The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/31/2005 04:08:06 PM · #76

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Eschew Obfuscationâ�¢

Amen, brother! We're studying at the feet of a master here, though. I confess to a certain illicit degree of admiration of his obfuscatory skills. He'd make a hell of a politician, no doubt :-)

R.

What makes you not assume he's not already in the employ of our Fearless Leader? As a worldwide site we are virtually certain to be surveiled, if not infiltrated by agents provocateur. I always assume anything I write here will eventually make its way to the appropriate agency.

Of course, that could be by way of my "reports" too -- ya just never know ... : )

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 16:09:01.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/31/2005 04:09:05 PM · #77

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Oh, and how about referring to him as Ambasador Wilson, or at least Mr. Wilson?

Since Ron isn't the one who raised the issue of forms of address, and hasn't (I don't recall) commented on it one way or the other, its not relevent to correct his use of address with Mr./Amb. Wilson, is it?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/31/2005 04:17:37 PM · #78

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Oh, and how about referring to him as Ambasador Wilson, or at least Mr. Wilson?

Since Ron isn't the one who raised the issue of forms of address, and hasn't (I don't recall) commented on it one way or the other, its not relevent to correct his use of address with Mr./Amb. Wilson, is it?

He's the one who's a stickler for precision.

Oh, and I didn't "correct" him -- I asked why he didn't use the other forms of address. I invited him to explain for himself, without prejudging or assigning a moral value to the answer -- I was just curious, since it seems that there's been a consistent pattern of dissing this gentleman, whether it was a deliberate insult, economy of typing, inadvertant oversight, or any other explanation he'd care to offer.

Unless you're his official spokesperson, guardian, or attorney, I'm not sure why it was appropriate or necessary for you to comment on my question anyway. What's the deal -- it's OK for you to go around "correcting" people but not for me? Hypocrisy is certainly a way of life with you folks.

10/31/2005 04:27:32 PM · #79

I'm not affiliated with the right or left. My principals are either too wide ranging or too ambiguous to be married to any particular ideal set.

Instead, I try to view each situation objectively and form my opinions based on the circumstances at hand.

In this case, I've tried to put myself in the place of those who are such passionate supporters of the current administration that they are absolutely unwilling to waver on their support for every action taken. Objective subjectivism, if you will.

I've tried to understand the moral stance of these people, and this is what I come up with:
It's OK for the Whitehouse to use false information to start a war, as long as they can persuade (sublimate) enough Americans into believing that it's justified. What happens after the fact is irrelevant.

It's either OK for Whitehouse officials to blow an undercover agent's cover as an act of retaliation, or to spread dangerous, unfounded gossip about an undercover agent to reporters (depending on which day you listen to Libby).

It's OK for the president to make rash threats to fire those involved even if he doesn't mean it, and has no intention of doing it.

This absolute trust in the government scares me to death. What did these politicians do to secure such a loyal, cultlike following?

If my own husband or parents did such things I would question them; let alone politicians that I don't even know.

These scandals are like cockroaches to me. If you see one, there are 200 more hiding.

How many cockroaches will it take before people admit their house is infested?

10/31/2005 04:42:55 PM · #80

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bear_music:

If, in your opinion, Libby DID disclose the identity, and if, in your opinion, Libby DID obstruct justice, then how can you consider complaints about this "by those who hate Bush and his administration" to be "FALSE accusations"?

R.

If I am correct in assuming that the "this" in the portion of your question that says "complaints about THIS" refers to a) Libby disclosing Plame's identity, and b) Libby obstructing justice, then your charge that I "consider complaints about "this" to be false accusations, is a question containing a non-factual predicate. I have NEVER complained about the accusations mentioned, namely a) Libby's disclosure of Plame's identity, and b) Libby's obstruction of justice. If you can find a post in which I complained about those accusations, or referred to them as "false", please provide the thread name, and the date/time when I did so.

You've got me completely confused now, Ron. I'm just going on the basis of the quoted statements of yours. A, B, and C. They seem inconsistent, at least outside the overall cojtext of these very long threads. If I've misrepresented you I'm sorry, but I just posted a quote from you and said the 3 components didn't add up for me.

R.

Ah, Robert, if only you hadn't inserted the extra words "about this", I would have read it differently, and responded differently.
In my original post, I didn't mention any false accusations against Bush & co. in this thread ( or "about this" ). I said false accusations against him ( Bush ) and his administration without specifying what thread I was referring to. I thought that the implication was that I was referring to false accusations against him and the administration in general. This is not the first or only thread with an undertone of hostility, ( and false accusations ), against Bush & his administration.
The reason that many of those accusations are false is because of a failure to use accurate terms. And the use of inaccurate terms is often done, in my opinion, deliberately, and for emotional effect. For example: "So-and-so LIED", instead of "What he said was ( or was found later to be ) untrue"; "...Robert Novak...a Bush Administration tool in the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative" instead of "...the leak of a CIA operative" withOUT the designation undercover, which is not true ( by the law's definition ), and information to that effect was available when the original posting was made, etc.

10/31/2005 04:49:14 PM · #81

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Considering what you came up with, ( continued below ) you put yourself in the place of a rather miniscule segment of the population ( and, I might add, one that does NOT represent any contributer to DPC fora that I know of ).

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

It's OK for the Whitehouse to use false information to start a war, as long as they can persuade (sublimate) enough Americans into believing that it's justified. What happens after the fact is irrelevant.

It's either OK for Whitehouse officials to blow an undercover agent's cover as an act of retaliation, or to spread dangerous, unfounded gossip about an undercover agent to reporters (depending on which day you listen to Libby).

It's OK for the president to make rash threats to fire those involved even if he doesn't mean it, and has no intention of doing it.

This absolute trust in the government scares me to death. What did these politicians do to secure such a loyal, cultlike following?

If my own husband or parents did such things I would question them; let alone politicians that I don't even know.

These scandals are like cockroaches to me. If you see one, there are 200 more hiding.

How many cockroaches will it take before people admit their house is infested?

10/31/2005 05:01:49 PM · #82

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

This absolute trust in the government scares me to death. What did these politicians do to secure such a loyal, cultlike following?

Why the cult following? In my opinion, because of what these politicians promise to deliver, and for RonB I believe that's a Christian Nation (although his brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ) that he'll sell his soul to achieve.

10/31/2005 05:07:32 PM · #83

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Thanks for condensing my point. That's exactly what I was getting at. Many of my closest relatives are in this same club, and it freaks me out to see people I love and respect making rationalizations for these reprehensible actions in the name of Christianity.

10/31/2005 05:15:38 PM · #84

Originally posted by RonB:

Wilson did not have the credentials that would have made him qualified to be sent on such a mission, hence his "findings" should not have been given the degree of credibility that would normally have been given to someone charged with intelligence gathering.

It seems to me if Cheney&Co. were peeved about Wilson's report and thought him unqualified for the mission, they should have made the argument that he was unqualified and dismiss his report on THAT basis, or criticize whoever it was that made the decision to send Wilson. His wife was not the decisionmaker. His wife's recommendation of him for the job still is not relevant and it was completely unnecessary to discredit Wilson by revealing his wife's identity.

10/31/2005 05:36:19 PM · #85

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
This absolute trust in the government scares me to death. What did these politicians do to secure such a loyal, cultlike following?

Why the cult following? In my opinion, because of what these politicians promise to deliver, and for RonB I believe that's a Christian Nation (although his brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ) that he'll sell his soul to achieve.

My "brand of Christianity" compels me to turn the other cheek to the defamatory statements you make against me in your post.
Furthermore, as always, I would ask that you provide some evidence supporting your charge - in this case, that my "brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ". Which teachings of Christ have I not demonstrated?
Psalm 141 verse 5 "Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it."
If you can show me where I have not demonstrated the teachings of Christ, I will consider it a service.

10/31/2005 07:11:02 PM · #86

Dang it! I promised myself to stay out of these political/religous rants; but here I am again!

Originally posted by RonB:

Which teachings of Christ have I not demonstrated?
Psalm 141 verse 5 "Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it."
If you can show me where I have not demonstrated the teachings of Christ, I will consider it a service.

The "Quoting Scriptures to Make Your Point Game" is a trap I've fallen into before, and refuse to play again. I have learned that bible verses can be construed to support just about any position and defend most actions.

The Bible contains many contradictions, but I believe that the ultimate purpose of the text is to encourage humans to refrain from causing each other harm, with the ultimate reward of life after death.

This is what confounds me about these scandals. It seems as though many Bush Administration supporters are quite willing to defend the blatant wrongdoings of certain government officials, without question, just because the organization claims to be acting in the best interest of God and morality.

My many years of membership in the Christian faith taught me to beware of "False Prophets", because God is the only true authority. Cults are so successful because followers are brainwashed into believing that the leader speaks for a divine being. Followers of a cult will gradually accept increasingly immoral behavior from the leaders, who ultimately fall because of their obsession with power.

Without this explanation, I am unable to understand how anyone could support this leadership so vehemently despite the egregious human rights violations. With this explanation, it is obvious why no amount of evidence or logic will sway the followers from their loyalty. This theory is reinforced by the fact that many previous supporters backed away from the association once they realized how corrupt it is. There is nothing wrong with having good intentions and making a mistake. There is everything wrong with making a mistake and adhering to it for the sake of pride.

I can't speak for your version of Christianity, RonB (and I honestly believe you are a well-intentioned, moral man); however, I would be interested in an objective assessment of how the actions of this leadership would be viewed if they did not profess to be acting on behalf of the Christian god.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/31/2005 07:47:53 PM · #87

Originally posted by RonB:

... the use of inaccurate terms is often done, in my opinion, deliberately, and for emotional effect.

Wilson would agree with you.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

10/31/2005 08:20:49 PM · #88

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Is this the same type of corruption as was the "trading" of nuclear secrets to China?

Attempting to justify the current corruption situation by referring to past wrong doings.

This will get us nowhere.

Mad..., almost all are corrupt. I was not attempting to justify either situation.

10/31/2005 09:31:18 PM · #89

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

The Bible contains many contradictions, but I believe that the ultimate purpose of the text is to encourage humans to refrain from causing each other harm, with the ultimate reward of life after death.

I believe that I have consistently gone out of my way to avoid causing other's harm. I have attempted to refraind from the use of pejoritive name-calling and character assignation. I have not always succeeded, but have always apologized when I have done so. I cannot say the same for my detractors.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

This is what confounds me about these scandals. It seems as though many Bush Administration supporters are quite willing to defend the blatant wrongdoings of certain government officials, without question, just because the organization claims to be acting in the best interest of God and morality.

Some may very well be guilty of your charges, but I don't believe that I have been "quite willing to defend the blatant wrongdoings of certain government officials, without question" for any reason, let alone their organizational claims. I have sided with those who condemn "blatant wrongdoings". The difference is that many of the accusations of "blatant wrongdoings", whoever the target, are not always "blatant" at all, but are charges built up out of conjecture, suspicions, allegations, charges, whispers, innuendo, etc. In the case of those I admire, for whatever reason, I defend them specifically against those "false" charges. Since I do not admire everyone, I leave it to others to defend those they admire.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

My many years of membership in the Christian faith taught me to beware of "False Prophets", because God is the only true authority. Cults are so successful because followers are brainwashed into believing that the leader speaks for a divine being. Followers of a cult will gradually accept increasingly immoral behavior from the leaders, who ultimately fall because of their obsession with power.

I agree.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Without this explanation, I am unable to understand how anyone could support this leadership so vehemently despite the egregious human rights violations. With this explanation, it is obvious why no amount of evidence or logic will sway the followers from their loyalty. This theory is reinforced by the fact that many previous supporters backed away from the association once they realized how corrupt it is. There is nothing wrong with having good intentions and making a mistake. There is everything wrong with making a mistake and adhering to it for the sake of pride.

Do you support Christ? If so, you do so despite the egregious actions of so many priests preying on young boys. Christ is the head of the church, and the church has covered up the egregious actions of its priests for decades. Yet I would HOPE that you would still defend Christ. And the Pope - at least against accusations that HE ( the Pope ) was part of the conspiracy of silence in the church.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I can't speak for your version of Christianity, RonB (and I honestly believe you are a well-intentioned, moral man); however, I would be interested in an objective assessment of how the actions of this leadership would be viewed if they did not profess to be acting on behalf of the Christian god.

I would be interested also. Why? Because I believe that Bush & his administration are being judged more harshly because he does/they do profess to be a men of faith. Not that they shouldn't be - they should. But I think that this leadership would be viewed differently if it were NOT. However, since it is already known, it is nigh unto impossible to obtain an objective assessment. Except through the eyes of history. And that won't be available for some time.

10/31/2005 09:47:52 PM · #90

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
This absolute trust in the government scares me to death. What did these politicians do to secure such a loyal, cultlike following?

Why the cult following? In my opinion, because of what these politicians promise to deliver, and for RonB I believe that's a Christian Nation (although his brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ) that he'll sell his soul to achieve.

My "brand of Christianity" compels me to turn the other cheek to the defamatory statements you make against me in your post.
Furthermore, as always, I would ask that you provide some evidence supporting your charge - in this case, that my "brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ". Which teachings of Christ have I not demonstrated?
Psalm 141 verse 5 "Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it."
If you can show me where I have not demonstrated the teachings of Christ, I will consider it a service.

I'll refer you to an article I came across last year that describes what I believe is the perversion of Christ's message that now passes for Christianity in the United States, according to the radical religious right. The writer is more eloquent on this subject than I can be.

"I was told in Sunday school the word "Christian" means to be Christ-like, but the message I hear daily on the airwaves from the â��christian â�� media are words of war, violence, and aggression. Throughout this article I will spell Christian with a small c rather than a capital, since the term (as I usually hear it thrown about) does not refer to the teachings of the one I know as the Christ. I hear church goers call in to radio programs and explain that it was a mistake not to kill every living thing in Fallujah. They quote chapter and verse from the old testament about smiting the enemies of Israel. The fear of fighting the terrorists on our soil rather than across the globe causes the voices to be raised as they justify the latest prison scandal or other accounts of the horrors of war. The words they speak are words of destruction, aggression, dominance, revenge, fear and arrogance. The host and the callers echo the belief in the righteousness of our nation's killing. There are reminders to pray for our â��Christianâ�� president who is doing the work of the Lord: Right to Life, Second Amendment, sanctity of marriage, welfare reform, war, kill, evil liberals. . . so much to fight, so much to destroy."

The full article is here.

10/31/2005 10:41:45 PM · #91

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
This absolute trust in the government scares me to death. What did these politicians do to secure such a loyal, cultlike following?

Why the cult following? In my opinion, because of what these politicians promise to deliver, and for RonB I believe that's a Christian Nation (although his brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ) that he'll sell his soul to achieve.

My "brand of Christianity" compels me to turn the other cheek to the defamatory statements you make against me in your post.
Furthermore, as always, I would ask that you provide some evidence supporting your charge - in this case, that my "brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ". Which teachings of Christ have I not demonstrated?
Psalm 141 verse 5 "Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it."
If you can show me where I have not demonstrated the teachings of Christ, I will consider it a service.

I'll refer you to an article I came across last year that describes what I believe is the perversion of Christ's message that now passes for Christianity in the United States, according to the radical religious right. The writer is more eloquent on this subject than I can be.

"I was told in Sunday school the word "Christian" means to be Christ-like, but the message I hear daily on the airwaves from the â��christian â�� media are words of war, violence, and aggression. Throughout this article I will spell Christian with a small c rather than a capital, since the term (as I usually hear it thrown about) does not refer to the teachings of the one I know as the Christ. I hear church goers call in to radio programs and explain that it was a mistake not to kill every living thing in Fallujah. They quote chapter and verse from the old testament about smiting the enemies of Israel. The fear of fighting the terrorists on our soil rather than across the globe causes the voices to be raised as they justify the latest prison scandal or other accounts of the horrors of war. The words they speak are words of destruction, aggression, dominance, revenge, fear and arrogance. The host and the callers echo the belief in the righteousness of our nation's killing. There are reminders to pray for our â��Christianâ�� president who is doing the work of the Lord: Right to Life, Second Amendment, sanctity of marriage, welfare reform, war, kill, evil liberals. . . so much to fight, so much to destroy."

The full article is here.

I am not disinclined to agree with much of what the writer, and you by reference, have to say about many who call themselves Christians. As I have said in an earlier post, in another thread, though I belive in science and in Christ, I do not believe in either scientists or in Christians purely because of their professions ( the word is a pun, because for the scientist, science is his profession ( job ); for the Christian, Christ is the object of his/her profession ( of faith ).
On the other hand, it was not a statement about Christians in general that engendered my posts, but rather the charge against ME, personally - specifically, the charge that my "brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ" and that it is a Christian Nation that I would sell my soul to achieve.
I asked for examples showing evidence of those charges, as I feel I am entitled to do. You haven't responed to that request - that is, to show examples of how MY brand of Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ.
"I" have not justified the latest prison scandal ( only attempted to clarify the meaning of "torture" and how the McCain amendment would redefine it to the make "normal" interrogations illegal under its expanded definition ). I have not spoken words of destruction, aggression, dominance, revenge, fear and arrogance.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/31/2005 10:55:00 PM · #92

RonB,

In answer to your questions: I don't support Christ, by definition of Chrisitanity. My sense of spirituality is very strong, but not confined to a particular religion. Paedophilia, in my opinion, is a crime second only to murder; and is one of the initial reasons I began to question the church. It appalls me that those priests have been allowed to get away with such crimes. To complicate matters, the church I was raised in tried to teach me that all other denominations (especially Catholic) were destined for Hell. This is another reason I left.

I have a great deal of admiration for many Christians and their values, however many, that I have met, are hypocrites who preach one thing and do another (current administration included). Which brings up the point: The crimes against children committed by the Catholic Church are irrelevant in a discussion about the US government (other than the indifference by the government towards such abuses).

If the current administration is being judged more harshly because of their faith (which I don't believe); it could be because of the contradiction between their professed values and their actions.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/01/2005 12:31:38 AM · #93

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Oh, and how about referring to him as Ambasador Wilson, or at least Mr. Wilson?

Since Ron isn't the one who raised the issue of forms of address, and hasn't (I don't recall) commented on it one way or the other, its not relevent to correct his use of address with Mr./Amb. Wilson, is it?

He's the one who's a stickler for precision.

Oh, and I didn't "correct" him -- I asked why he didn't use the other forms of address. I invited him to explain for himself, without prejudging or assigning a moral value to the answer -- I was just curious, since it seems that there's been a consistent pattern of dissing this gentleman, whether it was a deliberate insult, economy of typing, inadvertant oversight, or any other explanation he'd care to offer.

Unless you're his official spokesperson, guardian, or attorney, I'm not sure why it was appropriate or necessary for you to comment on my question anyway. What's the deal -- it's OK for you to go around "correcting" people but not for me? Hypocrisy is certainly a way of life with you folks.

I asked you a question as you asked him. Excuse me for daring to question you.

Didn't I read something recently about obfuscation...?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/01/2005 02:06:47 AM · #94

Originally posted by ScottK:

I asked you a question as you asked him. Excuse me for daring to question you.

OK, you're excused.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/01/2005 08:37:58 AM · #95

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

The crimes against children committed by the Catholic Church are irrelevant in a discussion about the US government (other than the indifference by the government towards such abuses).

The relevance is that if someone deems it valid to judge Bush because of the actions of his adherents ( because, surely, he exercised some control over them, or at least knew what they were doing, but did nothing to stop it ), then that same someone should likewise find it valid to judge Christ because of the actions of His adherents ( because, surely, he exercised control over them, or at least knew what they were doing, but did nothing to stop it ). I use the analogy to point out that many would approve of statement 1, but disapprove statement 2 - thus showing that they are rather selective in the application of their "logic".
I'd be interested, as a side note, to hear the rationale behind your charge that the government is/has been indifferent to the abuses that have occurred within the church. Where the victims have not settled "out of court", they have had access to the full power of the judiciary to pursue their complaints through the courts. In all but a few cases, mostly those found to be fraudulent claims, the courts have decided in favor of the victims. How does that translate into "indifference"?

Flash

Nikon D700

11/01/2005 09:18:26 AM · #96

I believe that if one chooses to play in the major leagues, then they should be prepared for the "contact" that occurs.

For Mr. Wilson to claim his astonishment at "retribution" for his public challenge to the present administration, is akin to someone complaining of being hit in the NHL. If you choose to go out on the ice, then be prepared for what happens out there.

Governments throughout history and the current world all play a very serious brand of politics. If you can't hang with the big dogs.....then you really need to stay on the porch. Mr. Wilson had every right to write the article he did. Just as any of you, have the right to publish your thoughts and opinions. However, for those of you in corporate america, I trust you will agree with me, that certain commentary carries substantial carreer ending consequences. Many a corporate manager has been sidelined due to a public disagreement with a politically superior foe. It is the way of politics. Thus Mr. Wilson's check against the boards was expected, or at least should have been.

The surprise of some that a political hardball play was carried out between adversaries, should shock no one. What would have been a surprise, was if it hadn't. But to many, arguing against the right is the real sport. It matters not what the facts/truth/rules are, only that discourse can continue to attack, in the hope that a more liberal leaning government (with the same proven history of deceipt) can captain the country for awhile.

It may happen. But thanks to the tireless replying of Ron B, at least it won't go unchallenged. And the facts have a better chance of being considered.

11/01/2005 10:00:13 AM · #97

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by AP Style Guide:

"On first reference, use a person's full name, including the middle initial, and title if important to the story. On second reference, use only the last name with no title. In the following example, for instance, we assume that on first reference the person was called Dr. Donald Drumm. The following are possible second-reference uses: The doctor agreed. Drumm agreed. "

I used "Wilson", as suggested by the style guides, to refer to Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, just as I use the shortened reference of "Libby" to refer to I. Lewis, "Scooter", Libby, or the shortend reference of "Bush" to refer to President George. W. Bush, etc. My use of the shortened reference should in no way be misconstrued as being disrespectful. Certainly, those who chastise me regularly know that I do not disrespect the President, yet I have not been chastised for referring to him simply as "Bush".

11/01/2005 10:45:55 AM · #98

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
The crimes against children committed by the Catholic Church are irrelevant in a discussion about the US government (other than the indifference by the government towards such abuses).

The relevance is that if someone deems it valid to judge Bush because of the actions of his adherents ( because, surely, he exercised some control over them, or at least knew what they were doing, but did nothing to stop it ), then that same someone should likewise find it valid to judge Christ because of the actions of His adherents ( because, surely, he exercised control over them, or at least knew what they were doing, but did nothing to stop it ). I use the analogy to point out that many would approve of statement 1, but disapprove statement 2 - thus showing that they are rather selective in the application of their "logic".

The difference between Bush and Christ, though, is that Bush endorses, supports and encourages the bad behavior of his "adherents" (his staff), as this leak case proves. Sure, Bush appears to disapprove, such as when he says "This is a serious matter," or "I'll fire anyone who is found to have had anything to do with the leak," but, as usual, his actions tell a different story.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/01/2005 11:01:10 AM · #99

Originally posted by RonB:

Sorry, Paul, I missed this one.
According to most major media style guides, once a person has been introduced by their full name and title, or relationship, that only their last name is needed in further references - unless there are two people with the same last name, in which case some additional clarification is needed. For example, the AP style-guide says
Originally posted by AP Style Guide:
"On first reference, use a person's full name, including the middle initial, and title if important to the story. On second reference, use only the last name with no title. In the following example, for instance, we assume that on first reference the person was called Dr. Donald Drumm. The following are possible second-reference uses: The doctor agreed. Drumm agreed. "

I used "Wilson", as suggested by the style guides, to refer to Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, just as I use the shortened reference of "Libby" to refer to I. Lewis, "Scooter", Libby, or the shortend reference of "Bush" to refer to President George. W. Bush, etc. My use of the shortened reference should in no way be misconstrued as being disrespectful. Certainly, those who chastise me regularly know that I do not disrespect the President, yet I have not been chastised for referring to him simply as "Bush".

Yeah, but it was your first reference to him in that posting -- any previous references to him in that post were quoted. It certainly read as being brusque, if not rude.

Also, "those who chastise you regularly" are not likely to care (or maybe even notice) if you diss the Prez ....

Since all the players have been previously mentioned in this thread, I guess we are all free to refer to them by last name only in subsequent postings here.

Please note that I only raised the point in a plea for consistency, when ScottK criticized people in general for not refering to Bush as "President Bush." I'm actually pretty impressed with the restraint people have shown regarding what they call these ~~{derogatory term}~~ guys.