will result in an overthrow of Republican control in the House. U.S. security is secondary. The deaths of young Americans in harm's way is of even less impact.

They aren't the ones who face the families of the dead; the commander in chief is. They aren't the ones who are responsible for winning the war; the commander in chief is.

The more dead servicemen that come home in flag-draped coffins, the better it is for them politically. The more they can encourage the enemy to stay the course because America will lose its will to fight, the better it is for them politically.

The more they can emasculate our forces in the field, the more they can weaken our resolve, the better it is for them politically.

Graham, McCain, Warner and Powell aren't Democrats. They are Republicans. It just goes to show there is more than enough liberal stupidity to go around.

When will we realize that the rules only apply to us? They clearly don't apply to them. How can you win a war without recognizing the true nature of the enemy?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51991

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 15, 2006 11:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All leftists should enjoy the title of the following article..."The path to American defeat". Leftists have worked tirelessly since the 1930's to defeat America and they're still at it attempting to hand a victory to terrorists and terrorist regimes they can't win on the battlefields. Vietnam was their shining moment in the sun and one they're trying to recreate in the present.

The path to American defeat
Posted: September 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


Melanie Morgan

ABC's heatedly debated miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," was the first time a mainstream media outlet told part of the story concerning eight years of failures by the Clinton administration in taking the war against Islamic terrorism seriously.

It's a story that demanded to be told.

Eight years of dangerous miscalculations by the Clinton administration (with a leg-up from Jimmy Carter's disastrous foreign policy in Iran) allowed Islamic extremists to develop terrorist networks powerful enough to hold a number of Middle Eastern governments captive to their extremist and bloodthirsty ideology.

But there's also a story to be told about more recent actions by Bush administration officials trusted with America's security interests who have unwittingly set back our nation's effort to fight terrorism.

Call it "The Path to American Defeat," because defeat is what we will face if the course these wrong-headed people have tried to set for our nation is not quickly reversed.

Playing killer politics

Concerned about their legacy of having failed Americans at our nation's most critical juncture, the alumni of former frat boys and blue-dress wearing sorority sisters that once occupied the Clinton administration have gone to great lengths to keep the media silent about their mistakes in combating Islamic terrorism.

The frenzied campaign against ABC to squash "The Path to 9/11" was unprecedented for a former president and his advisers. Of course, it was also far more dignified than their previous attempt to hide the truth.

You remember that unforgettable image of former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents from the National Archives down his pants and socks? The materials apparently incriminated the Clinton administration for failing to take action against al-Qaida and the terrorist threat.

Berger was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and relinquish his security clearance for three years in addition to a sentence of two years probation for his criminal conduct. But that seems like small solace for the victims of Islamic terrorism who suffered as a result of the failures of President Clinton, Berger, Madeleine Albright and others.

What's tragic is that the real culprit for the failures in the Clinton administration was a culture consumed by politics. Call it killer politics, because the consequences for thousands of Americans has been lethal.

President Clinton, his wife and all those they hired were driven by a thirst for political power and a desire to obtain adoration of the public.

It was more important to pursue Dick Morris' triangulation on tricky issues, or manage an effective damage control effort against Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp, than it was to pursue Islamic terrorists half a world away. The former had an impact on the president's poll numbers, the latter seemed to the officials of the Clinton administration to be an unnecessary distraction.

The failed policies of appeasement

"The Path to 9/11" helped to underscore the fact that the danger we faced as a country was not just the external threat from the terrorists. There were threats from within, people unwilling to act or worse, obstructionist, when it came to taking action to counter the terrorist threat.

But such failings have not been limited to the Clinton years.

Recently, a handful of players within the Bush administration have acted aggressively to advance a more modest and moderate response by the United States to the terrorist threat. Men like former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the now disgraced former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (Powell's No. 2 man).

This week, Colin Powell continued to do in the private sector what he did while serving in the public sector: undermine the Bush administration's war against Islamic jihadism.

In a letter to U.S. Sen. John McCain, Powell announced that he was opposed to Bush's anti-terrorism legislation now before Congress. "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell wrote.

Well, at least Powell was honest, because in that one sentence he reveals what it is that differentiates Bush's tough fight against terrorism (similar to Reagan's unapologetic hard line against communism) and the go-along, get-along appeasers of the Clinton administration and the recent Powell-Armitage network in the Bush administration.

In a recent interview with the Atlantic Monthly, Powell struggled to identify who it was that was responsible for all the terrorist attacks that have taken place around the globe for the past two decades:


There's no longer just the United States versus the Soviet Union, but the whole West and international community against the whole whatever-you-want-to-call-it. And so in my job especially – and I'm considered the multilateralist – multilateralism means finding areas of compromise.

The "whatever-you-want-to-call-it," Mr. Powell, is Islamic jihadism. The terrorists have made it clear in every video they've ever delivered to Al-Jazeera or letter to the editor they've sent to the New York Times. The fact that you served as America's secretary of state and you can't figure it out, should worry all Americans.

One guy who can figure things like this out is John Bolton, the proudly patriotic and unapologetically pro-American ambassador to the U.N. When Bolton was first tapped by Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, it was Colin Powell who emerged as a leader in the effort to derail the nomination.

In April 2005, Powell called Republican senators Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hagel and lobbied them to oppose Bolton's nomination.

Powell thought Bolton was too much an advocate for American interests and that this might offend other nations at the U.N. who want to see American interests suffer.

Heaven forbid if we should offend Sudan on human rights or Iran on nuclear proliferation issues!

One of Powell's allies at the State Department, Carl Ford, went up to testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about how awful John Bolton was and why they should reject his nomination, saying Bolton was "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy."

Ford made headlines again recently, when former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage explained that he had confided to Ford about the fact that it was he, not Karl Rove or Dick Cheney or Scooter Libby, who had leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak.

Ford and Armitage sat silently for months, watching as the news media, Democratic politicians and anti-war activists waged war against the Bush administration.

One can only imagine the satisfaction they must have felt watching all those that they despised for being "war hawks" trashed every day on television, radio and in newsprint. Their private war against the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy was taken to a new low.

No more Mr. Nice Guy, we're at war

President Bush's instincts are to be gracious and extend his friendship to his enemies. That kindness and desire to reach out to those who dislike him is bad enough when it means working with Ted Kennedy on new education bureaucracies or passing measures like the prescription drug plan.

But in the case of the war on terrorism, tolerating weak sisters in his administration is putting American security in jeopardy.

President Bush has two years left to accomplish some very important jobs. The first and foremost is national security, and right now, in Congress, the same Foggy Bottom crowd and "Blame America First" supporters are stalling new legislation to define anti-terrorist detention and surveillance programs.

But Bush could also help advance the war on terrorism by conducting a purge in his administration of the remnants of the Colin Powell-Richard Armitage-Richard Clarke crowd.

Instead of trying to be liked by your enemies, it's time Bush and his closest advisers realized that when you are at war, you only win when you defeat them.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51984

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 15, 2006 02:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm amazed at the quickness with which you denounce your own people Jwhop. I think you've made clear that you have absolutely no room to talk about democrats and Joe Lieberman. Colin Powell has always been a Republican favorite, and was widely desired as a Presidential candidate himself over the years. Given his experience I'd think you'd give a little credence to his opinion. I don't consider you to be capable of having a better understanding of the military or war than he does.

I'm sure we Democrats would love to have him. Why not secure yet another person with an independent mind who can think for himself? It's a shame that those of us who do so are the enemy of our own countrymen.

Colin probably likes Eisenhower like me: http://eisenhowerfellowships.org/news/newsarchive/05/0905.html

quote:

Eisenhower Fellowships is pleased to announce that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will become Eisenhower Fellowships’ 8th Chairman of the Board. Secretary Powell will succeed Dr. Henry Kissinger in late May 2006. Secretary Powell is a former board member of Eisenhower Fellowships and the 1999 recipient of the organization’s highest honor, the Eisenhower Medal for Leadership and Service.

Commenting on Secretary Powell’s appointment, Dr. Kissinger noted: “I have known Colin Powell for over two decades, during which time he has carried the responsibilities of leadership with President Eisenhower’s qualities of statesmanship, resolve, and humanity. I am delighted that he has agreed to succeed me in the leadership of Eisenhower Fellowships, a strong organization with a direct and growing impact on the international dialogue, understanding, and collaboration that can make ours a more prosperous, just and peaceful world.”


So just how far to the Right of where the Right was previously are you guys going to go?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 15, 2006 03:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Where did you acquire your erroneous information that Colin Powell is a Republican acoustic?

The problem with leftists is that today's crop would consider Karl Marx a moderate.

Joe Lieberman is a true American liberal acoustic. As a true American liberal..and patriot, Joe Lieberman is totally unacceptable to the radical extremist democrat party which moved heaven and earth to expel Lieberman from the democrat party.

It is humorous indeed to see far left radicals describe themselves as liberals...or middle of the road moderates.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 15, 2006 05:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Avoiding acknowledging throwing people from your own party under the bus, huh?

I've never had a problem with Joe Lieberman, nor do I now.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 15, 2006 05:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Are you going to try to prove that it's erroneous to call Colin Powell a Republican? That would be interesting. It's amazing to see you outright reject a moderate from your own party. Seems to be happening more and more with you lately. It's really difficult to sit here and watch someone who's radical and fanatical himself project that on to everyone else. Is there no introspection with you at all?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 17, 2006 12:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You're the one who declared Colin Powell a Republican acoustic.

So, how about answering my question?

"Where did you acquire your erroneous information that Colin Powell is a Republican"

Or, did you think I didn't notice your attempt to skate around the question?

In fact, where did you acquire your information that Colin Powell is a "Republican favorite"?

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2006 07:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
AG says

"Avoiding acknowledging throwing people from your own party under the bus, huh?"


"Our" own people as in Republican's? Sorry AG, unlike the rabid left, when we see someone or some people mis-representing the Republican Party we call them out on it. We feel that we are allowed to voice our opinion and get rid of those that cannot be a true representative of their constituents.

Liberal, on the other hand, will back anyone that has the word "Liberal or Democrat" before their name. Hell, you back all back Senatory Byrd the former KKK idiot - yet you chastized Trent Lott.

Republicans question -Liberals just jerk their knee


IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted September 20, 2006 08:16 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
My fellow Americans, my fellow Republicans. I am honored to be with you this evening.-- August 12, 1996 General Colin Powell speaks at the GOP national convention
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/floor_speeches/powell.html



quote:
We Republicans believe that the family, fueled by values, must be restored to a central place in American life if we are to keep the dream alive! ---Colin Powell


IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted September 20, 2006 08:21 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
heres where jwhop demands a photocopy of colin powells current voter registration card...

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2006 08:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So what you're saying Petron is that someone that identifies themselves as belong to one party or the other has to be 100% honest about their affiliation and everything it stands for?

That's pretty funny if you think about it. Anyone can "claim" to be a part of "group" but not represent the groups mission, beliefs or ideals. To my knowledge we cannot excommunicate someone from the Republican party. We can however, call them out for what they are (or aren't) and not vote for them should the run for office.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted September 20, 2006 10:07 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
no pidaua what i'm saying is that if someone is repeatedly asked to speak at the gop national conventions its generally because the republican leadership considers that person to be "one of them"

but i'm sure you would consider powell a leftist =P

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a