Bill is praying that it will.
Posted on 09/17/2006 5:26:28 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, September 17th, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio; national security adviser Stephen Hadley.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. George Allen, R-Va.; former Navy Secretary James Webb, Allen's Democratic challenger.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Hadley.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz; Hadley; singer and songwriter Jewel.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Hadley; George Soros, Democratic financier; Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni; Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie; Ali Mohammed Jan Aurakzai, governor of Pakistan's Waziristan province; Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Bill is praying that it will.
Oh for heaven's sake, the cult of death, the users of death. There is nothing these people won't do.
I thought they already had the funeral for Richards?
Nope, just checked. It's tomorrow.
Does this turn into another Coretta Scott King or Rosa Parks funeral???
Clearly they've got to know how badly that stuff played, particularly the Wellstone debacle. But can they resist?
He made the point that his program would cost X, but the current failed system is costing 10 X.
I hope it works. We'll see how expensive the subsidy really is, but hats off to Mitt for finding a way where noone else has come close.
Another FReeper (kabar, IIRC) posted the text of "Common Article III:" Article 3 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Sub para (c) is the supposedly "controversial" provision. What could POSSIBLY be more vague and non-transparent than this paragraph? Imagine trying to use this para as the basis for a private-sector lawsuit. Whatever happened to common sense? (We all know the answer to that one, but clearly this is NOT an "debate" over the meaningless opacity of a horribly written sub-paragraph.)
"I think the wearing of a toupee should be an automatic disqualification for the US Senate."
LOL -- hairplugs, too!
I swear the creep practices facial expressions in front of a mirror. Have to have just the right one to fit the moment. God, what a phony!
I'll bet he does (practice in front of a mirror!)
Probably since he was a teenager with the hope of being CIC one day.
McCain also sadly admits he gave up secrets under torturous duress and feels guilty about it. He also feels guilty about the Keating 5. (he's a feelin' a who'lotta guilt heeeaa)Trying to make amends perhaps?
If he were to magically become the Pubbie nominee, I'll bet the media would come back to his breakdown during torture, and the secrets he surrendered. Not to mention a divorce, and a trophy wife hooked on painkillers.
None of this even addresses the irony of his captors ignoring Geneva conventions to torture him, yet he still believes we should take the high moral grounds, even it means putting our guys in danger.
The thing that bothers me the most about this is that I've always understood, to be covered by the Geneva Conventions, one had to be A) from a signatory country B) in uniform with recognizable insignia and rank C) abide by the recognized rules of war. These mutts violate all three provisos.
They should be shot as OBVIOUS spies. That is a time honored law of war. Forget all other considerations. Were they in a recognized uniform? Did they abide by the laws of war? The answer to both is no, therefore hang the bastards. All of the rest is BS.
Would someone with treaty or international law expertise explain to me how that is not the case?
Just great minds thinking alike, Sal! :-)
I loved your post.
Romney has not been afraid to get after the powers that be.
I admire him tremendously.
Interesting information -thanks.
LOLOL.....oh that voice. Poor Ann she's thankful she's dead.
Even if they wanted it...a Guiliani/Romney or Romney/Guiliani wouldn't work....two northeastern elites??
NO WAY!
Love Mitt. I'm really happy to see so many Freepers beginning to jump on the Romney bandwagon.
The media once again does it's evil deed.
Wonder how Powell feels about being exploited.
Doesn't change my position on McCain one bit but it does mitigate my fury at General Powell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.