|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2005 11:12:23 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Flash:
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. |
*****
What kind of lawless society are you advocating here? "It matters not what the facts/truth/rules are"? What kind of foolishness is this? The outing of Valerie Plame is against the law as is obstructing justice and perjury.
I guess you'd just like to see US society return to days of gun slinging. How do you expect first amendment rights to be protected if anyone is allowed to take such serious actions, as the Bush administration took against the Wilson's for finding out the facts in a job he was hired to do for the government. Or do you not have any respect for truth at all? Since when were the Bushes and the Wilsons adversaries before this incident?
What are the facts and truth here? Do you have any understanding of them in this case? Politics is not for playing games with people's lives.
The deeper meaning of your post, and that of RonB's, as well as, that of the Bush administration and the Christian conservative right leaders is that authority is not to be challenged, ever, regardless of what the truth may be. This is the crux of the matter. Authoritarianism. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 11:24:45 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What kind of lawless society are you advocating here? "It matters not what the facts/truth/rules are"? What kind of foolishness is this? The outing of Valerie Plame is against the law as is obstructing justice and perjury. |
I believe you should re-read my post. I believe that you have misunderstood at least one sentence.
I am not convinced at this point that the outing of Valerie Plame was a violation of the law, and apparently the Special Prosecutor agrees. At least for now.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 11:48:16 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The deeper meaning of your post, and that of RonB's, as well as, that of the Bush administration and the Christian conservative right leaders is that authority is not to be challenged, ever, regardless of what the truth may be. This is the crux of the matter. Authoritarianism. |
Olyuzi,
Please do not attribute positions to me that you do not have evidence to be true. My life has been filled with challenges to authority. I awake in the morning and seek authority to challenge. I pay a high price for my challenges, (both grades in school and during my career), but none of the prices were a surprise. I did not regret my challenges nor have I backed away from them. But prices I have paid, none the less. It is my choice to be vocal and challenge authority when I believe it is in error. Rarely is it appreciated, but sometimes it is. My point is that as an adult, this is a free will choice. And if I make the choice, then I had better be prepared for the fallout that accompanies it. Or else I should re-consider. Choice. Simple adult choice. Mr. Wilson made his. Live with it. I do. And so do massive amounts of other individuals who choose to speak their minds, (Rosa Parks, Larry Flynt, Martin Luther King, Chris Matthews, Jane Fonda, "O'Reiley"), and you. Speak your mind. Just don't be surprised when the other side plays "Hardball". Make your choices. Just live with them.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 11:51:40 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The deeper meaning of your post, and that of RonB's, as well as, that of the Bush administration and the Christian conservative right leaders is that authority is not to be challenged, ever, regardless of what the truth may be. This is the crux of the matter. Authoritarianism. |
I have never once in all my readings of RonB's debate points seen him argue this logic. I support a large percentage of RonB's researched facts and if I am wrong I am sure he can support himself.
This is a bit off topic in terms of title "The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation", but not to far off the topic of any debate. I encourage you to read this link specifically on the points of debate.
"The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That̢۪s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions."
The source of this material is here and also the full article click here If you want the creditials of the individual that wrote the article click here
Blanket statements do not get us any closer to the truth or Truth.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 11:52:18 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
I didn't criticize anyone here for not refering to Bush as "President Bush". Please take care who you accuse of what. (I guess your confussion explains the harshness of your previous response to me. On the other hand, if I ever have in any past thread, well, I guess you might have grounds to indict me of perjury in the court of DPC.)
And, even if I had, why hold Ron accountable for it? |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 12:03:48 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
I didn't criticize anyone here for not refering to Bush as "President Bush". Please take care who you accuse of what. (I guess your confussion explains the harshness of your previous response to me. On the other hand, if I ever have in any past thread, well, I guess you might have grounds to indict me of perjury in the court of DPC.)
And, even if I had, why hold Ron accountable for it? |
I'm sorry -- you're correct. It was someone else's post which initiated this diversion, and I must have gotten confused by one of your follow-up comments. And I only picked on RonB for that because of his post which followed shortly afterwards, which seemed to be an example of the same thing from the "other side."
Hopefully we can get over discussing forms of address and back to something more substantive ... |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 12:25:59 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
I didn't criticize anyone here for not refering to Bush as "President Bush". Please take care who you accuse of what. (I guess your confussion explains the harshness of your previous response to me. On the other hand, if I ever have in any past thread, well, I guess you might have grounds to indict me of perjury in the court of DPC.)
And, even if I had, why hold Ron accountable for it? |
I'm sorry -- you're correct. It was someone else's post which initiated this diversion, and I must have gotten confused by one of your follow-up comments. And I only picked on RonB for that because of his post which followed shortly afterwards, which seemed to be an example of the same thing from the "other side."
Hopefully we can get over discussing forms of address and back to something more substantive ... |
No problem. Its easy to lose the flow. Just for clarification: Should we address you as Mr. or Gen. :)
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 12:45:27 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Flash:
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. |
Mr. Wilson would not have found it necessary to set the record straight (in his article) had the intelligence not been misused and lied about by the Bush administration in the first place. So what you're essentially saying is that one should be prepared to have their reputation destroyed and perhaps their life put in jeopardy simply because they tell the truth, and that this expectation (to have one's life ruined) is perfectly logical and reasonable, yes? So it's okay for one's political opponents to lie and break the law in seeking retribution?
That's some set of ethical guidelines you've got there.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 12:46:32 PM · #109 |
One becomes nostalgic for the Harry Truman days, when there was a plaque on the presidential desk that said "The buck stops here." Yes, a leader IS responsible for the actions of his followers. It's as simple as that.
For an example of this in extremis consider the case of Thomas a Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, murdered by followers of the king, Henry. He was heard to murmur "Will no one rid me of this troublesome man?" or words to that effect, and his followers took this at face value as a request, and assasinated Thomas. All Henry's attempts to evade responsibility for this came to naught.
Leaders, historically, are frequently (and rightly, IMO) brought down by the actions of their administrations/followers. If you can't keep order in your own house, you have no right to lead.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-11-01 12:46:58.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 01:00:38 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
No problem. Its easy to lose the flow. Just for clarification: Should we address you as Mr. or Gen. :) |
You can call me Al ... wait ... that was Paul Simon.
I don't much care actually, I grew up in an informal household, and the students and staff at my school were on a first-name basis -- I rarely had occasion to use honorifics until high school.
Message edited by author 2005-11-01 13:07:17. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 01:43:07 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
When I speak of government indifference, I refer to the government's failure to protect the children of our nation, in general. |
If you looked at the problem logically, you would understand that it is virtually impossible to protect the children of our nation from the types of abuse listed in the link you posted. For one thing, the report does not differentiate first instance from subsequent instance. Because it doesn't, we have no way of knowing whether the government COULD have prevented an instance of abuse based on fore-knowledge. I don't think that it is realistic to expect the government to spy on us to the point that they could prevent the first occurrence of abuse, any more than we can expect the government to prevent other types of crime. Certainly, if someone threatens to kill his/her ex-spouse, government should take steps to insure the safety of the one threatened, but absent the fore-knowledge, how do you expect government to prevent first occurrence abuse?
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Conservatives are so preoccupied with the abortion issue that they don't seem to have much interest in protecting the children after they are born. |
I don't believe that it is fair to paint all conservatives with the same brush. I know MANY conservatives who do not fit the mold you have cast. Considering the records of government schools vis-a-vis physical and sexual abuse, I would say that one of the measures that many conservatives take to prove that they are interested in the safety of children is to put their own children in private schools and/or to home school them.
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
The only way to change my mind about this would be a major crackdown on sex offenders |
What, in your opinion, should the government DO, for you to consider it a major crackdown? Paint all sex offenders with a scarlet letter? Chemical castration? Life imprisonment? For what offenses? Who decides? Remember, it was only a few decades ago that homosexual behaviour was considered a sexual offense. What you decide is offensive today may not be in the future, but lifetime imprisonment is for a l-o-n-n-g time.
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
...a massive education campaign to educate children and adults about this issue and a cohesive system installed to rescue and protect children from dangerous adults (And don't say HHS, they are underfunded, overwhelmed, and sometimes corrupt). |
On this last, I am in full agreement. But guess what? Many of the very best programs to deal with protecting women and children in abusive situations are ( gasp ) faith-based. And they are essentially off-limits to the government because they are. If the government could fund them, there would be more of them.
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
It would also be interesting to see how Bush would react if the priests had been accused of practicing stem cell research instead of raping little kids. |
He would probably have done nothing. Practicing stem cell research is not against the law - unless it a) uses new embryonic stem cell lines in a government funded program, or b) has as its objective, creation of a human clone. For the record, and contrary to popular myth, embryonic stem cell research is not against the law. The law merely prohibits federal funding for research using embryonic stem cell lines that were non-existant when the federal funding prohibition on such lines was enacted. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 01:45:53 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The deeper meaning of your post, and that of RonB's, as well as, that of the Bush administration and the Christian conservative right leaders is that authority is not to be challenged, ever, regardless of what the truth may be. This is the crux of the matter. Authoritarianism. |
Olyuzi,
Please do not attribute positions to me that you do not have evidence to be true. My life has been filled with challenges to authority. I awake in the morning and seek authority to challenge. I pay a high price for my challenges, (both grades in school and during my career), but none of the prices were a surprise. I did not regret my challenges nor have I backed away from them. But prices I have paid, none the less. It is my choice to be vocal and challenge authority when I believe it is in error. Rarely is it appreciated, but sometimes it is. My point is that as an adult, this is a free will choice. And if I make the choice, then I had better be prepared for the fallout that accompanies it. Or else I should re-consider. Choice. Simple adult choice. Mr. Wilson made his. Live with it. I do. And so do massive amounts of other individuals who choose to speak their minds, (Rosa Parks, Larry Flynt, Martin Luther King, Chris Matthews, Jane Fonda, "O'Reiley"), and you. Speak your mind. Just don't be surprised when the other side plays "Hardball". Make your choices. Just live with them. |
*********
Would you say "live with it" to MLK or Larry Flynt? Were the criminal actions perpetrated on them acceptable for speaking their minds, or were those cases of repression and reprehensible to you?
If you were a spokesperson for the Bush administration I would say that your original post is an admission of guilt as to the outing of Plame.
Originally posted by you:
"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."
It sounds like you are saying that the Bush administration deliberately and maliciously and knowingly committed a crime because a paid governmental offical charged with finding out the truth, spoke out in defiance of the facts as presented by Bush. Spoke truth to power. Is this ethically acceptable to you?
There is no time for dirty politics when the security of a nation and its people are at stake. The Bush administration are playing a dirty game and not living by the rules. The playing field is not a level one here and there is not give and take as in normal discourse for those in power always have the upperhand. If it is proven true in a court of law that Plame was intentionally outed by the government, they not only put Plame and all other undercover/covert agents at risk; not only put those organizations supporting those agents at risk; not only put the security of our nation at risk, but put democracy itself, and the right to dissent, and the first amendment at risk.
As I see it, the underlying affinity of the Bush administration and the Christian Right exists because of their proclivity for an oppressive and authoritarian rule and life style. Those in power, whether government officials or the high priests of the Christian Right seek ultimate power and control at all costs, including using the iron fist and the underhand.
I just hope that eventually those in the Bush administration have to live with their choices and face justice. I really don't know how they can sleep at night. It is beyond me to understand how anyone of conscience can support and defend such a ruthless and ethically challenged administration such as this.
Message edited by author 2005-11-01 13:58:55. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 01:57:10 PM · #113 |
What Flash is saying is "This is the way the game has always been played, and if you can't handle it stay out of the game."
That might be a valid point of view if the game were "optional", but it is not. The "game" here is our lives, and the welfare of our nation. We are all in the game, one way or another; it affects all of us.
I find that attitude, the testosterone-laden, primal-conflict attitude to be absolutely terrifying. It's tantamount to saying that we should concede control over humanity's destiny to the most warlike and amoral among us.
It makes me sick.
I prefer to see my leaders acting in a manner that's morally beyond reproach, thank you very much.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 02:00:56 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Mr. Wilson would not have found it necessary to set the record straight (in his article) had the intelligence not been misused and lied about by the Bush administration in the first place. So what you're essentially saying is that one should be prepared to have their reputation destroyed and perhaps their life put in jeopardy simply because they tell the truth, and that this expectation (to have one's life ruined) is perfectly logical and reasonable, yes? So it's okay for one's political opponents to lie and break the law in seeking retribution?
That's some set of ethical guidelines you've got there. |
Judith,
Not a set of ethical guidelines. Simply politics. The same politics played by administrations and boardrooms around the world and throughout history. People have the right to engage or not engage. But to complain about the politics of politics, seems disengenuous.
Regarding the setting straight the record, per Mr. Wilson's op ed piece, there are many ways to set the record straight. He specifically chose the method he used. He had the right to choose that method. But politics is politics. The use of words to convey what you wish to be heard, while technically not saying what people are hearing, is the art of political campaigns. If you are appalled to think that a politician (pick your party) would use words to sell you on an idea while not technically saying what you think you are hearing, then you need to spend alot more time watching C-Span. Mr. Wilson has been discredited via several findings by the Senate committee.
The claim that intelligence was mis-used and lied about, seems to be the crux of many arguments against this administration regarding the build up and subsequent actions in Iraq. I have yet to find many that believed any of it anyway. I didn't. Not until Colin Powell spoke before the UN. He as you may know, is no longer in this administration. He made (in my opinion) a noble and honorable decision to leave an administration, due to what I "believe" to be a sense of feeling "used". However, he did not write an op ed piece in the NY Times. The Senators and Congressmen who claim to have voted for the authorization to go to war based off the "lies" from this administration is hogwash. Those that in hindsight want political "cover" for their adult decisions, is inexcusable. However that is part of politics. If they can successfully place their gullibleness on the evil president and his minions, then perhaps the american voters will not hold them accountable and give them their votes in '06. The voters deserve who they elect. Right, left, conservative or liberal. Just don't mistake any of them as having skeleton free closets.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 02:11:17 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by RonB:
What, in your opinion, should the government DO, for you to consider it a major crackdown? Chemical castration? |
Physical castration. Pieces of shit shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 02:15:28 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
What Flash is saying is "This is the way the game has always been played, and if you can't handle it stay out of the game."
That might be a valid point of view if the game were "optional", but it is not. The "game" here is our lives, and the welfare of our nation. We are all in the game, one way or another; it affects all of us.
I find that attitude, the testosterone-laden, primal-conflict attitude to be absolutely terrifying. It's tantamount to saying that we should concede control over humanity's destiny to the most warlike and amoral among us.
It makes me sick.
I prefer to see my leaders acting in a manner that's morally beyond reproach, thank you very much.
Robt. |
I fully agree. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:22:29 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
What Flash is saying is "This is the way the game has always been played, and if you can't handle it stay out of the game."
That might be a valid point of view if the game were "optional", but it is not. The "game" here is our lives, and the welfare of our nation. We are all in the game, one way or another; it affects all of us.
I find that attitude, the testosterone-laden, primal-conflict attitude to be absolutely terrifying. It's tantamount to saying that we should concede control over humanity's destiny to the most warlike and amoral among us.
It makes me sick.
I prefer to see my leaders acting in a manner that's morally beyond reproach, thank you very much.
Robt. |
bear_music,
The only correction I would suggest is the reference to the "game". I concur that the issue of national security and "war" are not games, however the place at which Mr. Wilson chose to publically dis-agree and challenge this administration of "lying", namely the op ed of the NY Times, was certainly akin to game playing, or Hardball Politics. So when chooses to lay out dirty laundry in such a public forum, then one can't in my opinion, claim "foul" when the other side does the same.
Had Mr. Wilson choosen a different venue to challenge the admimistrations claims or even if the result was an endagerment to his family, then I would take a different stance. However, to my knowledge, the only casuality to Mr. Wilson or his wife, was some career stifling, which in my opinion is evidenced throughout many businesses, universities, government institutions, congress, and so forth. Therefore, the gamemanship was in the method, not the content.
Regarding your preference to have leaders act in a moral way beyond reproach.....I share the same sentiment. I just can't think of any that have.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:30:13 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Mr. Wilson would not have found it necessary to set the record straight (in his article) had the intelligence not been misused and lied about by the Bush administration in the first place. So what you're essentially saying is that one should be prepared to have their reputation destroyed and perhaps their life put in jeopardy simply because they tell the truth, and that this expectation (to have one's life ruined) is perfectly logical and reasonable, yes? So it's okay for one's political opponents to lie and break the law in seeking retribution?
That's some set of ethical guidelines you've got there. |
Judith,
Not a set of ethical guidelines. Simply politics. The same politics played by administrations and boardrooms around the world and throughout history. People have the right to engage or not engage. But to complain about the politics of politics, seems disengenuous.
Regarding the setting straight the record, per Mr. Wilson's op ed piece, there are many ways to set the record straight. He specifically chose the method he used. He had the right to choose that method. But politics is politics. The use of words to convey what you wish to be heard, while technically not saying what people are hearing, is the art of political campaigns. If you are appalled to think that a politician (pick your party) would use words to sell you on an idea while not technically saying what you think you are hearing, then you need to spend alot more time watching C-Span. Mr. Wilson has been discredited via several findings by the Senate committee.
The claim that intelligence was mis-used and lied about, seems to be the crux of many arguments against this administration regarding the build up and subsequent actions in Iraq. I have yet to find many that believed any of it anyway. I didn't. Not until Colin Powell spoke before the UN. He as you may know, is no longer in this administration. He made (in my opinion) a noble and honorable decision to leave an administration, due to what I "believe" to be a sense of feeling "used". However, he did not write an op ed piece in the NY Times. The Senators and Congressmen who claim to have voted for the authorization to go to war based off the "lies" from this administration is hogwash. Those that in hindsight want political "cover" for their adult decisions, is inexcusable. However that is part of politics. If they can successfully place their gullibleness on the evil president and his minions, then perhaps the american voters will not hold them accountable and give them their votes in '06. The voters deserve who they elect. Right, left, conservative or liberal. Just don't mistake any of them as having skeleton free closets. |
Well, again you seem to be implying that what Powell did, leaving the administration and remaining silent, was the right way to go about "protesting," but what Wilson did, publicly criticizing the administration and telling truth to power, was NOT the right thing to do. I couldn't disagree with you more. I really don't care if Mr. Wilson's sense of outrage is disingenuous or not; that's not an important issue. And sure, most politicians are not, as Robert said, morally beyond reproach, and most of the Dems. did not do their country right or proud when they voted to allow this monstrosity of a war to go forward. But what's that to do with the issue at hand? It most certainly will be an issue come election time, and I don't excuse the Democrats their votes. As an aside, though, if the choice at election time comes down to a Republican in the Bush mold or almost any other Democrat I can think of, even if that Democrat voted for this war, I'll choose the Democrat.
But getting back to the main issue, everything you've said so far seems to me nothing more than an attempt to minimize, justify and excuse whatever this administration has done as just business as usual, nothing to get excited about, and I'm sorry for you if you feel that way. Hopefully there are enough people who are sick and tired of politics as usual who will demand better from their leaders.
Oh, and you may not have believed the lies of this administration, and may not know many people who did, but the majority of Americans DID believe them, and unfortunately a fair number still do.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:36:02 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Regarding your preference to have leaders act in a moral way beyond reproach.....I share the same sentiment. I just can't think of any that have. |
I can think of one, Ralph Nader... but you probably wouldn't agree with his policies.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:38:45 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Flash:
Regarding your preference to have leaders act in a moral way beyond reproach.....I share the same sentiment. I just can't think of any that have. |
I can think of one, Ralph Nader... but you probably wouldn't agree with his policies. |
Truman and Eisenhower come to mind, as does Gandhi, off the top of my head. Nader, unfortunately, has never made it to a "leadership" position.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:41:05 PM · #121 |
| Yes, there are plenty of moral leaders who are, unfortunately, now dead. I was trying to think of one still living! :) |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:41:53 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Yes, there are plenty of moral leaders who are, unfortunately, now dead. I was trying to think of one still living! :) |
Oh... good luck, at least in this country...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:46:23 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But getting back to the main issue, everything you've said so far seems to me nothing more than an attempt to minimize, justify and excuse whatever this administration has done as just business as usual, nothing to get excited about, and I'm sorry for you if you feel that way. Hopefully there are enough people who are sick and tired of politics as usual who will demand better from their leaders. |
Please read more into my post than what you have taken thus far. I do not take the position that business as usual is nothing to get excited about, rather that one who chooses to engage in the business, (and write an op ed piece in the NY Times), then can't genuinely claim foul when the opposing view uses newspapers to tell their story.
Regarding the hope that voters will demand better from their leaders, I share that hope. However the way the candidates are stacking up for '06 and '08, it doesn't seem plausible that it will occurr. Again, we will be left with a choice between party ideals, and not those on the ticket.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 04:30:50 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Mr. Wilson would not have found it necessary to set the record straight (in his article) had the intelligence not been misused and lied about by the Bush administration in the first place. So what you're essentially saying is that one should be prepared to have their reputation destroyed and perhaps their life put in jeopardy simply because they tell the truth, and that this expectation (to have one's life ruined) is perfectly logical and reasonable, yes? So it's okay for one's political opponents to lie and break the law in seeking retribution?
That's some set of ethical guidelines you've got there. |
Actually Mr. Wilson effectively destroyed his own reputation. If he hadn't published the op-ed piece, no "retribution" would have occurred - namely his wife's name and occupation would not have been disclosed. If they had not been disclosed, then no investigation would have occurred. If no investigation had occurred, the false statements made by Mr. Wilson would not have come to light. He was, as the saying goes, hoist by his own petard. The irony is that his op-ed didn't jibe with what he told the CIA when he returned. ONE of his two reports contained false statements.
Oh, and to save my detractors the time and energy of challenging me to "prove" that Mr. Wilson made false statements, and is NOT having his "reputation destroyed" and perhaps having his "life put in jeopardy" simply because he told "the truth",( because he did NOT tell the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" ) - here is the link to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report from July, 2004. The report cites Mr. Wilson's false statements beginning with the last paragraph on page 44. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 05:37:50 PM · #125 |
Where in the report does it say that Wilson made false statements? I can't find it, and I've read from the bottom of page 44 through page 50.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:33:42 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:33:42 AM EDT.
|
