Results indicate Americans are wary about future of Iraq Tuesday, December 21, 2004 Posted: 4:06 AM EST (0906 GMT) A recent poll indicates falling confidence in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fifty-two percent of respondents to a new poll think Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign amid recent criticism in Congress over his handling of the war in Iraq. www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/poll/index.html
Do you think U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld should resign over his handling of the war in Iraq ? www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=42755
Wow. That is two minutes of my life I will never get back. As for Rumsfeld - I vote a monkey - any monkey - could do a better job.
By the way, mytwocents - I am a little disappointed you did not address the post to you here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42842
I think Rummy stays, both because he is very tight with the White House through Ccheney in a way Powell, for example, never was, and because dumping him would be seen as an admission that Iraq has been screwed up. I believe the White House really doesn't believe it has been screwed up, so they are not going to do something to validate that notion. Getting a replacement for Rummy confirmed would open up a big can of worms too.
Chavez: U.S. will 'bite the dust' if it invades Tuesday, August 9, 2005 Posted: 1041 GMT (1841 HKT) http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/09/chavez.invasion.ap/index.html
Oh good grief! Would the US even need to invade? Chavez has to deal with a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh column (or about 1/2 of the population) who hate his guts. I'd wait for the next election, if he survives that long.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Exemption 7(F) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (7)(F), does not permit the government to hide records of its own misconduct, or of the misconduct of its agents, based upon a fear of violent public reaction to the disclosure. Amici do not dispute, as a general matter, the legitimacy of the governmentâs interest in the safety of its military personnel, or even in the safety of foreigners living in American zones of conflict overseas. Amici do object, however, to the governmentâs misdirected effort to undermine the FOIA by asserting, in essence, that its own misconduct has created an indictment too damning for the public to see. The government erroneously proposes a novel and distasteful application of Exemption 7(F) based upon the degree of outrage disclosure might provoke. Historically, Exemption 7(F) has been used most frequently to protect names from disclosure when that publicity would ostensibly endanger individualsâ personal safety. Two district courts have also allowed the use of Exemption 7(F) to suppress dam inundation maps and machine gun plans under the theory that the disclosure of technical information could be directly utilized to commit terrorism or crime. Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1321-22 (D.Utah 2003); LaRouche v. Webster, No. 75 Civ. 6010 (MJL), 1984 WL 1061 at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 1984). There is no precedent for the construction the government proposes. The governmentâs new request for secrecy appears to be based upon dubious reasoning and suspect timing, coming as it did literally within hours of its court-ordered deadline to finally hand records over to the ACLU and other FOIA requesters. Notably, the court order was issued in response to the governmentâs loss on a first argument, its unsuccessful reliance upon an argument that disclosure of the records violated detainees âprivacy.â Regardless of whether the government technically has the right to claim a new FOIA exemption after fully arguing and losing its claims to other exemptions, its latest action creates further and unnecessary delay, violating the right of the ACLU and the public to a timely resolution of this access dispute. Enlarging Exemption 7(F) to accommodate the governmentâs new argument would significantly undermine both the intent of the exemption and the integrity of the Act as a whole for two reasons. First, the governmentâs interpretation would result in a perverse outcome by rewarding state actors who commit illegal activities so atrocious as to provoke fears of violent retribution should those acts be uncovered. Second, the governmentâs justification is both so vague and overbroad with regard to improper military conduct that Exemption 7(F) would fast become an exception that entirely swallows the rule.
www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=80041 www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=80306 - The End -