1
   

DEEP THROAT

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:05 am
If a person knowingly lies to further a cause it matters. If the person uses an untruth, not knowing it is an untruth, it may not matter as to the outcome, but it does matter re the veracity of the person involved.

Despise George Bush for his politics and/or ideology if that is your inclination. Scorn him for lack of judgment if you believe that to be the case. Hold him in contempt for incompetence if you have that opinion. But to people with the capacity for objectivity, it is a hard sell to make that George Bush has been intentionally dishonest.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:59 am
Quote:
Despise George Bush for his politics and/or ideology if that is your inclination. Scorn him for lack of judgment if you believe that to be the case. Hold him in contempt for incompetence if you have that opinion. But to people with the capacity for objectivity, it is a hard sell to make that George Bush has been intentionally dishonest.


So we get the choice of incompetent but not a liar, or an unintentional liar and incompetent (because it's a hard sell as to whether he's bright enough to fib and get away scot free.)

There's another dishonesty, that of intellectual dishonesty, which is not such a hard sell given the man's and his supporter's obtuseness in the face of facts.

Never give up, never give in, nevermind what the reality is.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:58 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't believe he lied. He was apparently wrong on some of the facts, but I don't believe he lied. On the yellow cake forgery, for instance, those who dislike, even hate, George Bush are of course going to say he knew it was a forgery and used it anyway. There is no proof for that, of course, and nobody has been able to make that charge. Therefore, I pretty much dismiss accusations that are purely partisan and put them more in the category of lies than I do an honest mistake committed by any politician on either side of the aisle.


foxy, not everything is a party issue. in this case, my partisanship is that i am biased towards the well being of my country. i don't think that knowingly using fabricated evidence to get us into iraq is cool at all. but here's a summary of the event...

Quote:
On 24 September 2002, as Congress prepared to vote to give Bush authorization to wage war against Iraq, Tenet appeared before a closed-door session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to Seymour Hersh, a respected reporter for "The New Yorker" magazine, Tenet told the panel that Iraq had recently sought uranium for nuclear arms in Africa. Tenet denies mentioning that report before the panel.

Citing sources present at the briefings, Hersh says Powell also made the same assertion when he appeared before the same panel two days later.

Just over a week later, according to White House officials, Tenet himself intervened to excise a passage about the Iraq-Niger link from a speech Bush gave on 7 October in Cincinnati.


www.globalsecurity.org

Quote:
In an alleged letter dated July, 27, 2000, the president of Niger refers to the central African nation's constitution of May 12, 1965, but the constitution in place in 2000 was dated Aug. 9, 1999.

A letter allegedly signed by the foreign minister of Niger on Oct. 10, 2000, bears the signature of Allele Elhadj Habibou, who was actually foreign minister in 1988-1989.

The official letterhead used is obsolete and includes the wrong symbol for the presidency, as well as references to temporary state bodies - such as the Supreme Military Council and the Council for National Reconciliation - which are "incompatible with the dates of the alleged correspondence."

The date of a Niger "ordonnance" cited in the alleged agreement is off by 26 years.

IAEA concluded the documents were counterfeit, and officially reported the findings to the U.N. Security Council on March 7.

The CIA agreed the letters were fakes, and alerted the British government, which also had accused Iraq of actively seeking uranium from Africa to possibly make nuclear weapons.

The White House, however, did not correct the president's State of the Union statement until July 8 - and only after a British parliamentary committee the previous day had released a report revealing that the CIA had warned the British government about the forgeries.


www.worldnetdaily.com

the invasion of iraq began on march 20, 2003.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 12:20 pm
I gave you plenty of ideas to honestly oppose the president in favor of your country, Dtom. I just oppose 'making up' or 'stretching evidence' to condemn him or anybody. I oppose taking excerpts out of context in an attempt to make him look especially bad or omitting facts that would mitigate the slurs and accustations some fling at him.

I am well aware of the 'alleged' letter you cited. Every member of Congress, especially the Armed Forces Committees, had access to that same letter prior to the vote to authorize invasion. The Clinton administration was the recipient of that letter and they found nothing untoward about it. So to try to hang all that on Bush is both irresponsible and unprofitable.

I don't ask anybody to love him if they don't. He has disappointed me on numerous occasions and the White House and my elected representatives have heard about it too.

All I ask is that if he is hanged, he be hanged for crimes he commits, not those his opponents wish he had committed.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 01:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I gave you plenty of ideas to honestly oppose the president in favor of your country, Dtom. I just oppose 'making up' or 'stretching evidence' to condemn him or anybody. I oppose taking excerpts out of context in an attempt to make him look especially bad or omitting facts that would mitigate the slurs and accustations some fling at him.

I am well aware of the 'alleged' letter you cited. Every member of Congress, especially the Armed Forces Committees, had access to that same letter prior to the vote to authorize invasion. The Clinton administration was the recipient of that letter and they found nothing untoward about it. So to try to hang all that on Bush is both irresponsible and unprofitable.

I don't ask anybody to love him if they don't. He has disappointed me on numerous occasions and the White House and my elected representatives have heard about it too.

All I ask is that if he is hanged, he be hanged for crimes he commits, not those his opponents wish he had committed.


foxy ? i don't see anywhere that clinton's admin recieved the info. according to the following it went like this;


Quote:
October 2002: State Department receives copies of the Niger documents from Italy, which had also provided them to the British government.

Dec. 19: State releases a "fact sheet" on Iraq accusing it of hiding "efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

Dec. 19: IAEA makes a formal request to State to see any "actionable information" underlying its uranium allegation.

Jan. 28, 2002: Bush repeats the allegation in his State of the Union.

Feb. 4: IAEA's Iraq Nuclear Verification Office finally obtains the documents, which allege interactions between Iraq and Niger officials.

Feb. 5: Powell makes the case against Iraq to the U.N., but leaves out the uranium charge.

Feb. 14: IAEA officials makes a preliminary finding that the documents are forgeries, based on the identification of several crude errors overlooked by the Bush administration for months.

March 7: IAEA, in a report to the U.N. Security Council, announces the Iraq-Niger letters were faked.

March 19: The U.S. strikes Baghdad.

July 7: The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee releases the findings of an investigation into the merits of Britain's dossier on Iraq, and among other things, they reveal that the CIA had tipped the British government off to the Niger forgeries.

July 8: The White House releases a prepared statement expressing regret for the State of the Union charge, and admitting for the first time: "We now know that documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger had been forged."


source

the point is that even though he had been told on more than one occassion that the docs were forgeries, he continued to repeat the allegations.

even after a world organization debunked the documents, bush refused to slow up and take a deeper look.

doesn't that bother you ?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 02:29 pm
No, I don't know that Bush refused to do anything. There is nothing in your chronology to suggest he knew more than anybody else did. If this particular one of many many issues was still on the list, it is normal and natural that he would use it until it was proved to be false. He had no reason to look deeper on that one issue as I don't think that one issue was critical to the final decision one way or the other.

As I have said many times, there will be plenty of time to do post mortems on the invasion of Iraq. For now, I believe the President and the Congress believed there was justification for it. The only right thing for us now to do is to support the effort to bring it to the best possible conclusion.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 03:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
No, I don't know that Bush refused to do anything. There is nothing in your chronology to suggest he knew more than anybody else did. If this particular one of many many issues was still on the list, it is normal and natural that he would use it until it was proved to be false. He had no reason to look deeper on that one issue as I don't think that one issue was critical to the final decision one way or the other.

As I have said many times, there will be plenty of time to do post mortems on the invasion of Iraq. For now, I believe the President and the Congress believed there was justification for it. The only right thing for us now to do is to support the effort to bring it to the best possible conclusion.


ah,well. you say to-may-toe and i say ta-mah-toe. either way, it is what it is and the only option we have as a nation is to get it done and get outta there.

hopefully though, we're all gonna learn something or other out of it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 03:10 pm
Well, personally I think people who say ta-mah-toe are a little strange but they can be lovable anyway. Smile
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:10 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Yes, John Dean is a hero as far as whistle blowers ae concerned. Certainly leagues ahead of Linda Tripp and probably Felt.

Trying to characterize Linda Tripp as a hero requires a really fertile imagination.

I don't believe in the beginning and likely most of the way through the leaks to Woodward and Bernstein (I had to laugh characterizing this as "squealing," a term used in criminal circles where the squeler was a participant in their crimes) that Felt believed he would do as much good as reporting to the grand jury. He may have believed he would be able to learn more by keeping his identity secret. He may have been right or he may have been wrong -- hindsight can almost always be 20/20.

No matter how Nixon was brought down, I for one would not want to change history -- it was a fascinating time if not a further rude awakening to the machinations of politics.


It might be interesting to read your explanation for the heroics of John Dean. Generally heroism requires some self-sacrifice or an intentional disregard for danger or personal harm. It's difficult to see how this applies to Dean.

Tripp is no more of a hero than Dean or Felt, but then I hardly suggested she was.

I assure you the inference that Felt was squealing like a criminal is all your own. True enough that its use was not intended to be flattering though.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 08:02 am
If you don't accept going to jail and at that point in history ruining your own career a sacrifice, I can't help you there.

The term squealing is hardly used as revealing a truth about criminal wrong-doing one is not involved in.

Your semantics are interestingly twisted.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 08:15 am
Note to Dtom:

I intended to acknowledge that your were right about the Clinton administration not receiving the Niger letter, but I got sidetracked and failed to do so--short attention span and all that. I misread the date. I still don't think that letter changed the course of history, however, and I do not believe George Bush knew it was suspect when he cited it.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 11:38 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Note to Dtom:

I intended to acknowledge that your were right about the Clinton administration not receiving the Niger letter, but I got sidetracked and failed to do so--short attention span and all that. I misread the date. I still don't think that letter changed the course of history, however, and I do not believe George Bush knew it was suspect when he cited it.


good 'nuff, foxy. thanks for the note... Smile
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 10:15 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
If you don't accept going to jail and at that point in history ruining your own career a sacrifice, I can't help you there.

The term squealing is hardly used as revealing a truth about criminal wrong-doing one is not involved in.

Your semantics are interestingly twisted.


I suppose that if one believes that John Dean testified as he did and willingly accepted his punishment so as to right a wrong and/or unveil a tawdry truth, he just might seem heroic.

On the other hand, if one believes Dean flipped so that he might mitigate the extent of his punishment, heroic is not the adjective to use in association with him.

Pigs and rats are said to squeal irrespective of whether or not they are engaged in criminal activity.

While I didn't, originally, use the term in the way you suggested, on second thought, I should have. Dean was a criminal who squealed on his fellow to benefit himself.

It's not a question of whether or not he should have, or that by so doing he was a traitor. Whatever he was is not all that interesting or important, but he certainly was not a hero.

There is a desire, on the part of Liberals, to cast him as some sort of crusader for truth because of late he has taken to writing anti-Bush articles and books. "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W Bush" is a transparent effort to court favor on the Left. Who else and how else would anyone else have this ratty little minion of the lupine Nixon?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 01:38 pm
I wanted more for my 9000th post, but nothing came up... So, you'll just have to suffer through this C&P...

**********

My five-year old granddaughter, Madelyn, is mixing with some older children for the first time this summer, and she is sometimes shocked at their behavior.

When a sevenish girl stuck out her tongue with anti-Madelyn malice aforethought, the gently raised angel was so shocked she told the teacher about it. As a public-relations vehicle, this action proved to be, surprisingly to Madelyn, a disaster, as the other children began calling her a tattletale. That night at home, she asked her mother what such a word could mean.

What's a problem for children at summer day camp is a problem as well for adults in their world. If philosophers have definitively answered the question as to when it is ethically correct to rat out someone else, and when it is not, I am unaware of it. It seems to me one of those things where an individual must simply make a decision and live with the consequences.

In the popular media, however, the question has been answered with precision, and the answer is this: if you rat out a Republican, you are an honored and reliable source of information. If you rat out a Democrat, you are a skulking low-life scoundrel.

Mark Felt. Linda Tripp. Two truth-telling whistle-blowers whose revelations contributed to the resignation or impeachment of Presidents. To one, encomiums are sung in the newsrooms of the world, while the other is written off as a heartless busybody.

A few days ago, I debated a noted journalist, now retired but once the Washington bureau chief for a TV network, a man I know well and of whom I am enormously fond.

"You can't compare Mark Felt and Linda Tripp!" he sputtered when I used their names in the same sentence, and then proceeded to do precisely that, to Tripp's great disadvantage.

"Can you name a single honorable whistle-blower in all history whose target was a Democrat?" I then asked, and he could not. Media people, even the best of them, cannot conceive that their views represent a form of bias, but when they say that Bill Clinton's Lewinsky-related transgressions, as exposed by Tripp, are inconsequential because they are "only about sex," that is a biased statement.

It never dawns on them that responsible people might disagree, might view promiscuous sex as a serious public issue. Simple morality aside, one can blame promiscuous sex for the most important public health problem in the world for the past quarter century (AIDS), as well as for being the greatest cause of poverty in America; but for single parent families, the vast majority of which exist as a result of men being unwilling to either curb or take responsibility for their sexual activity, U.S. poverty would virtually disappear.

But such a viewpoint has no chance of being fairly represented in the media, and Tripp has no chance of getting credit for coming forward with the truth.

Instead, we find the glorification of Felt, who at the very same time he was ratting out Nixon was himself authorizing illegal searches and seizures of Americans, in a blatant subversion of the Constitution - the very accusation I heard two reporters independently make against Nixon last week, with far less cause than it could be made against Felt, or for that matter, Clinton (remember the FBI files?).

Felt is said to represent the best case for the protection of journalistic sources. I don't think so. I think Felt would have been far more honorable if he had come forward with his information in a public manner, for example, by asking to testify before the Senate Watergate Committee on live television. Bob Woodward and every other reporter would then have had the story, and more importantly, so would the Nixon defense, which could have cross-examined Felt. Why wouldn't that have been fair? Instead, Felt gave his information exclusively and secretly to Woodward, who agreed to keep his identity unknown for the rest of Felt's life.

What a great deal this was for Woodward! No doubt he never imagined that Felt would live into his 90's. And Woodward has always known that once Felt died, he had a blockbuster book on his hands, with no one alive who could contradict anything he put into it about their clandestine relationship. But when the senile Felt's family discovered the Deep Throat secret, and, in effect, asked Woodward for a share of the profits, he told them to take a hike. Thus does the sordidness of Watergate continue even to the present day.

Little Madelyn will learn a lot about tattling as she goes through her formative years. But when she gets old enough to study history, and learns about that old scandal called Watergate, I very much doubt she will be taught the truth.
source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 02:27 pm
Well it was a good C&P McG, and congratulations on your 9000th post.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 06:12 am
McGentrix wrote:
.. So, you'll just have to suffer through this C&P...

Certainly an apt choice of verb


Jay Bryant wrote:

Mark Felt. Linda Tripp. Two truth-telling whistle-blowers whose revelations contributed to the resignation or impeachment of Presidents.

One revealed all the machinations the government was doing to suppress dissent and essentially make the Constitution irrelevant. the othr befriended a young girl, taped her account of intimacies given in friendship, and purposely led her to a lunch date where she was surrounded by prosecutors pounding her with threats.

The fact that you would find an iota of equivalence between those two displays a skewed view of what is important.


Jay Bryant wrote:
"Can you name a single honorable whistle-blower in all history whose target was a Democrat?" I then asked, and he could not.

That's an argument? Forget about the facts of the case, or the fact the Constitution was effectively being subverted by Nixon, while Clinton was just getting some nookie on the side? Bryant seriously thinks the only difference here is that one was against the Democrats, one the Republicans?


Jay Bryant wrote:
.....media people even the best of them, cannot conceive that their views represent a form of bias, but when they say that Bill Clinton's Lewinsky-related transgressions, as exposed by Tripp, are inconsequential because they are "only about sex," that is a biased statement.

By which statement Jay Bryant has just made it clear that his judgment as to who constitutes "the best" of media people is not worth anything.

If you can't tell the difference between subverting the Consititution in the matter of dissent, and keeping a consenting affair private, your opinion is valuless.



Jay Bryant wrote:
It never dawns on them that responsible people might disagree, might view promiscuous sex as a serious public issue.

It wasn't promiscuous. Bill saw Monica in private 37 times (I mistakenly reported 14 times in another post), over the course of something over a year. That's about once every two weeks. It might have been outside of marriage, but it wasn't promiscuous.

But Bryant is right about one thing. It does NOT dawn on me at all that there is an iota of sincerity in this right wing harping on Clinton's private affairs.

From the beginning of the presidency, the men in the Oval Office have frequently had mistresses, yet nobody said anything. Fact of the matter is, men of power and influence get offers from women, and most of them throughout history had something going on the side. In America, the rule was that as long as some attempt was made to maintain decorum, it was nobody's business. And it was a good, common sense rule, too.

Anyone who actually thinks that a consenting affair on the side is a matter of public concern is showing a profound ignorance of history, and for that matter, a profound ignorance of life as it lived today.

Nobody obsesses over anyone else's private affairs, unless you are a family member. Nobody. And nobody did-until Clinton came along. Then the rules of life and history had to be rewritten to suit the Republicans' political needs at the time. And now, seven years later, the Republicans are still trying to convince us that this mess of an investigation Starr ran, with Tripp being only one of the most odious examples, was anything but a partisan political disgrace, with deleterious effects on the country.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DEEP THROAT
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 12:15:32