Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
we're all victims... awwww... poor widdle persecuted cwistians.
You have the House, the Senate, the presidency and soon the Supreme Court yet you still portray yourselves as the oppressed underclass.
How fucking ridiculous can you be?
QUOTE
‘Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offense under the law of the United States. No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. US law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a ‘state of public emergency’) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension.’ (Report of the United States to the UN Committee against Torture, October 15, 1999, UN Doc. CAT/C/28/Add.5, February 9, 2000, para. 6.)
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32438.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32438.pdf
QUOTE
Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States.
"They're not in the US, AKA, Fuck off."
White House to 'hit back' at Democrats
Aides plan aggressive response to claims intelligence misused
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top White House officials say they're developing a "campaign-style" strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make its case for war.
White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their "hit back" in coming days.
The officials say they plan to repeatedly make the point -- as they did during the 2004 campaign -- that pre-war intelligence was faulty, it was not manipulated and everyone was working off the same intelligence.
They hope to arm GOP officials with more quotes by Democrats making the same pre-war claims as Republicans did about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Democrats have pointed at declassified information they say shows the White House was "deceptive" in pre-war statements.
Telegraphing the beginning of a communications effort is a tactic the Bush team has used in the past, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The examination into the intelligence used to justify invading Iraq has intensified on the heels of the October 28 indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who resigned the day he was indicted. (Full story)
Libby has been charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to federal agents investigating who revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. The agent's name was leaked to reporters after her husband publicly challenged a key element of the administration's case for war. (Wolf Blitzer interviews Plame's husband)
White House officials are determined to reverse President Bush's poor poll showings on the topics of Iraq and "honesty and trustworthiness."
The White House has been on the defensive about whether Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in publicly identifying Plame. (Poll: Few doubt wrongdoing in CIA leak case)
The White House is trying to coordinate a response from administration officials to congressional Republicans.
Republicans on Capitol Hill who have criticized the White House for failing to coordinate responses to a host of issues say Bush aides are working noticeably harder to set up meetings and conference calls to arrange a widespread response.
Aside from regular White House briefings, it is unclear which administration officials will participate in this "aggressive" response, which senior officials indicate will be unveiled in interviews and other public events.
It also is uncertain how much the president will be involved in the information campaign aside from "responding appropriately when asked," a third senior official said.
One senior official said Cheney would not participate in the White House response, despite that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has accused the vice president of being a key offender in manipulating intelligence.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/08/Bus...ates/index.html
Aides plan aggressive response to claims intelligence misused
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top White House officials say they're developing a "campaign-style" strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make its case for war.
White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their "hit back" in coming days.
The officials say they plan to repeatedly make the point -- as they did during the 2004 campaign -- that pre-war intelligence was faulty, it was not manipulated and everyone was working off the same intelligence.
They hope to arm GOP officials with more quotes by Democrats making the same pre-war claims as Republicans did about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Democrats have pointed at declassified information they say shows the White House was "deceptive" in pre-war statements.
Telegraphing the beginning of a communications effort is a tactic the Bush team has used in the past, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The examination into the intelligence used to justify invading Iraq has intensified on the heels of the October 28 indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who resigned the day he was indicted. (Full story)
Libby has been charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to federal agents investigating who revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. The agent's name was leaked to reporters after her husband publicly challenged a key element of the administration's case for war. (Wolf Blitzer interviews Plame's husband)
White House officials are determined to reverse President Bush's poor poll showings on the topics of Iraq and "honesty and trustworthiness."
The White House has been on the defensive about whether Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in publicly identifying Plame. (Poll: Few doubt wrongdoing in CIA leak case)
The White House is trying to coordinate a response from administration officials to congressional Republicans.
Republicans on Capitol Hill who have criticized the White House for failing to coordinate responses to a host of issues say Bush aides are working noticeably harder to set up meetings and conference calls to arrange a widespread response.
Aside from regular White House briefings, it is unclear which administration officials will participate in this "aggressive" response, which senior officials indicate will be unveiled in interviews and other public events.
It also is uncertain how much the president will be involved in the information campaign aside from "responding appropriately when asked," a third senior official said.
One senior official said Cheney would not participate in the White House response, despite that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has accused the vice president of being a key offender in manipulating intelligence.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/08/Bus...ates/index.html
QUOTE
(November 07, 2005 -- 10:13 PM EDT)
It seems the president's defenders have fallen back on what has always been their argument of last resort -- cherry-picked quotes from Clinton administration officials arranged to give the misleading impression that the Clintonites said and thought the same thing about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as the Bushies did.
Not true.
But even arguing on this ground understates the full measure of administration mendacity in the lead up to the war since it ignores half the story. WMD was only half the administration equation for war. The other half was Iraq's alleged ties to Islamist terrorist groups like al Qaida and including al Qaida. On top of that, of course, was the big enchilada, the Cheney favorite, those frequent and intentionally ambiguous suggestions that Saddam Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
The administration has always been able to fall back upon the fact that as much as they hyped and exaggerated the evidence of Iraqi WMD, the folks in the intelligence community made plenty of mistakes on their own.
But the claims about Iraqi ties to al Qaida were always USDA-approved Grade-A crap.
That's where the most blatant political pressure on analysts happened. And that's where Doug Feith's operation at the Pentagon and its pipeline to Vice President Cheney's Office played their most nefarious role "stovepiping" nonsense about a grand Osama-Saddam axis.
Yet, that story has not gotten much of any scrutiny or investigation.
Whether it was lies or just reckless disregard for the truth. They should be held accountable.
-- Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006945.php
It seems the president's defenders have fallen back on what has always been their argument of last resort -- cherry-picked quotes from Clinton administration officials arranged to give the misleading impression that the Clintonites said and thought the same thing about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as the Bushies did.
Not true.
But even arguing on this ground understates the full measure of administration mendacity in the lead up to the war since it ignores half the story. WMD was only half the administration equation for war. The other half was Iraq's alleged ties to Islamist terrorist groups like al Qaida and including al Qaida. On top of that, of course, was the big enchilada, the Cheney favorite, those frequent and intentionally ambiguous suggestions that Saddam Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
The administration has always been able to fall back upon the fact that as much as they hyped and exaggerated the evidence of Iraqi WMD, the folks in the intelligence community made plenty of mistakes on their own.
But the claims about Iraqi ties to al Qaida were always USDA-approved Grade-A crap.
That's where the most blatant political pressure on analysts happened. And that's where Doug Feith's operation at the Pentagon and its pipeline to Vice President Cheney's Office played their most nefarious role "stovepiping" nonsense about a grand Osama-Saddam axis.
Yet, that story has not gotten much of any scrutiny or investigation.
Whether it was lies or just reckless disregard for the truth. They should be held accountable.
-- Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006945.php
Indeed. What about the complete and total fabrications about the Sadaam/Osama ties. Maybe Cheney need's yo have his lying ass hauled in front of Congress (under oath) to explain that bunch of malarky.
Make a tape. Hook all the times Bush morphed Hussein into Bin Laden. You'd have a Ben Hur, Titanic length film. Of a liar.
Thanks.
and lauds to Steve King on the floor of the House now. Q.
and lauds to Steve King on the floor of the House now. Q.
c cil is that u?
Steve King of Iowa decalres he has not solved all the worlds Problems.
QUOTE(roserose @ Nov 9 2005, 10:51 PM)
Steve King of Iowa decalres he has not solved all the worlds Problems.
[right][snapback]148895[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]148895[/snapback][/right]
Very forthright, that.
whilst simultaneously utterly devoid of value.
Union-Buster Nancy Pelosi
Jim Meyers, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Nov. 10, 2005
A blockbuster NewsMax Magazine story by best-selling author Peter Schweizer exposes how Democratic leaders passionately fight for liberal policies, but go to great lengths to avoid applying those policies in their personal lives.
Hoover Fellow Schweizer bases his blistering report on his new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," which has reached both the No. 1 spot on Amazon.com's list of best-selling nonfiction books and the coveted New York Times list its first week out
In his book and NewsMax Magazine's special report Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Barbra Streisand, Hillary Clinton and George Soros. And in his NewsMax Magazine cover story, he especially details the hypocrisy of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
The California Democrat claims to be a staunch union supporter, and along with her husband has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers union.
Unions are, in her words, "fighting for America's working families" and battling "the union-busting, family-hurting" Bush administration. But Schweizer has uncovered that the $25 million Northern California vineyard the Pelosis own is a non-union shop!
Schweizer writes: "Welcome to Hypocrisy Central."
But Pelosi's hypocrisy doesn't stop there.
The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles.
But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif.
The hotel has more than 250 employees, but once again, Schweizer found, it is strictly a non-union shop.
The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees.
"But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests or preparing food," Schweizer writes in NewsMax Magazine.
"As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis' commitment to organized labor ends at the front door." Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment.
"With us," she proclaims, "the environment is not an issue – it's an ethic. It's a value."
That's what she says. Schweizer uncovered what she does: One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif.
To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a "public course" providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage.
But after the facility opened, the county's Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private – and the club had "ignored" many of its permit requirements concerning the environment.
What's more, the course was causing a drawdown in the freshwater aquifer, which could have serious implications for wildlife in the area. So much for worrying about the environment.
Schweizer also reveals that another "environmentalist" named Ted Kennedy can be two-faced when it comes to helping mother earth.
Kennedy has recently charged that Republicans have "poisoned our air and water" by repealing environmental protection laws.
But when it came to protecting the environment in Massachusetts, Teddy tried to torpedo a plan to erect dozens of wind turbines off the coast of Massachusetts to provide clean alternative energy to Cape Cod.
Apparently Teddy went ballistic when he found out that some some of the turbines would be placed near his favorite sailing spot just off Hyannis Port.
Schweizer's bombshell NewsMax Magazine report also details how Ted Kennedy, who has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters, has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS.
One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S. – but in Fiji. "The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes," says Schweizer.
"They like to condemn ordinary Americans and Republicans for a whole host of things – racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the environment, and greed.
"But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../9/205510.shtml
Jim Meyers, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Nov. 10, 2005
A blockbuster NewsMax Magazine story by best-selling author Peter Schweizer exposes how Democratic leaders passionately fight for liberal policies, but go to great lengths to avoid applying those policies in their personal lives.
Hoover Fellow Schweizer bases his blistering report on his new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," which has reached both the No. 1 spot on Amazon.com's list of best-selling nonfiction books and the coveted New York Times list its first week out
In his book and NewsMax Magazine's special report Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Barbra Streisand, Hillary Clinton and George Soros. And in his NewsMax Magazine cover story, he especially details the hypocrisy of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
The California Democrat claims to be a staunch union supporter, and along with her husband has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers union.
Unions are, in her words, "fighting for America's working families" and battling "the union-busting, family-hurting" Bush administration. But Schweizer has uncovered that the $25 million Northern California vineyard the Pelosis own is a non-union shop!
Schweizer writes: "Welcome to Hypocrisy Central."
But Pelosi's hypocrisy doesn't stop there.
The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles.
But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif.
The hotel has more than 250 employees, but once again, Schweizer found, it is strictly a non-union shop.
The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees.
"But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests or preparing food," Schweizer writes in NewsMax Magazine.
"As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis' commitment to organized labor ends at the front door." Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment.
"With us," she proclaims, "the environment is not an issue – it's an ethic. It's a value."
That's what she says. Schweizer uncovered what she does: One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif.
To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a "public course" providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage.
But after the facility opened, the county's Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private – and the club had "ignored" many of its permit requirements concerning the environment.
What's more, the course was causing a drawdown in the freshwater aquifer, which could have serious implications for wildlife in the area. So much for worrying about the environment.
Schweizer also reveals that another "environmentalist" named Ted Kennedy can be two-faced when it comes to helping mother earth.
Kennedy has recently charged that Republicans have "poisoned our air and water" by repealing environmental protection laws.
But when it came to protecting the environment in Massachusetts, Teddy tried to torpedo a plan to erect dozens of wind turbines off the coast of Massachusetts to provide clean alternative energy to Cape Cod.
Apparently Teddy went ballistic when he found out that some some of the turbines would be placed near his favorite sailing spot just off Hyannis Port.
Schweizer's bombshell NewsMax Magazine report also details how Ted Kennedy, who has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters, has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS.
One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S. – but in Fiji. "The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes," says Schweizer.
"They like to condemn ordinary Americans and Republicans for a whole host of things – racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the environment, and greed.
"But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../9/205510.shtml
Typical. Then they're all over here bitching about hypocrisy.
Pelosi is a scab.
Rice Defends U.S. Treatment of Detainees
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer Thu Nov 10, 2:18 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Amid rising debate over America's legal and moral obligations in the treatment of suspected or potential terrorists, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said the United States will always play by international rules.
The top U.S. diplomat was traveling Thursday to Middle Eastern nations where
President Bush is unpopular and the U.S. terror detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is shorthand for a foreign policy seen as discriminatory to Muslims.
"For the United States, an essential element of the rule of law has always been and still remains law among nations," Rice told an American Bar Association international law gathering Wednesday. "We have always respected our international legal obligations and we have led the world in developing new international law."
The first stop on Rice's trip is Bahrain, for an international meeting meant to promote democracy, development and accountable government in the Middle East. She has a full agenda in Saudi Arabia, which has been working to rebuild a network of political and economic contacts with the United States, a long-standing ally estranged by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Rice also will see Israeli and Palestinian leaders at a delicate moment. Neither side has heeded her advice to capitalize on
Israel's historic withdrawal of troops and settlers from the
Gaza Strip two months ago.
Headlines in Bahrain this week followed the homecoming of three men held at Guantanamo for nearly four years. "Free at Last!" proclaimed the English-language Gulf News. The three were picked up in Pakistan shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks and were never charged with a crime.
Three Bahrainis remain at the military prison, including one who has repeatedly attempted suicide. The Bahrain government said it will continue pressing U.S. officials for his release.
Bahrain is one of America's closest allies in the Gulf region and is home to the
U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. As in other small Gulf nations and in Saudi Arabia, close official ties with the United States coexist with widespread popular distaste for the United States and Bush policies.
A Saudi detainee was also released from Guantanamo this week, but scores remain. American lawyers representing Saudi detainees said in June that 124 Saudis were held there.
The treatment of the mostly Muslim prisoners picked up in the global fight against terrorism is largely an issue handled by the
Pentagon and the
CIA. But resentment over Guantanamo and abuses revealed at the
Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq complicate Rice's diplomatic agenda.
"When Americans violate the law, whether in our country or in foreign lands, we do and we should hold them accountable for their crimes as we saw ... after the horrific events that sickened us all at Abu Ghraib," Rice said Wednesday.
"The virtue of the rule of law is not that it erases all human imperfection but that it upholds a standard of justice that enables democratic societies to improve themselves over time."
Rice has been advocating behind the scenes for modulating the administration's message on torture and detainee treatment, but in her only public remarks on the topic this week, Rice said the United States is in a "different kind of war."
"We, our allies, others who have experienced attacks, have to find a way to protect our people," Rice said Tuesday after releasing a report critical of religious intolerance in Saudi Arabia. The administration protected itself "within the constraint of the Constitution and cognizant of our values," she said.
Vice President
Dick Cheney has led a White House charge to exempt the CIA from a proposed national ban on torture and the administration has threatened a veto over the issue.
Senate Democrats are pressing for creation of an independent commission to investigate detainee abuse, and the
European Union is investigating news reports of secret CIA prisons in Europe. Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorism suspects appropriate.
"We do not torture," Bush said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rice
Kind of rings hollow.
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer Thu Nov 10, 2:18 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Amid rising debate over America's legal and moral obligations in the treatment of suspected or potential terrorists, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said the United States will always play by international rules.
The top U.S. diplomat was traveling Thursday to Middle Eastern nations where
President Bush is unpopular and the U.S. terror detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is shorthand for a foreign policy seen as discriminatory to Muslims.
"For the United States, an essential element of the rule of law has always been and still remains law among nations," Rice told an American Bar Association international law gathering Wednesday. "We have always respected our international legal obligations and we have led the world in developing new international law."
The first stop on Rice's trip is Bahrain, for an international meeting meant to promote democracy, development and accountable government in the Middle East. She has a full agenda in Saudi Arabia, which has been working to rebuild a network of political and economic contacts with the United States, a long-standing ally estranged by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Rice also will see Israeli and Palestinian leaders at a delicate moment. Neither side has heeded her advice to capitalize on
Israel's historic withdrawal of troops and settlers from the
Gaza Strip two months ago.
Headlines in Bahrain this week followed the homecoming of three men held at Guantanamo for nearly four years. "Free at Last!" proclaimed the English-language Gulf News. The three were picked up in Pakistan shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks and were never charged with a crime.
Three Bahrainis remain at the military prison, including one who has repeatedly attempted suicide. The Bahrain government said it will continue pressing U.S. officials for his release.
Bahrain is one of America's closest allies in the Gulf region and is home to the
U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. As in other small Gulf nations and in Saudi Arabia, close official ties with the United States coexist with widespread popular distaste for the United States and Bush policies.
A Saudi detainee was also released from Guantanamo this week, but scores remain. American lawyers representing Saudi detainees said in June that 124 Saudis were held there.
The treatment of the mostly Muslim prisoners picked up in the global fight against terrorism is largely an issue handled by the
Pentagon and the
CIA. But resentment over Guantanamo and abuses revealed at the
Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq complicate Rice's diplomatic agenda.
"When Americans violate the law, whether in our country or in foreign lands, we do and we should hold them accountable for their crimes as we saw ... after the horrific events that sickened us all at Abu Ghraib," Rice said Wednesday.
"The virtue of the rule of law is not that it erases all human imperfection but that it upholds a standard of justice that enables democratic societies to improve themselves over time."
Rice has been advocating behind the scenes for modulating the administration's message on torture and detainee treatment, but in her only public remarks on the topic this week, Rice said the United States is in a "different kind of war."
"We, our allies, others who have experienced attacks, have to find a way to protect our people," Rice said Tuesday after releasing a report critical of religious intolerance in Saudi Arabia. The administration protected itself "within the constraint of the Constitution and cognizant of our values," she said.
Vice President
Dick Cheney has led a White House charge to exempt the CIA from a proposed national ban on torture and the administration has threatened a veto over the issue.
Senate Democrats are pressing for creation of an independent commission to investigate detainee abuse, and the
European Union is investigating news reports of secret CIA prisons in Europe. Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorism suspects appropriate.
"We do not torture," Bush said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rice
Kind of rings hollow.
repuslickans calling liburuls hypocrites. Thats rich!
And true.
yeaaaaah. Riiiiight.
It's not what they say... it's what they do.
This isn't about ethics but it's cute.
I live near Camden, but the biggest town close by with stores is Hillsdale, MI.
'Go-getter,' 18, ousts mayor in Michigan
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
Michael Sessions is too young to drink champagne legally, but the 18-year-old high school senior has reason to celebrate: He unofficially won a race for mayor Tuesday by defeating the baby boomer incumbent.
Michael Sessions, 18, attends school Wednesday in Hillsdale, Mich.
By David P. Gilkey, Detroit Free Press
Sessions, who turned 18 on Sept. 22, ran as a write-in candidate because he was too young to get on the ballot in the spring. The young politician used $700 from a summer job to fund his door-to-door campaign in Hillsdale, Mich., a town of about 9,000.
Unofficial results show that Sessions got 732 votes, compared with 668 for Mayor Doug Ingles, 51. Once his victory is certified and he's sworn in — the ceremony is set for Nov. 21 — he may be the youngest mayor in the USA. The U.S. Conference of Mayors lacks the data to determine whether he'll be the youngest mayor ever, says spokeswoman Elena Temple.
At least two other teens have been elected as mayors in recent years, but they were a tad older and represented much smaller towns. Jeffrey Dunkel was one month shy of 19 when he was sworn in as mayor of tiny Mount Carbon, Pa., in January 2002, and Chris Portman was 19 at his inauguration in Mercer, Pa., the same month.
"I've always been interested in politics," says Sessions, who registered to vote the day after his birthday and became a write-in candidate one day later. "It's certainly hard to be a write-in candidate," he says, adding that he drove around town Tuesday afternoon, nervous that people didn't know his name.
He says many voters told him they wanted "new energy," but he was still caught off-guard by the support he received.
"He was a real go-getter during his campaign," says Steven Brower, a government and economics teacher at Hillsdale High School. "He acted like he was running for president."
Brower, who gave his former student campaign tips, says he's thrilled: "There are too many kids today who laugh at government." He says Sessions, by carefully researching issues before taking a position, will serve responsibly in the largely ceremonial, four-year post.
The job comes with no office, no chair, no filing cabinet — not even a drawer, says incumbent Ingles. The mayor, who gets a $250 monthly stipend, casts one of nine votes on the City Council.
Ingles, who runs a roller-skating rink, says he's not upset by his loss. "It's an honor to serve. I'm proud of that," he says.
Dunkel says the toughest part of being a young mayor was getting people to take him seriously. After he proved he could do the job, by getting a police protection grant in his first year, he says residents came around. He won re-election this week.
Sessions says his parents were skeptical at first but are now "very supportive." He says he has no agenda but wants to meet everyone. "I'm trying to set up a board of advisers" that will include a former mayor and leaders from Hillsdale College, which he hopes to attend next fall.
Sessions plans to devote after-school hours to the job and use his bedroom as his office.
Nice kid.
I live near Camden, but the biggest town close by with stores is Hillsdale, MI.
'Go-getter,' 18, ousts mayor in Michigan
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
Michael Sessions is too young to drink champagne legally, but the 18-year-old high school senior has reason to celebrate: He unofficially won a race for mayor Tuesday by defeating the baby boomer incumbent.
Michael Sessions, 18, attends school Wednesday in Hillsdale, Mich.
By David P. Gilkey, Detroit Free Press
Sessions, who turned 18 on Sept. 22, ran as a write-in candidate because he was too young to get on the ballot in the spring. The young politician used $700 from a summer job to fund his door-to-door campaign in Hillsdale, Mich., a town of about 9,000.
Unofficial results show that Sessions got 732 votes, compared with 668 for Mayor Doug Ingles, 51. Once his victory is certified and he's sworn in — the ceremony is set for Nov. 21 — he may be the youngest mayor in the USA. The U.S. Conference of Mayors lacks the data to determine whether he'll be the youngest mayor ever, says spokeswoman Elena Temple.
At least two other teens have been elected as mayors in recent years, but they were a tad older and represented much smaller towns. Jeffrey Dunkel was one month shy of 19 when he was sworn in as mayor of tiny Mount Carbon, Pa., in January 2002, and Chris Portman was 19 at his inauguration in Mercer, Pa., the same month.
"I've always been interested in politics," says Sessions, who registered to vote the day after his birthday and became a write-in candidate one day later. "It's certainly hard to be a write-in candidate," he says, adding that he drove around town Tuesday afternoon, nervous that people didn't know his name.
He says many voters told him they wanted "new energy," but he was still caught off-guard by the support he received.
"He was a real go-getter during his campaign," says Steven Brower, a government and economics teacher at Hillsdale High School. "He acted like he was running for president."
Brower, who gave his former student campaign tips, says he's thrilled: "There are too many kids today who laugh at government." He says Sessions, by carefully researching issues before taking a position, will serve responsibly in the largely ceremonial, four-year post.
The job comes with no office, no chair, no filing cabinet — not even a drawer, says incumbent Ingles. The mayor, who gets a $250 monthly stipend, casts one of nine votes on the City Council.
Ingles, who runs a roller-skating rink, says he's not upset by his loss. "It's an honor to serve. I'm proud of that," he says.
Dunkel says the toughest part of being a young mayor was getting people to take him seriously. After he proved he could do the job, by getting a police protection grant in his first year, he says residents came around. He won re-election this week.
Sessions says his parents were skeptical at first but are now "very supportive." He says he has no agenda but wants to meet everyone. "I'm trying to set up a board of advisers" that will include a former mayor and leaders from Hillsdale College, which he hopes to attend next fall.
Sessions plans to devote after-school hours to the job and use his bedroom as his office.
Nice kid.
Good for him... 
Remedial Ethics
By CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY
Published: November 10, 2005
"Bush Orders Staff to Attend Ethics Briefings; White House Counsel to Give 'Refresher' Course"
- The Washington Post, Nov. 5
GOOD morning, everyone."
"Good morning, Mr. Bonhoeffer."
"I hope everyone had an ethical weekend. I thought we'd start this morning with a situational exercise. Karl, suppose a reporter called you and said, 'I will write a very favorable article for my paper and make you look really good if you will tell me a super-duper classified national secret.' What would the correct thing to do be?"
Skip to next paragraph
Related Bush Orders Staff to Attend Ethics Briefings The Washington Post, Nov. 5
"Tell him, 'Let me get back to you on that?'"
(Laughter)
"All right, settle down, everyone. This is no laughing matter. Anyone?"
"I would tell the reporter, 'I could, but that would be wrong.'"
"Thank you, Nicole. Technically fine, but can you tell us who in the White House first said that?"
"Bill Clinton?"
"I don't think he ever said that."
"Eleanor Roosevelt?"
"No. Anyone?"
"Spiro Agnew?"
"You're getting warmer. Karl, please put away your Blackberry. Can you tell us?"
"Richard M. Nixon, 37th president of the United States. Three-hundred-and-one electoral votes to Humphrey's 191."
"Very good. And what happened to Mr. Nixon?"
"He retired, wrote influential books and became a senior statesman."
"No, Karl, he resigned. Or didn't you have television and newspapers in Salt Lake City?"
"I went to the Nixon Library on a field trip once. They didn't say anything about any stupid resignation."
"Let's move on. Now suppose - yes, Mr. Cheney?"
"I have to go. I have a meeting."
"Please sit down. This is important."
"So's my meeting."
"Perhaps you'd like to share with us what it's about?"
"Torture."
"Thank you. I was planning to talk about that tomorrow, but since you've brought it up, let's talk about it now. Would you give us all an example of when you feel it is ethical to torture someone?"
"If that someone was about to launch an attack on the United States. Or making me late for a meeting. I think that under those clearly defined circumstances, tearing out their fingernails or immersing them in boiling oil would be, yes, a reasonable policy."
"I'm glad you brought up the subject of oil. Let's suppose there was an energy-related company. And a high government official, say, used to work for it. Now let's say that his country - call it Country A - went to war against Country B. And the energy-related company then got a very lucrative contract to rebuild Country B. Now let's say that the high government official agitated - indeed, pushed - his government to invade Country B in the first place. Do you see any potential conflict there?"
"None at all."
"Anyone? Yes, Harriet?"
"The vice president is the second most brilliant person I have ever met, and if he says it's O.K. to pull out people's -"
"Harriet, we're not discussing whether someone is smart."
"Sorry. I withdraw."
"I'm out of here."
"Mr. Vice President, class is not over until I - what is it, Karl? I asked you to put away your Blackberry."
"It's Tim Russert. What if he's calling to reveal the name of another undercover C.I.A. operative?"
"Then you put your hands over your ears and say loudly, 'Not listening! - La la la la la la la!' This is what Aristotle advises in Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics. Why don't we end there for today? Don't forget the assigned reading. And a few of you still owe me papers!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/opinion/10buckley.html
By CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY
Published: November 10, 2005
"Bush Orders Staff to Attend Ethics Briefings; White House Counsel to Give 'Refresher' Course"
- The Washington Post, Nov. 5
GOOD morning, everyone."
"Good morning, Mr. Bonhoeffer."
"I hope everyone had an ethical weekend. I thought we'd start this morning with a situational exercise. Karl, suppose a reporter called you and said, 'I will write a very favorable article for my paper and make you look really good if you will tell me a super-duper classified national secret.' What would the correct thing to do be?"
Skip to next paragraph
Related Bush Orders Staff to Attend Ethics Briefings The Washington Post, Nov. 5
"Tell him, 'Let me get back to you on that?'"
(Laughter)
"All right, settle down, everyone. This is no laughing matter. Anyone?"
"I would tell the reporter, 'I could, but that would be wrong.'"
"Thank you, Nicole. Technically fine, but can you tell us who in the White House first said that?"
"Bill Clinton?"
"I don't think he ever said that."
"Eleanor Roosevelt?"
"No. Anyone?"
"Spiro Agnew?"
"You're getting warmer. Karl, please put away your Blackberry. Can you tell us?"
"Richard M. Nixon, 37th president of the United States. Three-hundred-and-one electoral votes to Humphrey's 191."
"Very good. And what happened to Mr. Nixon?"
"He retired, wrote influential books and became a senior statesman."
"No, Karl, he resigned. Or didn't you have television and newspapers in Salt Lake City?"
"I went to the Nixon Library on a field trip once. They didn't say anything about any stupid resignation."
"Let's move on. Now suppose - yes, Mr. Cheney?"
"I have to go. I have a meeting."
"Please sit down. This is important."
"So's my meeting."
"Perhaps you'd like to share with us what it's about?"
"Torture."
"Thank you. I was planning to talk about that tomorrow, but since you've brought it up, let's talk about it now. Would you give us all an example of when you feel it is ethical to torture someone?"
"If that someone was about to launch an attack on the United States. Or making me late for a meeting. I think that under those clearly defined circumstances, tearing out their fingernails or immersing them in boiling oil would be, yes, a reasonable policy."
"I'm glad you brought up the subject of oil. Let's suppose there was an energy-related company. And a high government official, say, used to work for it. Now let's say that his country - call it Country A - went to war against Country B. And the energy-related company then got a very lucrative contract to rebuild Country B. Now let's say that the high government official agitated - indeed, pushed - his government to invade Country B in the first place. Do you see any potential conflict there?"
"None at all."
"Anyone? Yes, Harriet?"
"The vice president is the second most brilliant person I have ever met, and if he says it's O.K. to pull out people's -"
"Harriet, we're not discussing whether someone is smart."
"Sorry. I withdraw."
"I'm out of here."
"Mr. Vice President, class is not over until I - what is it, Karl? I asked you to put away your Blackberry."
"It's Tim Russert. What if he's calling to reveal the name of another undercover C.I.A. operative?"
"Then you put your hands over your ears and say loudly, 'Not listening! - La la la la la la la!' This is what Aristotle advises in Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics. Why don't we end there for today? Don't forget the assigned reading. And a few of you still owe me papers!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/opinion/10buckley.html
QUOTE(beasty @ Nov 10 2005, 12:26 PM)
Typical. Then they're all over here bitching about hypocrisy.
[right][snapback]149061[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149061[/snapback][/right]
So... you excuse every leader in the Republican Party because some pundit wrote a book about a few liberals? Are those "liberals" the current President, Vice-President, Senate majority leader, or House majority leader? No?
Typical.
Hypocritical zealot. Why not bring up Clinton, again.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 10 2005, 01:44 PM)
And true.
[right][snapback]149113[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149113[/snapback][/right]
Unfortunately, it's beside the point. "Hypocritical Liberals" aren't running the Country. Hypocritical Republicans are.
Not in my town they aren't.
Soros is donating millions, Moore has huge media power, Pelosi wields great legislative power, and scads of Dems are obstructing all they can. Reps don't "run" the country, or we'd be drilling in ANWR and Bork would be on the SC.
Soros is donating millions, Moore has huge media power, Pelosi wields great legislative power, and scads of Dems are obstructing all they can. Reps don't "run" the country, or we'd be drilling in ANWR and Bork would be on the SC.
QUOTE(Bee @ Nov 10 2005, 08:31 PM)
Unfortunately, it's beside the point. "Hypocritical Liberals" aren't running the Country. Hypocritical Republicans are.
[right][snapback]149260[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149260[/snapback][/right]
Correct.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Nov 10 2005, 06:37 PM)
Correct.
[right][snapback]149262[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149262[/snapback][/right]
Poor democrats. No power, stuck in America.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 10 2005, 08:37 PM)
Not in my town they aren't.
Soros is donating millions, Moore has huge media power, Pelosi wields great legislative power, and scads of Dems are obstructing all they can. Reps don't "run" the country, or we'd be drilling in ANWR and Bork would be on the SC.
[right][snapback]149261[/snapback][/right]
Soros is donating millions, Moore has huge media power, Pelosi wields great legislative power, and scads of Dems are obstructing all they can. Reps don't "run" the country, or we'd be drilling in ANWR and Bork would be on the SC.
[right][snapback]149261[/snapback][/right]
Hardly.
QUOTE
House conservatives who have clamored for the cuts reacted with quick disappointment to the postponement. "The American people long to see this Republican majority apply the principles of limited government and fiscal discipline to the challenges facing our federal budget," said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and a leader of group of more than 100 House conservatives. He urged his colleagues to "live up" to party principles and called for immediate rescheduling of the vote.
Other rank-and-file Republicans said they had to weigh the sentiments of their voters in coming to a decision on the bill. "You have to listen to the people that live in your district," said Representative Dave Reichert, a freshman Republican from Washington who opposed a provision opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
In an effort to reduce such opposition, the leadership late Wednesday night dropped the Alaskan drilling provision from the bill and made other changes that won new commitments of support from moderates. But it was evident throughout Thursday that the majority was still scrambling for the necessary support even as lawmakers were chafing to return to their districts for Veterans Day observances on Friday.
http://nytimes.com/2005/11/10/politics/10cnd-cong.html
Other rank-and-file Republicans said they had to weigh the sentiments of their voters in coming to a decision on the bill. "You have to listen to the people that live in your district," said Representative Dave Reichert, a freshman Republican from Washington who opposed a provision opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
In an effort to reduce such opposition, the leadership late Wednesday night dropped the Alaskan drilling provision from the bill and made other changes that won new commitments of support from moderates. But it was evident throughout Thursday that the majority was still scrambling for the necessary support even as lawmakers were chafing to return to their districts for Veterans Day observances on Friday.
http://nytimes.com/2005/11/10/politics/10cnd-cong.html
QUOTE(Brian_Lambchops @ Nov 10 2005, 08:40 PM)
Poor democrats. No power, stuck in America.
[right][snapback]149263[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149263[/snapback][/right]
They'll have to be happy with all that media power. After all, Big Bird is on their side.
Watch out for that bird flu.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Nov 10 2005, 07:48 PM)
They'll have to be happy with all that media power. After all, Big Bird is on their side.
[right][snapback]149267[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149267[/snapback][/right]
Well whoopti Sh!t! I'm so happy about that big yellow effer
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Nov 10 2005, 07:50 PM)
Well whoopti Sh!t! I'm so happy about that big yellow effer
[right][snapback]149272[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149272[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Nov 10 2005, 08:48 PM)
They'll have to be happy with all that media power. After all, Big Bird is on their side.
[right][snapback]149267[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149267[/snapback][/right]
Yeah. Right. Anything to avoid responsibility.
QUOTE
Bush to Nominate Tate to FCC
By REUTERS
Published: November 9, 2005
Filed at 5:20 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush plans to nominate Tennessee regulator Deborah Taylor Tate to fill a vacant Republican seat on the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/po...ominations.html
By REUTERS
Published: November 9, 2005
Filed at 5:20 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush plans to nominate Tennessee regulator Deborah Taylor Tate to fill a vacant Republican seat on the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/po...ominations.html
Republicans Regulate all American Media, and...
QUOTE
Each year THE NATION magazine makes a graphic representation of the holding of the largest media companies. The COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW also tracks a more extensive list. You can also find out about today's climate in media ownership by visiting the Web sites of the six largest players.
AOL Time Warner
Disney
General Electric
News Corporation
Viacom
Vivendi Universal
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/localmedia.html
AOL Time Warner
Disney
General Electric
News Corporation
Viacom
Vivendi Universal
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/localmedia.html
I don't think these six huge companies can be called "Liberal."
But the myth lives on.
lol. That's reeeeeal good.
Nov. 11, 2005, 10:45PM
Bankruptcy spoils Dems' only TRMPAC win
•Its treasurer avoids paying off losing candidates
By LAYLAN COPELIN
Cox News Service
AUSTIN - Democrats' lone court victory in the controversy over corporate campaign money in the 2002 elections has likely been eliminated by the personal bankruptcy of the treasurer for U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's political committee.
Former Dallas state Rep. Bill Ceverha, who was campaign treasurer for Texans for a Republican Majority, declared bankruptcy after a state judge ruled in a civil trial that Ceverha broke state law by not disclosing about $600,000 in corporate donations that had been spent illegally by the group.
Democrats hailed the decision in May by state District Judge Joe Hart as the first judicial ruling that DeLay's committee violated the ban on spending corporate money in a campaign.
Ceverha's bankruptcy, declared last month, puts that lawsuit in limbo and removes him from other lawsuits arising from the 2002 campaign, during which DeLay's committee and the Texas Association of Business are accused of violating the corporate money ban. Plaintiffs' lawyers are likely to drop him as a defendant in other lawsuits since he has no money.
It also means the Democratic candidates who sued — and their lawyers — won't get paid. Ceverha was ordered to pay $196,660 in damages and attorney's fees to five defeated Democratic candidates, including former state Rep. Ann Kitchen of Austin.
Ceverha's lawyer, Terry Scarborough of Austin, explained his client's rationale for taking personal bankruptcy.
"He is 68 years old. He's not a rich man," Scarborough said. "This was the only tactic to get him out of courtrooms over the next five or seven years."
Ceverha reported debts of almost $1 million and assets of $542,989, mostly the Dallas condo he shares with his second wife.
He incurred $882,000 in legal bills over about 18 months. He paid all but about $57,000 of those bills.
The lawyers for the Democrats, by comparison, won't be paid the $661,000 they claim.
Ceverha will not be destitute. He estimated his monthly income, including state retirement, Social Security and political consulting contracts at $15,166.
None of his income will have to be handed over to the court or the Democrats.
While Ceverha was never indicted for a crime, he was the first official with TRMPAC to be sued over the same allegations that have led to criminal indictments of others.
DeLay and two associates, Jim Ellis of Washington and John Colyandro of Austin, are indicted on charges of conspiring to launder corporate money into political donations.
DeLay's corporate fundraiser, Warren Robold, and four corporate donors also were indicted on lesser felony charges.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3455981
Bankruptcy spoils Dems' only TRMPAC win
•Its treasurer avoids paying off losing candidates
By LAYLAN COPELIN
Cox News Service
AUSTIN - Democrats' lone court victory in the controversy over corporate campaign money in the 2002 elections has likely been eliminated by the personal bankruptcy of the treasurer for U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's political committee.
Former Dallas state Rep. Bill Ceverha, who was campaign treasurer for Texans for a Republican Majority, declared bankruptcy after a state judge ruled in a civil trial that Ceverha broke state law by not disclosing about $600,000 in corporate donations that had been spent illegally by the group.
Democrats hailed the decision in May by state District Judge Joe Hart as the first judicial ruling that DeLay's committee violated the ban on spending corporate money in a campaign.
Ceverha's bankruptcy, declared last month, puts that lawsuit in limbo and removes him from other lawsuits arising from the 2002 campaign, during which DeLay's committee and the Texas Association of Business are accused of violating the corporate money ban. Plaintiffs' lawyers are likely to drop him as a defendant in other lawsuits since he has no money.
It also means the Democratic candidates who sued — and their lawyers — won't get paid. Ceverha was ordered to pay $196,660 in damages and attorney's fees to five defeated Democratic candidates, including former state Rep. Ann Kitchen of Austin.
Ceverha's lawyer, Terry Scarborough of Austin, explained his client's rationale for taking personal bankruptcy.
"He is 68 years old. He's not a rich man," Scarborough said. "This was the only tactic to get him out of courtrooms over the next five or seven years."
Ceverha reported debts of almost $1 million and assets of $542,989, mostly the Dallas condo he shares with his second wife.
He incurred $882,000 in legal bills over about 18 months. He paid all but about $57,000 of those bills.
The lawyers for the Democrats, by comparison, won't be paid the $661,000 they claim.
Ceverha will not be destitute. He estimated his monthly income, including state retirement, Social Security and political consulting contracts at $15,166.
None of his income will have to be handed over to the court or the Democrats.
While Ceverha was never indicted for a crime, he was the first official with TRMPAC to be sued over the same allegations that have led to criminal indictments of others.
DeLay and two associates, Jim Ellis of Washington and John Colyandro of Austin, are indicted on charges of conspiring to launder corporate money into political donations.
DeLay's corporate fundraiser, Warren Robold, and four corporate donors also were indicted on lesser felony charges.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3455981
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 10 2005, 12:45 PM)
Pelosi is a scab.
[right][snapback]149065[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149065[/snapback][/right]
shes' stuck on stupid~~~
Anyone catch the beating Scott McCleland took the other day at the press conference? For some odd reason the Cspan link is a dead end. I got this off the White House link. Check it out, it's really funny. If you're tired of the type of media manipulation this administration practices. Here's a small sample but you need to watch it if you can.
Q Do you think that while Karl Rove is under investigation that he should retain his security clearance?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just not going to talk about an ongoing investigation. You're asking that question in the light of an ongoing investigation; it's something that continues at this point.
Q One last one on this. It just -- it strikes me as odd that, given the fact that Karl Rove has not been charged with any crime, he's merely under investigation, so far as we know, that the President's language about him and his confidence in him has been so distant, that he simply refuses to comment on his standing within the White House because of a pending matter.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't agree with that. I mean, Karl Rove is continuing to perform his duties as Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor. We appreciate all that he's doing.
Q So the President stands by Rove a hundred percent?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it clear to you that everybody who works here at the White House has the confidence of the President.
Q That's not exactly a direct answer, though.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're asking a question relating to an ongoing investigation and --
Q Does he stand by Karl Rove a hundred percent?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the investigation relating to him is something that is ongoing, and the President has addressed that.
Q -- forward-leaning as that, to say the President stands behind Karl Rove a hundred percent?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just made the President's views known.
Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.
Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --
Q He did not ask for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.
Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --
Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --
Q I'm asking about exemptions.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --
Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --
MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --
Q He didn't ask for an exemption --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --
Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --
Q You're not answering -- yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.
Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.
Q If you could answer in a straight way.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.
Q -- yes or no --
MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
Q Did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.
Q Is that the answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.
Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.
Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.
Q What are we asking for?
Q Would you characterize what we're asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: We're asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that's what we --
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, let's talk about people that you're talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.
Q I'm asking you --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you're talking about.
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only --
Q What does that mean --
MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you right now -- not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect -- that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values.
Now, the people that you are bringing up -- you're talking about in the context, and I think it's important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh -- these are -- these are dangerous killers.
Q So they're all killers --
Q Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That's a simple question, yes or no.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. And we have not. That's what I told you at the beginning.
Q You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.
Q Scott, are you saying that Cheney did not ask --
Q What is it that you want the -- what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into talking about national security matters, Bill. I don't do that, because this involves --
Q This would be the exemption, in other words.
MR. McCLELLAN: This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view -- obviously, some of you on this room -- in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view.
Q We simply are asking a question.
Q What is the Vice President -- what is the Vice President asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. That's very public information. In terms of our discussions with members of Congress --
Q -- no, it's not --
MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of our members -- like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues.
Q So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you're very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you asked me -- you want to ask questions of the Vice President's office, feel free to do that. We've made our position very clear, and it's spelled out on our website for everybody to see.
Q We don't need a website, we need you from the podium.
MR. McCLELLAN: And what I just told you is what our view is.
Q But Scott, do you see the contradiction --
MR. McCLELLAN: Jessica, go ahead.
Q Will the President pledge not to pardon Lewis Libby?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to discuss an ongoing legal proceeding, and I'm not going to --
Q Can you just --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not going to speculate about any matters relating to it. This is something that is just beginning. There will be a hearing process that is going on right now, and we need to let that legal proceeding continue. I was asked this question last week, and that's -- I'm just not going to speculate about things at this point.
Q So if he's interested in seeing the legal process continue, that means he will not pardon him, is that correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: There is a legal proceeding --
Q That would interrupt the legal proceeding.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is going on relating to that individual. Under our system, there is a presumption of innocence. And we're not going to comment on it while it is continuing. And I'm not going to -- certainly not going to speculate about it, as well.
Q Should we take that to mean it remains a possibility?
MR. McCLELLAN: It should mean exactly what I said.
text: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20.../20051108.html#
there's a video link on the page.
Q Do you think that while Karl Rove is under investigation that he should retain his security clearance?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just not going to talk about an ongoing investigation. You're asking that question in the light of an ongoing investigation; it's something that continues at this point.
Q One last one on this. It just -- it strikes me as odd that, given the fact that Karl Rove has not been charged with any crime, he's merely under investigation, so far as we know, that the President's language about him and his confidence in him has been so distant, that he simply refuses to comment on his standing within the White House because of a pending matter.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't agree with that. I mean, Karl Rove is continuing to perform his duties as Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor. We appreciate all that he's doing.
Q So the President stands by Rove a hundred percent?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it clear to you that everybody who works here at the White House has the confidence of the President.
Q That's not exactly a direct answer, though.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're asking a question relating to an ongoing investigation and --
Q Does he stand by Karl Rove a hundred percent?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the investigation relating to him is something that is ongoing, and the President has addressed that.
Q -- forward-leaning as that, to say the President stands behind Karl Rove a hundred percent?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just made the President's views known.
Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.
Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --
Q He did not ask for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.
Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --
Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --
Q I'm asking about exemptions.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --
Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --
MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --
Q He didn't ask for an exemption --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --
Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --
Q You're not answering -- yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.
Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.
Q If you could answer in a straight way.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.
Q -- yes or no --
MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
Q Did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.
Q Is that the answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.
Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.
Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.
Q What are we asking for?
Q Would you characterize what we're asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: We're asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that's what we --
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, let's talk about people that you're talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.
Q I'm asking you --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you're talking about.
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only --
Q What does that mean --
MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you right now -- not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect -- that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values.
Now, the people that you are bringing up -- you're talking about in the context, and I think it's important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh -- these are -- these are dangerous killers.
Q So they're all killers --
Q Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That's a simple question, yes or no.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. And we have not. That's what I told you at the beginning.
Q You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.
Q Scott, are you saying that Cheney did not ask --
Q What is it that you want the -- what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into talking about national security matters, Bill. I don't do that, because this involves --
Q This would be the exemption, in other words.
MR. McCLELLAN: This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view -- obviously, some of you on this room -- in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view.
Q We simply are asking a question.
Q What is the Vice President -- what is the Vice President asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. That's very public information. In terms of our discussions with members of Congress --
Q -- no, it's not --
MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of our members -- like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues.
Q So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you're very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you asked me -- you want to ask questions of the Vice President's office, feel free to do that. We've made our position very clear, and it's spelled out on our website for everybody to see.
Q We don't need a website, we need you from the podium.
MR. McCLELLAN: And what I just told you is what our view is.
Q But Scott, do you see the contradiction --
MR. McCLELLAN: Jessica, go ahead.
Q Will the President pledge not to pardon Lewis Libby?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to discuss an ongoing legal proceeding, and I'm not going to --
Q Can you just --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not going to speculate about any matters relating to it. This is something that is just beginning. There will be a hearing process that is going on right now, and we need to let that legal proceeding continue. I was asked this question last week, and that's -- I'm just not going to speculate about things at this point.
Q So if he's interested in seeing the legal process continue, that means he will not pardon him, is that correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: There is a legal proceeding --
Q That would interrupt the legal proceeding.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is going on relating to that individual. Under our system, there is a presumption of innocence. And we're not going to comment on it while it is continuing. And I'm not going to -- certainly not going to speculate about it, as well.
Q Should we take that to mean it remains a possibility?
MR. McCLELLAN: It should mean exactly what I said.
text: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20.../20051108.html#
there's a video link on the page.
QUOTE(Carol @ Nov 12 2005, 09:01 AM)
shes' stuck on stupid~~~
[right][snapback]149909[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]149909[/snapback][/right]
SOS might be a good reply for most of the lefty posts.
GOP Lobbyists Plan Show of Support for DeLay
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A04
The capital's most prominent Republican lobbyists are going out of their way next Thursday to show their support -- financial and personal -- for former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
More than five dozen lobbyists are named as members of the host committee for a fundraising reception in the District to benefit DeLay's reelection campaign. The event, to be on the ninth floor of 101 Constitution Ave. NW, Capitol Hill's hottest new lobbying venue, is expected to be the largest fundraiser for a single member of Congress this year.
Host committee members said that the event is as much about symbolism as dollars. "This is more than just a fundraiser," said Wayne Berman of the Federalist Group, a lobbying firm. "It's a way of saying that an important part of the Republican establishment supports Tom DeLay now and will continue to support him in the future."
"It's intended to demonstrate moral support as well as generate dollars for what's expected to be an expensive campaign," agreed Richard D. Shelby, senior vice president of the American Gas Association.
Host committee members are expected to give the maximum $2,100 personal contribution or to raise $5,000 for DeLay's reelection. The fundraiser was organized by some of DeLay's staffers-turned-lobbyists after his indictment in September and the loss of his leadership post. A Texas grand jury indicted him on a conspiracy charge stemming from a long-running campaign finance investigation, and he later was indicted on related money-laundering charges. DeLay has denied the allegations.
Listed as host committee members are the top executives of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute. Presidents of several major lobbying firms are also included.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111101646.html
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A04
The capital's most prominent Republican lobbyists are going out of their way next Thursday to show their support -- financial and personal -- for former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
More than five dozen lobbyists are named as members of the host committee for a fundraising reception in the District to benefit DeLay's reelection campaign. The event, to be on the ninth floor of 101 Constitution Ave. NW, Capitol Hill's hottest new lobbying venue, is expected to be the largest fundraiser for a single member of Congress this year.
Host committee members said that the event is as much about symbolism as dollars. "This is more than just a fundraiser," said Wayne Berman of the Federalist Group, a lobbying firm. "It's a way of saying that an important part of the Republican establishment supports Tom DeLay now and will continue to support him in the future."
"It's intended to demonstrate moral support as well as generate dollars for what's expected to be an expensive campaign," agreed Richard D. Shelby, senior vice president of the American Gas Association.
Host committee members are expected to give the maximum $2,100 personal contribution or to raise $5,000 for DeLay's reelection. The fundraiser was organized by some of DeLay's staffers-turned-lobbyists after his indictment in September and the loss of his leadership post. A Texas grand jury indicted him on a conspiracy charge stemming from a long-running campaign finance investigation, and he later was indicted on related money-laundering charges. DeLay has denied the allegations.
Listed as host committee members are the top executives of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute. Presidents of several major lobbying firms are also included.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111101646.html
QUOTE(Bee @ Nov 12 2005, 05:35 PM)
[right][snapback]150215[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE
Former Dallas state Rep. Bill Ceverha, who was campaign treasurer for Texans for a Republican Majority, declared bankruptcy after a state judge ruled in a civil trial that Ceverha broke state law by not disclosing about $600,000 in corporate donations that had been spent illegally by the group.
Y'know, we really need to go back to the old way, when a civil judgement or fine could not be discharged in bankrupcy, but instead continued to be valid for 20 years and you had to continue paying on it and live on the allowance the bankrupcy judge extended you, with the rest going to pay off the judgment.
Torts and civil judgments are useless for discouraging antisocial behavior if you can just declare bankrupcy.
QUOTE(davisął @ Nov 12 2005, 04:32 PM)
Host committee members said that the event is as much about symbolism as dollars. "This is more than just a fundraiser," said Wayne Berman of the Federalist Group, a lobbying firm. "It's a way of saying that an important part of the Republican establishment supports Tom DeLay now and will continue to support him in the future."
[right][snapback]150213[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]150213[/snapback][/right]
ROFL! Yes, we already suspected that the bribery and corruption part of the Republican establishment supports Tom DeLay.
In today's Toledo Blade twenty two "conduits" for Tom Noe of Coingate that took checks from Noe and then put them in their accounts and the next day wrote checks to the Bush/Cheney campaign were exposed.
Some were Republican elected officials, others were republicans recently out of office, others were business people and others.
The money laundering part of the investigation is eye-popping in that the money used was Bureau of Workman's Comp money.
Noe took $50 million and bought homes, cars, friends and help buy an election. Judges, Sec. of State, Governor, all the repubs have been tainted in one way or other by this.
I can pretty much say that OH will turn from red to blue in the next election.
Some were Republican elected officials, others were republicans recently out of office, others were business people and others.
The money laundering part of the investigation is eye-popping in that the money used was Bureau of Workman's Comp money.
Noe took $50 million and bought homes, cars, friends and help buy an election. Judges, Sec. of State, Governor, all the repubs have been tainted in one way or other by this.
I can pretty much say that OH will turn from red to blue in the next election.
QUOTE(SherryB @ Nov 13 2005, 03:10 AM)
In today's Toledo Blade twenty two "conduits" for Tom Noe of Coingate that took checks from Noe and then put them in their accounts and the next day wrote checks to the Bush/Cheney campaign were exposed.
Some were Republican elected officials, others were republicans recently out of office, others were business people and others.
The money laundering part of the investigation is eye-popping in that the money used was Bureau of Workman's Comp money.
Noe took $50 million and bought homes, cars, friends and help buy an election. Judges, Sec. of State, Governor, all the repubs have been tainted in one way or other by this.
I can pretty much say that OH will turn from red to blue in the next election.
[right][snapback]150362[/snapback][/right]
Some were Republican elected officials, others were republicans recently out of office, others were business people and others.
The money laundering part of the investigation is eye-popping in that the money used was Bureau of Workman's Comp money.
Noe took $50 million and bought homes, cars, friends and help buy an election. Judges, Sec. of State, Governor, all the repubs have been tainted in one way or other by this.
I can pretty much say that OH will turn from red to blue in the next election.
[right][snapback]150362[/snapback][/right]
You won't get the Republicans out and the RIGHT Democrats, or for that matter Republicans, in unless you kick the no paper vote receipt Diebolds out of your polling places. What you'll get is the SOS with a different faces....
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 12 2005, 01:37 PM)
SOS might be a good reply for most of the lefty posts.
[right][snapback]150093[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]150093[/snapback][/right]
ROFLMAO!!!
correctomundo
QUOTE(SherryB @ Nov 13 2005, 03:10 AM)
In today's Toledo Blade twenty two "conduits" for Tom Noe of Coingate that took checks from Noe and then put them in their accounts and the next day wrote checks to the Bush/Cheney campaign were exposed.
Some were Republican elected officials, others were republicans recently out of office, others were business people and others.
The money laundering part of the investigation is eye-popping in that the money used was Bureau of Workman's Comp money.
Noe took $50 million and bought homes, cars, friends and help buy an election. Judges, Sec. of State, Governor, all the repubs have been tainted in one way or other by this.
I can pretty much say that OH will turn from red to blue in the next election.
[right][snapback]150362[/snapback][/right]
Some were Republican elected officials, others were republicans recently out of office, others were business people and others.
The money laundering part of the investigation is eye-popping in that the money used was Bureau of Workman's Comp money.
Noe took $50 million and bought homes, cars, friends and help buy an election. Judges, Sec. of State, Governor, all the repubs have been tainted in one way or other by this.
I can pretty much say that OH will turn from red to blue in the next election.
[right][snapback]150362[/snapback][/right]
Good. The criminals should be thrown in the slammer like da hammer. Fucking morals and values.
SOS
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 13 2005, 11:55 AM)
SOS
[right][snapback]150487[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]150487[/snapback][/right]
Indeed. More Republicans getting caught up in scandals. It's a shame someone doesn't return honor and dignity to DC.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.