VP deeply involved in CIA leak

[sdrebear]

"If you can't see the blatant partisian action on Fitzgeralds part…. well exercise your brain by investigating sources you don't like or want to go to.

The true measurable fact is that you are lost in your prejudices, period."

I'd love to hear your true feelings on the Kenneth Starr reports and your take on its contrast to this trial. Let's see if you can keep your prejudices in check.

By the way… are you sure you're not "bgates"? Haven't seen his name around lately, but your writing style sure does seem familiar.

[sdnativeson]

dz, you think we live in a democracy? Seriously? We don’t, the U.S. is a republic, well, the intent is/was to be a republic. Big difference.

I am inclined to agree though with your last paragraph.

[PerryChase]

deadzone, i agree that the Republican’s support of Bush is pure partisanship. Had a Democrat bungled Iraq, there would’ve been major reprisals. Republicans strongly opposed Clinton’s foreign policy actions such Kosovo and Somalia.

I’m guessing that Republicans are privately reeling over Bush’s proposal to spend $1 billion on a jobs program in Iraq.

[sdnativeson]

sdrebear, well lets see, K. Starr was appointed to investigate the Clintons role in Whitewater which pretty much proved nothing illegal, during that course of events the Lewinski issue popped up. I don’t have total recall but I think in part it was due to P. Jones filing a criminal suit against BC. and, that lewinski could be called to testify. I could be wrong as I said I’m not exact on the course of events.

Anyway, despite the fact that K. Starr felt it was necessary to go graphic about BC’s sexual pecadillos the underlying premise for that course of events was true. BC lied in front of a federal grand jury. Still, was it worth 40 million? I go back and forth on that point.

Now, for the most part, sure, politics was a cause. I qualify that because I can’t say (no one can say) that if BC never went into politics that Whitewater and thus the Clintons involvement would never have been investigated. I believe that started at the state level not at the federal, but again I could be wrong. There you go, a brief response.

I am aware of my prejudices/bias and I consciously make an effort to see and acknowledge their presence in any situation they might arise. It’s important for me to do so, as I can then make every possible effort to negate them. In the times I can’t, I admit to their presence. I do so/try so because if I cannot do that, it then calls into question the validity of any opinion I express, any action I might take. do I have a 100% success rate? Sadly, no.

Also, I am fully cognizant that being aware of my shadows doesn’t necessarily add any validity to my opinions. I have to be able to provide supporting data. But, I also rarely if ever, am discussing things in the terms of right and wrong here (meaning I am right, therefore you are wrong).

For the most part, I start in when I see blatantly biased and usually unfounded rhetoric and/or statements being thrown around. IMO if you can’t look into and at both sides of an issue/problem/event etc. then your conclusions are bound to be inaccurate – and deserve to be both questioned and challenged.

Diego’s comments about impeachment and Bush have no basis other than his dislike of Bush and his (Bush’s) policies

I don’t see many people here acknowledging their political prejudices do you?

no, I am not bgates, he is far better looking, intelligent,
eloquent, sophisticated and wealthy than I.

[sdrebear]

Thanks for the reply sdnativeson. I feel that you are correct in your analysis of how arguments should be constructed. It’s important to acknowledge the failures of your “side” on the issue to have your main points hold water. Usually in politics there is truth (and fallacy) to both stories and it’s a matter of who is “more” right on the particular topic.

As you stated on Starr; Clinton was being “bad”, but the extent it reached and the cost it incurred was purely driven by partisan politics. $40 mil is quite a bit for that and I think he spent $5 mil on his defense. Crazy. I still have some questions on how the whole situation was constructed to trap him into either publicly outing himself, or perjuring himself. Either way though, that is completely his fault. However, was the whole thing a total waste of time and money, or worse, possibly even detrimental to our country as a worthless distraction from more important issues? I’m inclined to say yes.

My sincere hope is that if, in fact the Democrats decide to go after Bush for something, it had damn well better be more important than what was leveled at Clinton. I don’t really care if Bush stepped on one small law to avoid a personal embarrassment. However, if any law was stepped on/over/around in order to further a personal agenda of his or others in his cabinet, then we have something that needs to be revealed and dealt with.

They tried the whole “Al Capone Tax Evasion” plan on BC (even though there really weren’t some “worse” charges that he really should have been convicted on), but I really don’t care to see that again with Bush. I’d rather see the real dirt or nothing. I think it’s cowardly to try and take down a sitting president (no matter your preference) with drivel.

P.S. If you’re truly not bgates, then you’re a worthy protégé. Very similar style.

[Author]

Posts