I can't think of the word I am looking for... you know, in a courtroom when they keep records of every word that was said???
Should that be a requirement for meetings between our leaders and foreign leaders/representatives, corporate executives and lobbyist?
I think so... after all, these ppl are making deals, decisions and choices that the future of our country is based on. Congressional debates, legalislation, courtrooms... all require this... why not political leaders in their wheeling and dealing?
Cheney just returned from a meeting with the Saudis... he has refused to give details concerning what they discussed or even what was said.
And of course to no one's surprise, the Saudis aren't telling either.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-26T034351Z_01_N22216331_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-CHENEY.xml&src=rss
2006-11-26 07:53:56 · 10 answers · asked by BeachBum 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You raise the big question that is never answered. The big boys make decisions for us all, based on what and for whom? We are naively raised to believe that they are serving us, but we all are savvy enough now to realize that the story we were told is not often true at all. Whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan, Katrina, education, our borders, whatever, we find that there is a huge difference from what we expect and what actually happens. We all suspect, for whatever reason, that things are not on the level, and that our interests are being sold down the river. Some of us think it is minor, some of us think it is treason. What we get are phony explanations with the truth obscured for generations, all to protect us. Whether it is JFK's assassination, the 9/11 investigation where the important chapter is not released, the true story of why there was no help for our citizens after Katrina and no insurance for their losses, we find we don't get the true story. You can bet we will not get it now while we invade countries that have not attacked us, all under the guise of going after the perpetrators of 9/11. What is Cheney doing talking to the Saudi Prince? We would all like to know.
2006-11-26 08:25:09 · answer #1 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It sounds like lets make an oil deal to me. I have no doubt that the man is not above doing this. He and the the whole Bush administration are made up of self centered, self gratifying crooks. I will be so happy when the election of 08 is over and they are sent packing, if not before that to the international war tribunal in the Hague.
2006-11-26 10:09:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A complete transcript would be valuable in that we the people could have evidence that our best interests were being looked after.
The issue of national security would of course be suggested as reason-- by both political parties-- as to why this would not be feasible.
As I understand it, the Saudis employ quite a few former elected officials.
Too much money at stake
2006-11-26 08:05:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
when I met Dr. Vishnu Wakankar ,Archaeologist at Ujjain extremely straightforward ego a lot less pupil . Then I met Vaidya Gurudatta, a novelist and pupil with arya samaj bent ,perhaps first president of Janasangha ,Delhi unit..i'm nonetheless like his follower. Then I met Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for an hour at Indian practice progression . He became also very gentle spoken .
2016-11-26 23:34:24 · answer #4 · answered by ferraro 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they should record their conversations. The American people have the right to know. That would be one way of keeping a politician honest, but that is never going to happen. At least not during the Bush/Cheney regime.
2006-11-26 08:11:17 · answer #5 · answered by Netta 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You are speaking of a transcript of all the meetings, yes they should and yes they do. In the world today everything is mostly done by video transcript but in some cases they still use a transcriptionist to record all the minutes of a meeting.
2006-11-26 08:01:57 · answer #6 · answered by FEVER 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I just asked a question yesterday re: his trip to Saudi Arabia! Why him?????????
We are now to believe that he went there to see if SA could help quell Sunni violence!
Are you kidding?...they(SA) have said they have no influence, they don't partake in such activities....remember they're just a happy little country in a sea of chaos, happy selling their oil to us westerners.
BLAH! That's a load of crap!
2006-11-26 08:24:58 · answer #7 · answered by kissmybum 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think you mean a stenographer, and your courtroom analogy is fitting. The administration has taken every precaution to cover its criminal activities, at least in a strictly legal sense.
2006-11-26 08:01:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Transcripts. Yes I agree they should be documented.(they are not?), and disclosed if possible which I think right now, given our position in the world, is one of those times which it might not be the right thing to do.
2006-11-26 08:06:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think we get the point. In point of fact, there is a record kept.
Other wise it would become a situation of he said she said.
Thank you very much while you're up.
2006-11-26 08:03:22 · answer #10 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋