Enough. Let's Try 'Accountability.'

[Fred Jones]

Enough. Let's Try 'Accountability.'

By Richard Cohen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901552.html

You may not know it, but we are living in the Responsibility Era. So said George Bush back in 2000 when he accepted the Republican presidential nomination. He vowed that he would be the Responsibility President and, it seems, repeat the word over and over until it lost all meaning. That one speech, forgettable but retrievable, contained the following line: "And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, a president himself must be responsible." Churchill, rest easy.

In his Sunday night speech to the nation, Bush once again ran up this tattered rhetorical banner: "I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." It was the exact same phrase Bush had used earlier in the week in his speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center. That one prompted Jay Leno to an outburst of wisdom: "Yeah, well, I don't think he has to worry about other people trying to take credit for that one."

Had the word "responsible," in all its permutations and declensions, made an occasional appearance in the president's rhetoric, it would not be worth a comment. But it is a theme, a beat, a tick, a flat-footed verbal tautology and a way, really, of deflecting apt criticism. Listen to your president:

"I take responsibility," he said Sept. 13 about the botched Hurricane Katrina relief effort. "I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course," he said back in 2003. "I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace."

"I take responsibility for putting our troops into action," he said a bit earlier in 2003. "I take responsibility for making that decision."

This recitation of the obvious is a bit of clumsy rhetorical strutting, but also a way of ducking the ultimate in responsibility: accountability. This is something Bush will not accept or countenance. He will not be trammeled or constrained or answer to any person. He will, as we recently learned, not give a fig for the law as passed by Congress when it comes to restrictions on domestic spying. He asserts, but does not show, that asking for a warrant from the special intelligence court would endanger the country and -- his idea of a jolly good debating point -- he shows irritation when pressed. He's the president, damn it. Look it up.

It was the same with the intelligence failure that was Bush's prime justification for the war. The president asserts repeatedly that he's responsible for that -- but so is Congress. It saw the same intelligence. But it is the president who runs the spy agencies, not Congress, and it is he who ought to be accountable for their dismal performance. Does this occur to him? Does he ask if he was being told what he wanted to hear? Does he wonder about his aides? Are they a claque of yes-men and (hello, Condi) women? It's ridiculous to say Congress is equally responsible for being duped by bad intelligence. The intelligence, after all, was the president's. He should be accountable.

This theme of responsibility without accountability applies in spades to Bush's personnel policies -- or lack of them. If the president were truly responsible, then he would fire the bunglers. By failing to do so, the president shows that he has not closely examined what went wrong. He works with the same team of happy incompetents who failed him once (bad intelligence), then again (going to war), then again (the administration of it) and then again (postwar reconstruction). A responsible leader would get some people around him with the guts to challenge him. This is a White House of the meek.

Finally, the "responsibility president" would understand that his crew has lost all credibility. He cannot expect a nation, and in particular its military, to accept the assurances of people who will be mocked by history or to have faith in leaders whose failures are sadly obvious in the only ledger that really matters: the body count in Iraq. For instance, just the other day in Iraq, Vice President Cheney said the country had "turned the corner." Who believes him? He may be right, but by now if Cheney told me that Christmas will fall on Dec. 25, I'd doubt him. The man has been wrong, wrong, wrong -- and still he is the president's primary adviser. He should be relegated to state funerals and demagogic speeches to slow learners in the Republican Party.

If Bush wants us to believe that he truly accepts responsibility for what has happened in Iraq, then he has to act responsibly himself: End the Responsibility Era. Start the Accountability one.

[twa]

"He asserts, but does not show"

Since the article comes from these two points,lets examine them

1. When is the president required to prove he has authority?

By informing select congressional leaders(who provide a check against abuse)

the question of authority has been open to question.

Why four yrs later is this only know being questioned ?

Could it be because presidents for the last 20yrs have allowed ECHELON to spy on americans.

"he's responsible for that -- but so is Congress. "

2. As far as the intelligence groups ,who funds it and oversees it...congress

[Joe Sick]

Could it be because presidents for the last 20yrs have allowed ECHELON to spy on americans.

"he's responsible for that -- but so is Congress. "

Actually, it's more like 30 years. The difference is that other presidents went through the normal channel (the FISA court). King Bush doesn't want this oversight to exist. It IN NO WAY slows down the process or hampers intelligence finding. It is just a power grab.

[Cskin]

Why four yrs later is this only know being questioned ?

Let's see... because whining on the economy has failed.

Demanding an immediate withdrawal and admitting defeat has failed.

Trying to prove Bush stole the 04 election has failed

And.... every other partisan trick the Dems can think of to dismiss Bush has failed.

That's why they're grasping to this... because they HOPE it's the lotto ticket to defeating Bush and sweeps them up onto the wave that takes back Congress in 06 and the White House in 08. :doh:

[twa]

For someone who wishes no accountability, signing authorizations and informing leaders in congress of his actions sure is a FUNNY way to hide

[Thiebear]

For someone who wishes no accountability, signing authorizations and informing leaders in congress of his actions sure is a FUNNY way to hide

:laugh:

[Fred Jones]

For someone who wishes no accountability, signing authorizations and informing leaders in congress of his actions sure is a FUNNY way to hide

Please, this administration hasn't been accountable since they took over. Your tired right wing "Rush" rhetoric is getting old just like the President's message.

[twa]

Please, this administration hasn't been accountable since they took over. Your tired right wing "Rush" rhetoric is getting old just like the President's message.

I would need to listen to RUSH to see if he agrees with me

I got better things to do ,I leave that to Chom .

[altair4]

Hear Hear.

His administration is a disaster on many different levels.

His lies have killed many innocent people.

[chomerics]

Let's see... because whining on the economy has failed.

Demanding an immediate withdrawal and admitting defeat has failed.

Trying to prove Bush stole the 04 election has failed

And.... every other partisan trick the Dems can think of to dismiss Bush has failed.

That's why they're grasping to this... because they HOPE it's the lotto ticket to defeating Bush and sweeps them up onto the wave that takes back Congress in 06 and the White House in 08. :doh:

If it was so bad for the democrats, why can't Bush pass any meaningful legislation? Kind of hard to spin your way out of that one when you have a majority and lead all three branches of government huh.

[chomerics]

For someone who wishes no accountability, signing authorizations and informing leaders in congress of his actions sure is a FUNNY way to hide

Yet, when they said not to do it, he completely ignored them, just as he ignored our constitution. That IS a definition of no accountability. I'll cover my butt because I know I am breaking the law, and I will let others know, but I will ignore their objections and do it anyway.

The mere fact that he said this "emboldens the enemy" is such a freakin joke it would be outrageously funny if it wasn't so truly unconstitutional and dictatorial at its roots.

[portisizzle]

Please, this administration hasn't been accountable since they took over. Your tired right wing "Rush" rhetoric is getting old just like the President's message.

Only gets old to people who can not handle the truth......

[portisizzle]

Yet, when they said not to do it, he completely ignored them, just as he ignored our constitution. .

You mean like a President lieing under oath in front of a Grand Jury. Ohhhhh, Now I get it. :laugh:

[portisizzle]

Hear Hear.

His administration is a disaster on many different levels.

His lies have killed many innocent people.

Explain ONE lie and how that ONE lie killed innocent people.

I think you are nothing but sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing. Prove me wrong.

[Thiebear]

Yet, when they said not to do it, he completely ignored them, just as he ignored our constitution. That IS a definition of no accountability. I'll cover my butt because I know I am breaking the law, and I will let others know, but I will ignore their objections and do it anyway.

The mere fact that he said this "emboldens the enemy" is such a freakin joke it would be outrageously funny if it wasn't so truly unconstitutional and dictatorial at its roots.

Who and when did they say not too?

[Thiebear]

Jamie Gorelick July 14, 1994.......

Washington Post page A19...

[chomerics]

Explain ONE lie

Here is a pretty blatent one on wiretaps. . .

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Seeing how Bush has admitted that he signed an executive order that specifically states court orders are NOT needed, and he ADMITS to doing this it is a REALLY blatent lie!!!

And in the end he says "He values the constitution" :doh: If he "values" it so much, why doesn't he respect it and follow the laws it alys out?

[chomerics]

Who and when did they say not too?

Here is a letter from Jay Rockfeller to Cheney. . .

July 17, 2003

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/20051219_Rockfellerletter.pdf

[chomerics]

You mean like a President lieing under oath in front of a Grand Jury. Ohhhhh, Now I get it. :laugh:

And he was impeached for doing so :doh:

I can assume you are not advocating impeachment for Bush on the other hand right? I mean god forbid somebody get a blowjob and lie about it, I mean that's an impeachable offense, but purposely circumventing the constitution and conducting illegal wiretaping on American citizens isn't grounds. Falsely leading us to war based on lies and propaganda isn't grounds for impeachment either. . . but god forbid a man gets a BJ, now that's where you draw the line :doh:

[Thiebear]

Here is a letter from Jay Rockfeller to Cheney. . .

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/20051219_Rockfellerletter.pdf

Why did you leave OUT this part?????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901641.html

Rockefeller, turning back to the NSA program in his letter, told Cheney: "Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received."

The letter, whose existence was unknown to Rockefeller's staff, indicated that the three briefers were Cheney, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then NSA-Director Michael V. Hayden. The letter said the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), was there, and it indicated, without naming them, the presence of then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking members of the House intelligence committee. # (and HIMSELF)#

In hindsight, the letter seemed a rejoinder to President Bush's assertions that key congressional leaders were adequately briefed on the expanded NSA program and to his intimation that they did not seriously object. Rockefeller "was frustrated by the characterization that Congress was on board on this," said one official who is close to him and who spoke on background because of the topic's sensitive nature. "Four congressmen, at least one of whom was raising serious concerns, does not constitute being on board."

[twa]

Yet, when they said not to do it, he completely ignored them, just as he ignored our constitution. That IS a definition of no accountability. I'll cover my butt because I know I am breaking the law, and I will let others know, but I will ignore their objections and do it anyway.

The mere fact that he said this "emboldens the enemy" is such a freakin joke it would be outrageously funny if it wasn't so truly unconstitutional and dictatorial at its roots.

:laugh: Let us suppose what you say is true and Bush broke the law and ignored the constitution.

WHEN are you going to call for the indictment of ALL the congress members briefed for CONSPIRACY ???

This has been going on for years,What were they doing ?

Ya can't have it BOTH ways.

[Thiebear]

.

The New York Times, which first disclosed the existence of the NSA program last week, also cited unnamed sources who said the administration used two other opinions to justify its actions. One was embedded in a public Justice Department brief from 2002 and another was in a 2002 opinion issued by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that oversees the secretive court that usually deals with terror-related wiretap requests.

In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

Cunningham offered several other circumstances under which FISA warrants would be unnecessary.

"If the physical interceptions were done outside the United States and if it were the communications of the foreign person that were targeted, not the person inside the United States, or if the person inside the United States was not found to be a U.S. person — that is a citizen or resident or permanent resident alien — then those circumstances would potentially take this out of FISA, and therefore, not require a FISA warrant," he said. "It principally depends on where the collection is being done."

In speaking to reporters Monday, Bush said he wanted to stress that the calls are not intercepted within the United States, but involve one party outside the country.

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

Now thats a man hiding something...

[Fred Jones]

First, Clinton has been out of office for five years now. Can the right please move on. Just another example of the same old rhetoric.

Back to the present. From the standpoint of the right wing Bush is trying to protect citizens from acts of terror by any means necessary. For some reason they do not believe he is doing anything wrong. Ok, an opinion. I answer with the same answer I give liberals that want to let convicted felons off the hook because they believe they have been rehabilitated. Let those left wing libs become the victim and see how they feel.

Well, I contacted some people I know on the terrorism task force today and asked them if they would look into a couple of people that I thought were involved in some suspicious activity. I told them I didn’t have anything concrete just some odd behavior that looked like it involved terrorists in my opinion. Those people are members of this site and post regularly. Now, the FBI might laugh at me or they might request the IP address of certain posters on this site. The ES servers maintain those IP addresses when posters login. From the IP address they can easily obtain the customers information from their ISP and start looking into the person’s life. Maybe run them through NCIC, the State Dept and INS databases to name three publicly known databases maintained by the FBI. Depending on what they find they may install a Trojan on the person’s computer to monitor activity. Look at what sites they visit, request email logs from the ISP that maintains their email addresses and so forth. The FBI has subpoenas already filled out that they just insert some information and quickly get the requested information. They also have access to certain databases like cell phone information and many of the ISP databases. They might look at the person’s phone records as well contacting Verizon or SBC or whoever the carrier is. Maybe they will go as far as send an agent to follow the person or persons I indicated was involved in possible terrorist activities.

Now, since I highly doubt anyone on this site, including the posters I turned over to the terrorist task force, are in fact terrorists. The FBI simply just investigated for really no valid reason and disrupted their lives. What are all the private companies that the poster has accounts with going to do when they find out the FBI is looking closely at their activities? What if the poster’s boss finds out and demands to know why the FBI is asking questions? No big deal however, because the posters didn’t do anything wrong and are completely innocent. Nothing at all should happen to them and I am sure they have absolutely no problem cooperating with the FBI.

[Thiebear]

Eewww Ewww report me..

I'm bored...

Edit AND if President Bill Clinton used a wire tap to capture the Aldridge guy on spying without any authorization its relevant.. SOOOO it is then able to be brought up in a thread about unauthorized Presidential wire taps..

Easy correlations work that way...

I agree he was correct also...

[twa]

Eewww Ewww report me..

I'm bored...

Edit AND if President Bill Clinton used a wire tap to capture the Aldridge guy on spying without any authorization its relevant.. SOOOO it is then able to be brought up in a thread about unauthorized Presidential wire taps..

Easy correlations work that way...

I agree he was correct also...

ME TOO ,life is way too boring lately :laugh:

Don't use facts Tbear,it confuses some here