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
 The Plot Thickens   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
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

The Plot Thickens (or Just Following Orders)

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


25 posted 04-08-2006 05:53 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

If the President can't declassify classified documents, then who can?

And how does one oust a covert operative who is not a covert operative?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


26 posted 04-08-2006 07:06 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel


From the National Security Archives -- please note the dateline;
quote:

Washington D.C., 9 July 2004 - The CIA has decided to keep almost entirely secret the controversial October 2002 CIA intelligence estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that is the subject of today's Senate Intelligence Committee report, according to the CIA's June 1, 2004 response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Security Archive.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm



If the POTUS decides to declassify information he or she certainly has the executive authority to do so.  Is this the kind of President you want?  One that's going to hide behind technicalities and word splitting?  The key to the President's statements -- when he was feigning ignorance in this manner -- was the use of the word 'unauthorized'.  What is is?  

quote:

Little is known of Plame's professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. "Brewster Jennings" was first entered into Dun and Bradstreet records on May 22, 1994, but D&B would not discuss the source of the filing. D&B records list the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts.

Former CIA official Larry C. Johnson, who left the CIA in 1989, indicated Plame had been a "non-official cover operative" (NOC). He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." [3] David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, believed that the Brewster Jennings & Associates cover had not been done convincingly and that other covers would have been established for her by the CIA. [4]

Plame is known to have served in a classified position as a CIA officer. At his October 28, 2005, press conference, Special Counsel Fitzgerald noted:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
Some claim to be uncertain as to whether Plame was a covert agent. According to USA Today, Plame worked in the Langley, Virginia, CIA headquarters since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, and married Joe Wilson and had her twins. [5] Conservative columnist Max Boot argues that it is very unlikely that a CIA employee commuting to the headquarters building each day would be a covert agent. Columnist Robert Novak wrote that an Agency source said Plame "has been an analyst, not in covert operations." [6] It has been speculated that Plame may have worked in the CIA administration in the office of former CIA Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) James Pavitt. Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Max Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Shooter Libby."[7] It was confirmed that she was a covert operative early in the investigation by acting intelligence officials, setting the matter to rest.[8]

During the press conference, Fitzgerald was asked if he knew whether Libby revealed Plame's covert status knowingly; he responded:

Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.[9]

Nevertheless, court papers released in early 2006 showed that Fitzgerald did in fact conclude that Plame was a "covert" agent under the IIPA, though he did not seek charges on that count because he lacked proof that Libby was aware of her status. [10]

Valerie Plame Wilson was identified in the New York Times as a N.O.C. by Elisabeth Bumiller, who wrote (5 October 2003):

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame




quote:

"This might be seen as a smear on me and my reputation," Wilson said, "but what it really is is an attempt to keep anybody else from coming forward" to reveal similar intelligence lapses.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4190.htm



(this software is going to make it very difficult to discuss this issue if I get bounced every time there is a reference to Libby's commonly used nickname)
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


27 posted 04-08-2006 09:00 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Let me try to put this into some context for reasonable people who may be inclined to think this is just politics as usual.

The Bush administration may have been entirely sincere in its belief that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the USA.  It may have been acting in what it thought was the best interest of the country when it intentionally slanted intelligence to stack the deck against Saddam.  

What happened, though, when Joe Wilson also decided that it was also in the publics' best interest to understand that the deck had in fact been stacked once it became apparent that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor was there an active program to produce nuclear weapons -- was not the normal process of disseminating information to the American people.

The administration could have attempted to refute Wilson's claims outright.  The could have actually published the 'declassified' information they needed to say that Wilson was wrong.  They could have called Wilson a liar and called his credibility into question on its own merit.  They could have found a juicy tidbit to publish about him and embarrass him -- which would be politics as usual.  But, that's not what they did.  

In blowing the cover of his wife they sent a message loud and clear to everyone in the intelligence community and in any government agency that if you cross us we will get you, we'll get your wife, we'll get your kids -- we don't care -- and we don't care what national assets we destroy nor people we endanger to do it.  That's a very strong, draconian tactic to use -- and its one an administration that doesn't have something serious to keep quiet doesn't need to use.

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


28 posted 04-08-2006 10:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

we will get you, we'll get your wife, we'll get your kids -- we don't care -- and we don't care what national assets we destroy nor people we endanger to do it.

No reason for you to address that to reasonable people because I don't think reasonable people would buy your Hitleristic description of Bush as a man who would destroy people, families and this country on his whims. That may be your view and that may be what you deduce from whatever information you gather but that doesn't make it uncontestible as in the way you describe it. Painting Bush as not the sharpest pencil in the box is an easy sell. Painting him as a diabolic demon destroyer is not. Good luck.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


29 posted 04-09-2006 01:09 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

What reasonable people see;

Leaving aside the implications to Valerie Wilson and any operatives or contacts that were endangered by Libby's and one other yet unnamed White House official's disclosure to Novak, Miller, et al -- let's take a look at who else has been put in harms way -- my kids, your kids, everybody's kids.

Why?  

Because Valerie Wilson was a WMD expert working on WMD intel.  

Isn't that what we went to war over in Iraq -- because nuclear proliferation is the major threat to the country?  By blowing her cover years and years of research, not to mention the capital investment, have been compromised.  

What have the President's actions been in the wake of this event?

He said, initially -- he wanted to get to the bottom of this...

he could have saved a lot of time -- by just telling us what the bottom was because just a few hours ago his lawyer, who remains unidentified, said -- Bush only authorized Cheney to get the information out there --

quote:

Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case for the White House. The vice president chose Libby and communicated the president's wishes to his then-top aide, the lawyer said
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak



Now.. we know that who he was talking to a few years ago was Jim Sharp

a criminal trial lawyer -- why does the President need to consult with a criminal lawyer?

quote:

"In terms of whether or not I need advice from counsel, this is a criminal matter, it's a serious matter," the president said. "I have met with an attorney to determine whether or not I need his advice, and if I deem I need his advice, I'll probably hire him."

Bush -- http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-02-bush-cialeak_x.htm



A serious criminal matter.

Why did he not simply tell us then?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


30 posted 04-09-2006 02:53 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

The real amazing thing, aside from Novak being given a pass, is that Libby isn't being charged with breaking federal law with regards to Intelligence Officers.  He's being charged with Obstruction and Perjury.  I'm not a lawyer, but those would appear, at least on the surface, to be distinctly different crimes.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 04-09-2006 04:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Fitzgerald is swimming in shark infested waters.  The indications from his filings are that Libby and the yet-to-be-named co-leaker did, in fact, violate the law regarding blowing a CIA ops cover -- but there would be an extremely high hurdle to clear to be able to establish the evidence for the grand jury to be able to indict...

On the other hand -- he has the evidence to prosecute purjury and obstruction -- so he is, and it is the purjury and obstruction that prevent him from having the evidence to prosecute the parent crimes that are the source of the investigation.

Prosecuting Novak would be an even murkier exercise one would think.
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


32 posted 04-09-2006 04:36 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

LR- On this particular issue, I cannot- in fairness- add too much to the conversation. I have not kept too much in the loop on world events the past couple of weeks due to various reasons, and do not know enough about this issue to have formed an opinion.

I do have a question though... why was this story "leaked"? What did the individual responsible have to prove, or what was his motivation?

"... the rest is silence"
from the song The Flesh Failures
www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


33 posted 04-10-2006 03:21 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

By DIVERSION, what I meant was what we are now hearing on the news and should become the source of a new thread....plans to bomb IRAN.  

LR....I dare ya!  

Still grinning at you and Raph...lol...appreciating Noah's statement....and scratching my head over Deer....NOTE TO DEER....you are definitely fiercely loyal. (Notice how polite I was in my selection of adverbs? )

And...lol...still keeping my mouth shut.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 04-10-2006 03:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LOLOL! Thank you again, Iliana, for once again making a statement to tell us you are not going to make a statement...is that like....feminine logic?

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


35 posted 04-10-2006 03:35 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Deer -- of course!  I still have not made any statements about this subject matter/thread!  And, I won't, just like I said.  I just wanted to clear up what I meant about the word, DIVERSION, since someone pounced on that word.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 04-10-2006 06:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yep, I understand exactly what you mean. For example, your smiling "egging-on" to LR to start a thread about bombing Iran. That's a great example of what I was referring to way back at the beginning of this thread, grabbing a newspaper headline and running to the Alley to get something started. You see a story, view a chance for a little Bush-bash, and off to the races we go. As far as the New Yorker story is concerned, this is Bush's reply..

WASHINGTON -
President Bush dismissed as "wild speculation" reports that the administration was planning for a military strike against
Iran.


Bush did not rule out the use of force, but he said he would continue to use diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon or the know-how and technology to make one.

"I know here in Washington prevention means force," Bush said at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy."

Several weekend news reports said the administration was studying options for military strikes. The New Yorker magazine raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.

"I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend," Bush said. "It was just wild speculation.


That's what happens when people throw headlines around without checking facts. No, LR did not do that in this thread but we have people who certainly do. This is your third time, for example. If one takes the time to investigate a little before condemning, one is saved the embarrassment of having to come back and say, "No, I wasn't being derrogatory toward Bush at all.....I was just being curious."
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


37 posted 04-10-2006 07:28 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

"That's what happens when people throw headlines around without checking facts. No, LR did not do that in this thread but we have people who certainly do. This is your third time, for example. If one takes the time to investigate a little before condemning, one is saved the embarrassment of having to come back and say, "No, I wasn't being derrogatory toward Bush at all.....I was just being curious." "

Balladeer....first off -- the smilely face was for you, along with a fair compliment about your loyalty.  As for your comments that I have made statements not backed up by fact three times, I strongly disagree and believe you have not done your homework or you would not have said that.  I will agree I have not researched the reality of this most recent diversionary tactic of bombing the nuclear plants in Iran -- but I would bet my bottom dollar, this topic is not over yet.  It is conjecture on my part, I admit that, but it is conjecture based upon historical observation.  As to Bush bashing....I have not even mentioned the word, Bush, in this thread prior to this sentence.  My loyalties are to the Constitution of the United States of America -- I have the right not to trust a politician.

I did not intend for there to be a "diversion" to this thread by my comment.  Geeeezzzz, a person cannot post anything without getting jumped on here.  And then that becomes the diversion -- and I apologize to everyone who was seriously talking about the subject of this thread.  

I've posted a suggestion in the "Suggestions" Forum that there be a Debate forum, because that is where threads which are going to be argumentative belong, I think.  I would still like to have an Alley where people can just speak their mind, flame and complain, and not be personally attacked.  

[This message has been edited by iliana (04-12-2006 01:16 PM).]

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


38 posted 04-10-2006 08:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Your thread "How Soon We Forget" began with a link to The Bush Family Saga....Frauds R Us...attacking the Bush family for actions in the 80's. When called on it, your reply was "By nature, I just love a good mystery and like digging for the truth."  Forgive me if I find that unlikely.

Then your next thread was about Barbara Bush donating funds to be used in purchases from her son.  When called on it, your reply was "I'm really curious about these programs",  even though you made statements like "Do you personally think that this was a kind, charitable gesture?  The fact that this was a former first lady and the mother of our current commander-in-chief....it is noteworthy.  The fact that the money was earmarked for her son's company -- is that really a donation or a tax-deductible gift to her son to further the Ignite software? " and  " I could see where the folks in New Orleans and surrounding areas might be a little ticked off reading this in the newspapers."  A non-biased curiosity?  Unlikely still.

Now it's "what I meant was what we are now hearing on the news and should become the source of a new thread....plans to bomb IRAN. LR....I dare ya! "  Possibly negative Bush thoughts were not in your mind when you typed that ...but it's unlikely.

So, no, I don't believe I'm mistaken in my assessment of your actions but i do not say them as personal insults, simply observations of your actions. I would never insult you personally. I don't even know you and, believe it or not, i have the feeling that, if I did, I would like you! You have fire and you handle yourself well and you are just as determined in your thoughts as I am in mine, even though they may be different thoughts. I believe that both of us, as you stated, pledge our allegiance to the country, first and foremost. We are both Americans

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


39 posted 04-10-2006 10:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ringo..

I think that's the 64 thousand dollar question...  why?  The filings of Fitzgerald indicate there was a full-on effort in the White House to completely destroy Wilson in retaliation for his op-ed in which he blew the whistle on the fact that Bush and the entire team knew full-well before the state of the union adress that the intel he was about to present wasn't considered to be credible by the intelligence community.  You should be able to get enough background from the postings and links in this thread though.

Jo -- I really wouldn't know what to make the basis of such a thread -- it's just a rumor and there really isn't from my understanding -- any hard intel that suggests Iran is actually trying to build nuclear weapons at this point -- of course I don't know why that would stop them... this illustrates though -- why a president and administration with such a credibility problem is a real problem.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


40 posted 04-11-2006 01:48 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Yes, Reb...I understand.  Read my email.  Thanks anyway.

Deer...I'll send you a wink for that comment.  Yes, I can get steamed up...lol.  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


41 posted 04-11-2006 06:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
President Bush dismissed as "wild speculation" reports that the administration was planning for a military strike against
Iran.


If the administration isn't planning for a military strike against Iran, which is after all a possible option, it isnít doing its job properly; in fact if it hasnít got plans in place Iíd suggest it could be seen as incompetent.

Of course thatís just ďwild speculationĒ on my part.

As far as Bush bashing goes Iím with Balladeer to a certain extent, he doesnít personally handle every aspect of Government, though you could argue that he does have to shoulder some of the responsibility when things go wrong.

Even if Bush has made mistakes, and Iím not saying he has, itís not completely his fault, heís doing his best and surely he canít be solely responsible. After all he didnít vote himself into office and he canít hold that office without the support of the American people.


Donít the American people have to bear some of the responsibility?

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


42 posted 04-15-2006 03:36 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I do absolutely agree with Grinch that, as those who vote and are thus also representatives of our democracy, we ourselves are also at folly in that we allow ourselves to be planted and rooted deeply in this rigid two-party system, and seem passively to allow this partisan ping-pong match to reel on rather than call for a positive, collaborative change so more independent, candidates that don't come from the wealthiest of families can be represented, that we can live to the fullest promise of our democracy.

For quite a while, Balladeer and others here have made a genuine point here in that many who are disenchanted with Bush's policies seem more adamant of "bashing Bush" then diplomatically looking at what is wrong with the picture here and suggesting what we do need to positively build and strengthen our nation and such. Again, I believe I, myself, have been rather critical and blunt of Bush's personality, and have indeed called him a liar, an exploiter, and a war criminal in previous threads, things which I still stand by. However, I am not proud that ego conflicts seem to overshadow the interests for positive social change in recent years, not proud that partisanships seem more potent than dialogue in these times, and while I feel that, to secure the heart of our democracy we must hold accountable any president or representative that violates or attempts to walk around its heart, whoever thinks that these problems will end with the impeachment of Bush or so are ridiculously and sorely mistaken, and will only recreate themselves until the vision for positive social change is put ahead of partisanship at all costs.

I believe we're all guilty of falling into this partisan behavior in one way or another. Balladeer and others are right about that, and make a credible point.

Their point only loses ground and they only discredit themselves when they themselves let their partisanships consume and interfere with their logics, bashing everything about the Democratic Party which I myself are very critical of but are no less human than the GOP or any other party. During the Clinton Era, I have reason to believe had this forum been founded in 1992 that they'd be acting toward Clinton what the "Bush-bashers" are now toward Bush.....and still go after Clinton on everything.

And Lord knows no organization is or will ever be perfect, such as the United Nations, and Lord knows they've made some mistakes like all other organizations. But whenever the mere name of the United Nations is mentioned here, all I see is bashing, without acknowledging the number of very good things this world body has done over many years, including feeding 104 million people a year in 80 countries, UNICEF's efforts to crack down on AIDS and immunization of children worldwide, eradicating almost completely smallpox and polio from the world, holding over a dozen peacekeeping operations that, without their activity, could allow armed rebels and marauders to take control again, helping form elections in East Timor, Iraq and other countries, bringing issues that are otherwise seemingly non-existent in the media to the public forefront including landmines, child soldiers and cholera, etc.

Those who are obviously no fans of Clinton here (I don't consider myself a fan either, though not as adamantly opposed to him) mean well and make a genuine argument of how partisan distaste seems to rank more importantly to collaboration in their minds. It's their own partisan behavior that spoils an otherwise meaningful point.

Also, though I generally agree with Local Rebel more than Balladeer or Alicat, I also didn't agree with the tone he voiced in Comment #27 in the thread, as I thought it went over the line and, indeed, Bush is no tyrant who desires to go after the wives and kids of everyone who disagrees with him on the war. I absolutely don't believe he has or will ever be that heartless; he's just a naive, incompetent individual who stubbornly insists on his way or the highway and dislikes hearing dissenters.

I feel deep inside all of us, we are acting partisan-esque whether we want to acknowledge it or not...but what I'm also optimistic about is that deep down I believe all of us really desire for greater independence in our system, and the only thing that's really holding us back is fear itself.

Red Blue Game: Meaning

It's as though we're stuck in what is known as the "Red Blue Game" in University Studies class, where we all really want to move forward and seek change, but we're afraid someone else will try exploiting that trust, a call for unity, and we find ourselves stuck in defensiveness, and, essentially, we're just stuck at square one.

What it will take to escape this oubilette, I don't know, but I believe all of us are well-intentioned here, we truly don't desire living in partisan fashion, and I only hope that is recognized regardless if it's a Republican or Democrat controlling what, until we all decide together we must trust one another and reward ourselves for greater independence, these problems we've dealt under Clinton and under Bush willcontinue to replicate.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


43 posted 04-15-2006 06:20 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Tho' I agree with much of what Noah has said here, I disagree that critizing the CEO of the Nation is partisan politics in all cases.  Personally, I do not care what party he represents or what party any President represents.  Performance in the role is the most important thing.  For any CEO position, history and track record are important as to the very nature of the leader.  What some in The Alley term as bashing is simply stating the facts and background and analyzing performance of the leader in his job.  

"Partisan Politics" is a very easy out for those, in or outside, The Alley afraid to really confront the performance issues.  The minute we stop caring, monitoring, and critizing...that's when we've handed over our freedom.  

LOL....yes, Deer, just couldn't keep my mouth shut.

[This message has been edited by iliana (04-15-2006 09:33 PM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


44 posted 04-15-2006 07:29 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

No, I absolutely agree with you, Jo, performance does matter most, and that's why in my above response I also insisted it is important that as a democracy that we hold Bush's administration accountable for particular acts that run against some core principles of our democracy, such as the illegal wiretaps and the leaking of intelligence for political purpose, not in attacking Bush's character but because it's the duty and responsibility of our representatives to do their job, see to it our elected leader rings true to the oath made on Inauguration Day to preserve and protect our constitutional freedoms, and see to it the leader's held to the vow, and any time he isn't we must make note of it, otherwise we'd be sending the wrong message to our future generations and allowing the chiseling of all we hold dear. Unfortunately, I believe partisan politics is not only about confronting others, but deifying them as well, and while I think in the back of some minds who still admire Bush for whatever reasons they recognize what he did wasn't necessarily right or ethical, they still believe the call for accountability is all political gain motivations and would stand like a Buckingham Palace guard to Bush in result with unflinching reluctance.

I was just saying in the above also that indeed some who are critical of Clinton or Bush seem to blame Clinton or Bush on everything as well, and many of these problems never originated from Clinton or Bush to begin with and come out of the faults of our acceleratingly unsatisfying two-party system, where it's all about the collision of two challenging ideologies and there's little call for governing from the center. And I'm just trying to say, these problems will only continue to manifest themselves under different last names from either party until there's bi-lateral trust and acknowledgement that we aren't going to live to our democracy's full potential if we continue to go on like this and make efforts to see more independent voices get represented and such.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


45 posted 04-15-2006 08:10 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

We're the shareholders in the corporation called the United States of America and we're responsible for what our country does no matter who is in charge -- which is exactly why we have to be dilligent about what the board of directors and the CEO are up to.

If Bush needs a bashing -- I'm more than prepared to deliver.  Without shame.  My research is done.  The facts are in.

The thing you have to ask Noah -- is what was the gain of outing Plame.  Who did it help?  Who did it hurt?  How hurt could a lot of people have gotten?  How dead are some people around the world that we may never be aware of ?  Speculative question?  Not really -- she was an NOC -- she had contacts -- all of them were at risk once she was exposed.

Wreckless with the pre-war intel, wreckless with the Wilson smear, wreckless with the shareholders lives and interest.

Of course -- it is in this light that the Right guard are suddenly coming out to decry partisanship...
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


46 posted 04-15-2006 09:26 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Exactly, LR!

I say, "Thank goodness for the Right Guard!"  
 
 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 >> The Plot Thickens   [ Page: 1  2  ] 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