How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Does anybody take responsibility anymore   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Does anybody take responsibility anymore?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


200 posted 06-21-2004 11:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
There was a time when political adversaries kept their disagreements out of the limelight during war time for the sake of the troops, the welfare of the country, and so as not to give the enemy any possible political advantage that they could use against the commander-in-chief, which would have been characterized as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Some things are more important than power and politics.

The problem with that kind of misplaced attitude, Denise, is that it would play right into the hands of the wrong kinds of people. When the best way to silence all criticism is to start a war, this country will already be in big trouble. Open debate is not a weakness that makes us vulnerable to our enemies. It is, rather, our greatest strength and the most powerful weapon we have against the danger of becoming the enemy.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


201 posted 06-21-2004 11:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So the war was started to silence criticism? That's an interesting concept, Ron...
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


202 posted 06-21-2004 11:52 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Some things are more important than power and politics.


Yes, truth, something I've seen very little of.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


203 posted 06-21-2004 11:54 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Why do they only report the tragedies in Iraq? Why don't they occassionally report on the reopened schools filled with kids instead of munitions? Why don't they report on the fully staffed hospitals that are actually able to treat patients adequately for the first time in decades? And the lower unemployment rate? Why don't they report that at least some women are going to school and work again? Why do they characterize Iraq as a quagmire and another Viet Nam? My opinion is that they are trying to advance their own political agenda, which is not their job. Their job is to report the facts, as many of the facts as they can gather, not pick and choose and only present a one-sided view of the sitution.


You mean be a propaganda machine? Now, think about it, you're a young reporter looking for the 'big story', the one that'll make your career, the one that gets people to watch or read.

Instead you're stuck doing human interest stories.

Bombs and bullets sell more papers.

Funny though, I don't see the National Review or Bill O'Reilly trumpeting this stuff unless it is used to badmouth the Left.  

But media bias (Really, people work from a point of view, who would have guessed such a thing was actually happening.) is really a distraction to the whole point. We have a major foreign policy shift in the last two years.  A shift and a goal that is both powerful and extremely ambitious. As Rumsfeldt himself said, it's like the cold war, don't think in terms of years or decades but the next fifty years.

Will it go away if George loses the next election?

Or is it larger than one man -- just like the doctrine of containment was maintained by both democrats and republicans.

If George wins, will it last four years more and no further?

Or is it a deeply moral, the kind of feeling you get in your gut kind of moral, that the basic ideas that we all seem to stand by (You know, individual freedoms and stuff like that) should be held by all people regardless.

Believe it or not, I give Bush credit for pushing this big idea forward. I know if I were president I never would have put forward something like that. He did.

Nevertheless, I honestly believe this guy can't see the trees for the forest. It's the conduct, the timing, the spin, the attitude that I think are obstacles to the stated goals of this administration. This is why the whole torture thing is a big deal to me. No one denies that bad things happen, the problem is that the argument, "They do it too and they do it worse" backfires. The whole point is that we don't do these things, we have a media that, while not exactly antagonistic, is at least trying to remain independent -- if you want to call that a liberal bias, so be it. Kerry won't be any less under the hot seat if he wins. Believe me, people like Chomsky and the people at the Nation will be just as nasty to him too.

And the mainstream media will still try to maintain independence.

I was talking to Berengar last night and asked if a Kerry victory might be seen as a retreat or a weakness, a new paper tiger of sorts. He thought so.

If so, I think that would be the second biggest mistake the bad guys made.

We aren't Spain.

Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


204 posted 06-22-2004 12:06 AM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

Actually Colin Powell doesn't hate the president, but has strong feelings of distaste. You see Some one said that if you hated your boss you would quit. Yah right. Do you realize the power, reconition, and social statis that comes with that job? Also the Higher bucracy The what 13 or so departments, alot of people in there stay in there Cause they are the best (Head of FbI CIA, and extreemly knowlageable) They end up staying in there cause the president doesn't want look for any others or feals they are the best for the job. Also some areas they get replaced every so many years. (Burcraucy is messy) Also the war on terism is "defensive" so the president has been leaning on the department of defense. maybe for more then one reason.  Colin powell has lost some power as result. This is why colin powell is upset. So its a matter of power.
The state department and the department of defense are rivels. If the pres. backs one up, the other one will retaliate to get power back.  (Sigh)

Sometimes I know more then I want to know.........
Juju  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


205 posted 06-22-2004 01:18 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I started out by calling this the 'forever war' Brad.  Unfortunately with the missteps that have been made some Middle East experts I've heard making comments recently are thinking a hundred years -- or more.

It's difficult to say with assymetrical warfare.  But one thing is for certain -- the number of terrorists is up -- not down and recruitment is thriving.

Deer -- apology accepted -- certainly!  I know how it gets around here sometimes.  Just to clarify a couple of things and then move on -- The may 24 speech was a speech -- not a press conference -- he didn't take any questions.  And, you're right -- I was offering my own conjecture as to why they didn't broadcast the speech -- but -- it was based on my own knowledge of the industry which happened to be right http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/speech.tv.ap/ -- which also points out that Bush never asked for the airtime to begin with.  Some may also want to read this one http://www.detnews.com/2000/politics/0006/22/a13-79163.htm

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


206 posted 06-22-2004 01:25 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
So the war was started to silence criticism? That's an interesting concept, Ron...

Read my post again, Mike. I didn't say that. I said if the war (or any war) is used to silence criticism it will set a dangerous precedent. If we allow ANY loophole to quell the public voice there will soon be someone to take advantage of that loophole.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


207 posted 06-22-2004 08:14 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I see, Ron. I assumed that, in the context of this discussion, it was meant to relate to the current situation. Just to get it clear in my mind because it's a little fuzzy to me, can you give me an example of starting a war to silence criticism? Thanks...

Bush, of course, did just the opposite. He basically invited criticism - from the country, the UN, and a large part of the world and even put a presidential career, which had barely begun, in major jeopardy by his actions. Like him or not, I think that's a fairly admirable trait...
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


208 posted 06-22-2004 11:28 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Read my post again, Mike.

It quoted Denise and was in response to her suggestion that open criticism of the President in time of war could be "characterized as giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

As for what you see as an admirable trait, others might see it as a continuation of the same self-destructive behavior seen in college and the National Guard. Others might see it as the same kind of arrogance exhibited in Texas, the state leading all others in the execution of criminals. It's all in the interpretation, and that typically does depend on whether you "like him or not."
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


209 posted 06-22-2004 01:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, I read it again..

When the best way to silence all criticism is to start a war

Somehow it still looks the same to me

To speak of self-destruction in college and the National Guard, well, you must be way more enlightened or informed than I am. I have not heard of the self-destructive tendencies in either place you refer to. Is that comment based on fact or personal interpretation? It reads as if it is being stated as fact. Which facts support self-destruction then, in either place?

As far as Denise' comment, it is not the disagreeing that is the issue, I feel it is the type of disagreeing that is the point. When a side sinks to name-calling, referring the other as a criminal, being abusive and vulgar and this is between members of the Congress, it certainly is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. When you have things said, carried by major news agencies, like..

Iraq is George Bush's VietNam. "This is the pattern and the record of the Bush administration [on] Iraq, jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue -- mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics," he said. "Again and again, we see this cynical, despicable strategy playing out."
Ted Kennedy

....which prompted this (accurate) rebuke from Senate Majority Whip Mc Connell..

McConnell said Kennedy's remarks would be seen in Baghdad, "where those who are fighting Americans on the street can view them."

"The only one responsible for the attack on America is al Qaeda," McConnell said. "We need to focus on rooting out global terrorism by fighting the terrorists, not each other."


Was he wrong? I don't think so. Disagreement has always been a vital part of America, a good, democratic part, but mudslinging for political purposes in public over a topic where soldiers are fighting and dying is despicable. Can you honestly say you don't feel that the terrorist members don't smile with glee to see this? You don't feel that it encourages more volunteers to sign up for them but seeing this fragmented front? Let them get behind closed doors and duke it out if they want but in public it needs to be civil and show a unified country. Who is doing the slinging? Have ytou heard Bush doing any of it? He's gotten bombarded with insults by every Democrat in the Senate....have you heard him rebuke anyone in an offensive manner. Even Clinton received gratuitous comments and applause from the man. Bush has acted with a good degree of civility and dignity while Kennedy, Dashel, Boxer, Gebhardt and others have acted like dogs with rabies. If they want to potshot about the Texas death penalty, or insinuations about Bush and Enron or National Guard service (as others have done) well, that's politics but they go over the line with the comments they make about Iraq and the war on terror...they are indeed helping the terrorist cause.

Speaking of the National Guard, Kerry was asked in '92 how he felt, as a Viet Nam veteran, supporting a person like Clinton for president and his comment was, "I feel the office of the President of the United States is too important to be judged by a person's military record."

Ya gotta laugh...
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


210 posted 06-22-2004 07:09 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You're right, Ron. The expression of disagreement is a good thing. I should have said "There was a time when political adversaries did not publicly attack the commander-in-chief during a time of war for the sake of the troops, the welfare of the country, and so as not to give the enemy any possible political advantage that they could use against the commander-in-chief, which would have been characterized as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Some things are more important than power and politics."
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


211 posted 06-23-2004 11:45 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Even when the criticism is correct?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


212 posted 06-23-2004 12:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I think the operative word is "attack", not criticize, Brad..
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


213 posted 06-23-2004 03:35 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

It's subjective Balladeer, many who can't accept criticism, see it as an attack instead.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


214 posted 06-23-2004 09:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

True enough, Aenimal. Read my post here, #209, and you'll see the difference. I could wallpaper your house with comments just like that coming from  he and his colleagues. Those are attacks, especially when made in public...
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


215 posted 06-23-2004 10:08 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

L.R., Right! Paula Jones! That's the one. Didn't Clinton commit perjury in his deposition in the Paula Jones case?

No, Brad, I don't want the media to be a propaganda machine for the administration or for the administration's opponents. I want them to throw in just a little of the progress made in Iraq into the mix along with the tragedies to give a more balanced view of what is actually going on.

This goes a bit deeper than 'bullets sell more copy' thinking. I don't see the media as independent. I see them putting as bad a light as possible on current events in an attempt to influence people against Bush, to get those fence-sitting undecided voters to vote for the party/candidate of their choice. And there would be nothing wrong with attempting to influence others to one's way of thinking if we were talking about something other than the news media, which is supposed to be unbiased in its presentation. The 'influencing' should be restricted to the commentators, and not be engaged in by the 'reporters'.  

quote:
Iraq is George Bush's VietNam. "This is the pattern and the record of the Bush administration [on] Iraq, jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue -- mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics," he said. "Again and again, we see this cynical, despicable strategy playing out."
Ted Kennedy


Honestly, Raph, what would you call this, a criticism or an attack?

And is Kennedy not 'smearing the character' of Bush in this, the very thing he is accusing Bush of doing to others? And can anyone give me an example of Bush 'smearing' anyone? I haven't personally come across any examples of this anywhere.

McConnell is right. Our focus needs to be on gaining victory over the real enemy, the real threat, the terrorists. We'd stand a better chance with fewer of these political mudslinging distractions.  
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


216 posted 06-24-2004 12:09 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Well I'd call it politics, but yes, Kennedy should have used a little tact. Of course there's always been a short supply of that in Washington.

However, it's clearly not a personal attack or smear George Bush's character, but his administration's tactics. He says the "Bush administration" not George Bush.

But let's take a look at Kennedy's comments.

"mislead,": The actual amount of WMDs and the looming threat Iraq posed is arguably misleading. Powell's 'conservative' estimate that Iraq had 'a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent' for example.


"decieve..make up the needed facts":"

***I hate to retread, but it's amazing that it hasn't sunk in..so here's my last attempt at reasoning.***

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

These are Colin Powell's words in his presentation to the United Nations.

Now Denise, you've admitted the administration shouldn't have used the shaky African uranium evidence, but that it wasn't a lie on their part. But when considering the administration has admitted they knew beforehand that the intelligence was questionable, how could Powell's declaration of 'solid evidence..facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence" NOT be a lie??

While you believe they didn't lie in using it as it hadn't been discredited yet, they obviously did lie that it was solid and irrefutable evidence. This of course, is not including their outright lie about the use of aluminum tubes which Oak Ridge and Thielmann's investigators have affirmed.

"smear the character of any critics": White house officials disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA operative who argued against the administration's evidence. Maybe it's not smearing but it is endangering a critic, not to mention a federal offense I believe?


As for McConnell he is right, focus should have remained on Al Qaeda and that's were Bush lost any support. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was not.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


217 posted 06-24-2004 12:32 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Geez, Aenimal, I have no doubt you saw in the other thread where I listed actual quote by quote from Kennedy, Boxer, Dashell, and others back in '98 stating that they knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that Iraq had wmd's and urged President Clinton to go to war, Kennedy even inserting the notion to use nuclear force, if necessary. Absolutely nobody here responded to those  comments and that's ok but it doesn't make them go away. How can you see something like that and still go after Bush for lying about the threat or existence of wmd's in Iraq? That was long before Bush even made the scene. If you, or anyone, refuses to acknowledge them and still try to tie it to Bush you would be making unfair prejudice extremely obvious. Kennedy called for war in '98 over wmd's and accused Bush of lying about wmd's in 2003. The man is a complete fool....

Believe me, I would love to continue this and especially be around for Ron's answer to my last question a couple of days ago, but the golf courses of North Carolina are calling and I'll be out of touch for a few days. If I can sneak online someway, I'll check in...just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring ya
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


218 posted 06-24-2004 12:55 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Deer, I'm not denying WMD's have existed. The issue I presented is an overstatement on amounts and types and more importantly clear lies on the part of the Bush administration.  

The lies are in reference to information used to explain the need for immediate action against Iraq. How can anyone argue they're not lies when:

Clearly the African Uranium was not 'solid' evidence and the aluminum tubes were discredited long before Powell's presentation as unusable for uranium enrichment?

Now I don't mean to be sarcastic but honestly, let's Recap:

Uranium Information knowingly questionable, used anyway and labeled irrefutable evidence in Powell'a presentation.

Aluminum Tube usage discredited by investigative team as well as Oak Ridge Labs, used as evidence anyway.

For good measure let's add in a definition, not because i'm being snotty with you Deer, but because I honestly can't believe how one can't see a lie for a lie.

Lie:
i.A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
ii. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

What are we missing?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


219 posted 06-24-2004 11:29 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

This may make no sense in the context, but you gotta love the Koreans right now. What they've been saying in the last two days (anecdotal and newspapers) is that they will join the War on Terror wholeheartedly after the death of Kim Son il.

And they still don't like Bush.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


220 posted 06-24-2004 02:05 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Brad, I'm still trying to figure out the Putin's recent revelations.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


221 posted 06-25-2004 08:01 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Overstatement by Bush?....or, do you mean the info he received from past and present administration advisors?....Why is Bush to blame for everything?....Whether WMD's are there, were there, aren't there...whatever!...The world is better off without Saddam...Iraq is/will be better off...The world is better off without the Taliban...Iraq isn't losing it's oil to Bush, there are ties to terrorism in Iraq...and, if "war" wasn't the answer....just what IS the answer?....Saddam wouldn't negotiate.....the Iraqi people were still being tortured and starving and not the silly little things we were doing to them....I mean real "hell" type torture...Just what would the opponents of this war do instead of what Bush did?...Ignore the threat?...whether real or not...obviously the past administrations thought the threat was there?....What would Teddy Kennedy do?...Jimmy Carter?.....Aenimal?.....Ron?..Me?..It would be interesting to start a thread that asked: What Would YOU do if you were the president faced with what Bush has encountered?...It's easy sit back in the crowd and make statements like: "Damn, that guy can't sing at all...."...But then try to get on stage and do better?...Or do we even have the gonads to try?....
Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


222 posted 06-25-2004 09:00 AM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer

Toe, are you feeling ok?

suppose you could calm down a bit...
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


223 posted 06-25-2004 10:00 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Hi Sud..how in the "health" are ya?...Yea, I'm calm...just figured I'd try to cause some hate and discontent early this morning....it's boring just watching it rain.....
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


224 posted 06-25-2004 02:06 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

No Toe, Bush isn't to blame for everything, but his administration is to blame for the things I've stated. Listen, I'm not tied to either party, so I can't understand the difficulty and stubborness in accepting that yes, the administration is capable and guilty of wrongdoing. Regardless of what you think the benefits of attacking Iraq were, the ends do not justify the means, especially when the ends have yet to be realized.

I also can't fathom the rabid zeal in which people sought to impeach Clinton over a lie about a sexual affair, but justify lies of Bush Co. because, war is war and you do what you must. People stop the insanity, the enslavement to Party lines and detach. Now look at the situation ethically and logically.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Does anybody take responsibility anymore   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors