Kara wrote
I am listening to the world, too. The world that we are a part of. I feel at this moment quite alone, as an American citizen who believes that we are making the biggest mistake in our country's history.
May I suggest that you are listening to your heart and not hearing your head----logic is in the head----not the heart.
perception: what i said was that we sold to both sides" what you said was "Dys
No doubt you have proof of that claim---remember the Ayatolah would not be considered a favorite business partner."
which i took as implying that i was in error.
you then stated "Oh yeah now I remember----Iran was holding our hostages. That was when Oliver North got burned for lying to congress-----those same honorable gentlemen who lie on a regular basis but call it politics......................
BTW---I believe Oliver North did the honorable thing----I'm sure you disaggree with me on that also.
si the only conclusion i can make is that it was ok to lie to congress because the motives were just (to you) which leaves us with the conclusion that you consider lying to "we the people" is ok, which is one of the problems people have with the Bush administration-lack of trust. you can't very well tell us that on the one hand its ok for the government to lie and at the same time tell us that we should just trust the govenment. or can you? in your attempt to justify Oliver North lies is no different than the congress people that lie. sorry that just don't cut it!
Dys
You misunderstood my actual intent when I stated Oliver North did the honorable thing by lying to congress.
Yes he lied to congress but it was because he believed dealing with the contras was the right thing to do and he lied to congress to protect the president which is the honorable thing for him to do in his situation.
The errosion of trust in the administration is not due to their moral position which is the high ground(Saddam is oppressing, torturing and murdering his people) but because they have been evasive in articulating that moral position.
Yup. Justifying deceit of the public and the public's representatives (congress) by appointed officials or by the military doesn't much look like a democracy. Let's defend democracy by not being it.
The spin doctor is here again----nice work Blatham
I agree, Blatham. Let's indeed defend democracy by not being it...uh huh... Along those lines: C.I., I believe, has posted on another thread a photo of a sign which reads "Bombing for peace is like f*cking for virginity."
I'd like to see if we could agree if there were ever a moment in which it would be okay to lie to Congress IF (cap letters) one were a member of government. Big IF because I think there could well be a moment in which a citizen might lie to Congress in good faith. But not someone we have hired to do our business. HIRED. The idea that it was okay for North to protect Reagan when Reagan was breaking the law is.... appalling. WE PAID NORTH'S SALARY -- HE OWED US THE TRUTH. We hire and pay the salaries of all these people: North, Poindexter, Abrams, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, Karl Rove. Is it only because we don't like to admit we hired the wrong guys that we've allowed them to get away with so much? You think maybe if we started referring to Bush Jr. as "the hired man" he might get the point?
perception, blatham is not the spin doctor. She is setting out facts as she sees them. We patch in factual presentations, here, from various media. Then we find it irresistible to add our comments. Let us look at how each of us does this. I can attack what you say about, e.g., Robert Fisk's article in the Independent, but it is a different thing to attack what he says. Both are attackable. But why not define, specifically, and then discuss, a viewpoint. Let's put our thoughts out there. But not me against you. Rather, an idea, or an issue. Then your thoughts on it. Not attacking me, but the idea.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington's most steadfast comrade-in-arms, Sunday confronted widening dissent among his Labour Party followers as a ministerial aide resigned from the government to protest its readiness to go to war in Iraq and a Labour insider warned that an anti-war revolt among legislators could broaden.
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 10, 2003; Page A15
BAGHDAD, March 9 -- The Iraqi government believes there is nothing more it can do to avert a war with the United States, Iraq's chief liaison to the U.N. weapons inspectors said tonight.
But Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, director of Iraq's weapons monitoring directorate, said his country would continue to cooperate with the inspectors in a bid to strengthen opposition on the U.N. Security Council to U.S. and British efforts to obtain a resolution authorizing the use of force to topple President Saddam Hussein.
Thank you, my good fellow. But it really isn't spin. It is the problem of 'means justifying ends'. It's the problem of saving a Vietnamese villiage by destroying it. It's the problem of cameras and data banks monitoring us so that we can continue to enjoy privacy. It's the problem of using force to ensure citizens live in a state free from the use of force.
Honesty from our political leaders is something we must demand. But not regarding what they smoked in school or what they do in their bedrooms, rather regarding what they are planning, what they are spending, what deals they are making, what they know and don't know.
Poindexter and North, Casey and Reagan not only committed the felonies for which one or two of them were convicted, they by-passed the very rules and laws established in the constitution which they may have believed they were protecting. It is a species of madness.
Here we go again with the self righteous indignation----
Clinton looked right into the camera and lied ----- didn't even get his hands slapped. Who do you think should be crucified?
Clinton or North?
Kara
Though I look stunning - and I mean really stunning - in ballet slippers and tutu, I pee standing.
Blatham
You get the award for the best laugh of the day.
perception
Let's make it a given that our leaders ought not to lie. Then let's take the next step and think about which lies are serious and which are not, which are more dangerous to democratic function and which are less. If Bush were to lie about a mark received in a university or high school course, that would surely be no big deal. But if he were to lie (suggest, pretend, omit relevant contradictory data) of a link between Iraq and 9-11 and that there should therefore be an attack on Iraq, that's a big deal. If he get's blow jobs daily from a rotating group of Dallas cheerleaders, I wouldn't give a hang. If he strategizes how he can be deceitful to the citizens of the country he serves, you ought to give a hang.
Blatham, If you think peeing while standing defines gender, you haven't done any off-road travelling... But then, tutus among the cacti or bears wouldn't really work either.
not to mention the side-winders, diamondbacks and the gila monsters.
blatham just about owns the "laugh of the day award".
timber
Blatham
Lying to the public is the same whether it's about a blow job or trading arms for hostages and the punishment should be the same.
North got his punishment-----Clinton didn't
Lying to the public about a private, personal matter is hardly on the same level as what North did, what Bush is doing, what Nixon did. Clinton was impeached. North was lionized, Bush is still in the White House, and Nixon had a gentle, well-lined retirement.
and were it legal Clinton would have been elected to a 3rd term.
