quote:Now, I think, Jim, that -- make a couple of more points. I think the vast majority of the American people support this program. And I also think when ultimately the history is written about this period, the relevant reaction of the Congress will be the reaction of the leadership when we briefed them into the program in years past, and they signed up to it, and they agreed that it was an extraordinarily important program, and they urged us to continue. And that's an independent, outside, separate group, bipartisan -- did not involve just a selective group of Republicans, and that that's the reaction that's important -- not the one that comes after it becomes a political issue and people are trying to score political points.
He's clearly not talking about the Republican leadership, he says bipartisan. There were only eight people in Congress briefed.
Of course, one of them sent Cheney himself a letter, and its pretty clear he didn't sign up for it, and he didn't urge them to continue. Read it yourself.
Another one of the eight has also asserted he voiced concerns.
You really have to admire the media management of the Bush administration, its a lot better than most any administration before. Just never admit you've lied, keep saying what you said, and eventually people will believe you're right.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"A Lie told often enough becomes the truth"- Vladimir Lenin
IP: Logged |
posted
You agree that it happens, and then ask me for examples? don't worry about it kid, you'll see it once or twice more in your life.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu's right. It appears Cheney is being misleading.
It doesn't help anyone, saying, "Well other presidents have done it..." That's not a good reason to keep on doing it, and it certainly isn't a valid excuse.
Stop excusing the weakness of your elected officials, and start making them accountable.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or the other politicians went with the flow, knowing they could change their story when they wished. I hate to tell you guys, but we don't get enough information to make even a slightly informed opinion about these subjects. All we ever get is he said / he said.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's kinda like saying other people have fender benders so it's perfectly acceptable to run over pedestrians.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad to see that nobody that has posted here yet is suprised that Cheney told a lie. And Scott, when is Cheney not misleading about the facts in ANY INTERVIEW THAT HE HAS EVER GIVEN?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's more like saying most accountants use math in their work. Your analogy is very, very flawed.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or the other politicians went with the flow, knowing they could change their story when they wished. I hate to tell you guys, but we don't get enough information to make even a slightly informed opinion about these subjects. All we ever get is he said / he said.
That's certainly a valid point. I would love to see some Republican senator, perhaps the one from Arizona, stand up and say, "Dick Cheney lied to Jim Leher, and he needs to be held accountable for it. Here are the facts of the situation:...."
And then he'd say, "I promise, as a loyal Republican and more importantly as a patriotic American, that I will never lie. Furthermore, I will not excuse ANY lie that I hear or otherwise come in contact with; and even further, I will hunt out the lies and liars, so that accountability in this government will be enshrined along with liberty."
But I won't hold my breath.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I wouldn't reccomend it. Most of these guys are more interested in keeping their station in life, as opposed to serving the people.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of these guys are more interested in keeping their station in life, as opposed to serving the people.
Given this, it's our responsibility as citizens to elect those who WILL serve the people, and to disdain those who show contempt for values we hold dear (like honesty).
Since we also have the freedom of speech and assembly in this country, in addition to voting rights, we don't need to wait until 2008 to express concern to the Bush administration, and request action against Cheney. We should certainly be doing something right now to let them know that this sort of behavior is not acceptable.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the President has stuck by his people up to this point, I'm fair certain that people assembling to protest something as flaky as this wouldn't change anything.
The problem is, we have limited choices in candidates, and a limited choice of who gets to be a candidate. And, without some form of revolt (which, in general, people are too apathetic to care enough about, myself included), this won't change, since the change has to be implemented by the people who would be negatively affected.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then, isn't what we're really saying, "We don't care enough about honesty in our politicians to do anything?"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shepherd: Oh will you shut up for once Russell, you over blown pundit.
Wow, this comment doesn't belong in the Hatrack that I know. I've been known to be snarky and such to people, but this is beyond that. I thought that our purpose here was for reasoned discussion, not flagrant name-calling.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, pretty much. The problem is, it's great to recognize a problem. But unless you have a solution to said problem, you're spinning your wheels.
For a revolt to happen, things have to be to a point where it's worth giving up what you have, in the hopes of getting what you want. And, quite frankly, we're not there yet. A dishonest politician is a problem, but it's not interfering too much with my day to day life as Joe Consumer.
The problem is a total lack of alternatives.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have major issues with that argument (Added: to clarify, I mean the "everyone else does it too" argument) as an reason to advocate against dissent, smitty.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not saying that, twink. I'm jsut saying they shouldn't be surprised. And they shoudl be less surprised when nothing comes of it.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a revolt to happen, things have to be to a point where it's worth giving up what you have, in the hopes of getting what you want. And, quite frankly, we're not there yet. A dishonest politician is a problem, but it's not interfering too much with my day to day life as Joe Consumer.
The problem is a total lack of alternatives.
Wow. While not helpful in this discussion it is very telling of why we have often less than 50% voter turnout and a great lack of participation in democracy in this country. Because the "Average Joe" is, on the surface, unaffected by decisions made in his name he then has no reason to worry. Until it does intrude on his life.
Since this seems to be a thread of metaphors, then this is like someone on the 12th floor of a building who knows there is a fire below but he won't worry until it reaches the 11th.
posted
smitty: more that I said other administrations in recent years tried it and failed .
Reagan's administration was pretty darn good at something similar, though they managed to avoid outright lying (at least, catchable lies, I suspect many administrations tell uncatchable lies related to national security). Since then, though, I can't think of any instances where the administration managed to stay its course and continue with the lie, except the current administration (this is the second major issue I recall its happened in, the other being with regard to the strength of evidence for a nuclear program in Iraq).
Can you provide an example of it in the Reagan administration, first Bush administration, or Clinton administration?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean where they weren't called on it, and the statement proven to be false in the court of public opinion? Nothing comes to mind right off. Mostly what I remember is that they seldom come out and say "I Lied", even if they are caught.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love jumping from political debate to my 5 year old. They have so much in common.
"Why did you lie?" "The others were lieing too!"
Should the responce be, "Mr. Cheney, if other vice president's jumped off the roof of the White House, would you?"
I think that same argument should go for Gonzales excuse for wire-tapping--that other Presidents have done it before.
Its scarey that 5 year old logic is in use by the most powerful person in the world.
One other thing. I am no Republican fan, but I do believe that most politicians do believe they are serving the people. They believe that the lies they tell, the bribes they take, are neccesary evils needed to allow them to do the really important stuff that serves the people.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree that they can convince themselves of that. They're just "working the system".
The improper anologies are getting old. If the other vice presidents jumped off the roof, and 98% of them enjoyed the experience and had no unfortunate side effects, you know d@mn well future Vice Presidents are going to keep doing it. Lying is what politicians tend to do (see Enig's quote). Stop being surprised by it.
And actually, considering "it's been done before, and was ok then" is very similiar to legal precedent, it probably is a valid excuse.
And my comment about we don't know WHO is doing the lying is completely bypassed, because hey, who likes Cheney? (Well, I guess I don't, either) We assume we know the facts of a situation, when in fact we know a little bit about nothing, and, hey, we don't like this guy.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, the program has been in place for over a decade, and the only reason that it is now being brought to lied and talked about is because the democrats in congress are grasping for straws to try and wain back their failing power following their defeats in the last three elections, losing the presidency, governorships, house, and senate. They seek as always a return to power, those who have power will do all they can to keep it.
I am not saying that the republicans in congress are not equally set upon keeping their power as the liberals, but at least they aren't grasping for rather weak straws.
It is a legal program approved by some of the very members of congress now grousing about it, which they are doing because it now serves their political needs to grouse more than it does to go along with it, which was why they went along with it before, it suited their purposes.
Oh, and yes, none of us no ANYTHING about the details, uses, applications, etc of this program. We only know what we here, which is as always skewed and plawed. I personally believe both the president and vice president to be men of character, Bush is a horrible public speaker, Cheney is a bit creepy, but they are both men of honor, conviction, and character in my view, and so I will always believe someone like them, or Leiberman, far easier than some slime-ball like Feinstein, or Kennedy.
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinda of odd that Rockefeller sent that memo two years after he was briefed on the program. He's a Senator, not a helpless baby. He could have easily gone to the other Senators and held meetings, or met with Cheney or the President about this. Handscrawling a letter two years later doesn't sound like he objected. Sounds more like he stuck his finger up in the political wind and decided to change his mind for political gain.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shepherd--"Coming to lied" freudian slip? Smitty--Just because others have done it does not make it OK. Its no more OK than cheating on your wife would be, despite the fact that others have done it for years. We can't pardon our elected officials because "That's the way the system has always been". That is the surest way to make sure the system never fails.
You keep saying that we don't have all the facts. That is what I find most frustrating. We don't have all the facts, and there is no way for us to get those facts unless they tell us the truth. The more secretive the administration is, the more important that what they tell us is the truth, not lies.
Our only other choice is to put blind faith in the administration and believe that they are 1) Honest, 2) Capable, and 3)Doing what is best for me. While I have no doubt that President Bush is Honest, we have some evidence that people in his administration and political party are not. Being capable was put into great question with the aftermath of Iraq and Katrina. Doing what is best for me is in great doubt, since their policies seem to do what is best for the upper class/upper middle class. They believe its best for me, following "Trickle Down" theories of economics. Frankly, I'm tired of getting trickled on.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The "program" may have been in place, but its abuse, and the "oh, you caught us, but it's all legal anyway" attitude about those abuses is a new wrinkle. This has come up in part because of Cheney's philosophy on Presidential power. A philosophy that Bush Senior did not fully buy into, but that our current President has adopted as the hallmark of his administration.
When you've got even Reagan-era legal advisors coming out of the workwork complaining about the abuses involved in the NSA domestic spying program, I have to take issue with you calling this all a ploy by Democrats.
As for the integrity of our President and Vice President: to me, they beat out Nixon/Agnew as the most morally corrupt individuals to hold those offices in my lifetime. Either that, or they are the biggest incompetents. Depends on how much of their stuff is by accident (like promising to brief the FISA court before using info from warrantless searches and then not doing it). If I give them credit for intelligence, then they are acting immorally. If I grant that they are moral, then I have to conclude they are inept.
I just don't see a possible description that lauds both their integrity and their intelligence.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to believe defense of this program by the Bush administration has nothing to do with the safety of Americans and everything to do with a grab for additional power for the administration. I believe this because provisions are available to make the wiretaps unquestionably legal even retroactively and the Bush administration refuses to be inconvenienced by those provisions. Instead, they prefer to argue themselves above any accountability. As much as I dislike Bush and this administration, and many of their policies thus far, this policy seems to me to be the biggest threat yet to our liberty.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said it was ok. I said it was commonplace. And to not be surprised when it happens. Or when nothing comes of it.
When it comes to the facts, there are no facts. We're not going to get this answer. As long as at least one party is willing to lie, we're not going to know what really happened. All we have is conflicting stories, with no real evidence.
As for holding them responsible, well, sure. I'll hold them responsible. Oh, wait, I only vote for Indiana Congress Critters and Senators, and of course the President. And my vote is pretty small in the great scheme of things. And there needs to be a clear-cut choice that Candidate "A" is better than Candidate "B".
While I didn't agree with all of Bush's policies, I felt he was better than Gore or Kerry. Of course, things were so bitter during the elections that the fans of Kerry are taking every chance they can to punch holes in anything W does.
Here's the real fun part. If my choice in '08 is between Hillary and, say, Kermit... I'm voting for Kermit. We've stopped voting for the better candidate, and started picking the lesser of the two evils. And how most people determine that is the (R) or (D) next to their name.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how they are grabbing for power... Bush and his crew will be out in '08. What does he have to gain?
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R--side note. President Bush had little direct responsibility for FEMA's problems with Katrina. However, he was the person who appointed Brown to be in charge of FEMA, and that was a definate mistake. He seems to value unconditional loyalty over compitance.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And how most people determine that is the (R) or (D) next to their name.
How do YOU determine that? While you're not responsible for "most people," you are at least able to not vote like an idiot yourself.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally look at the candidates. But, I've only been of voting age for three presidential elections. My presidential picks have all been (R). My other picks are based on what policy / background / personality information I can find. Local picks are often based on my personal opinion of the candidate (we're a small county). Let's be completely honest, though - my vote is worth just as much as the idiot who votes straight ticket, or chooses his candidates based on the best hair.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stop excusing the weakness of your elected officials, and start making them accountable.
I agree.
quote:"I promise, as a loyal Republican and more importantly as a patriotic American, that I will never lie. Furthermore, I will not excuse ANY lie that I hear or otherwise come in contact with; and even further, I will hunt out the lies and liars, so that accountability in this government will be enshrined along with liberty."
And this I second.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, you can idealize all you want, but you're not going to get this. Anyone who entered public service with this mindset would either be minimalized or be under attack at all times. Public opinion is a fickle thing. It only takes accusations, not proof, to tear a man down.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shepherd: Ten years? You mean since well before the use of force measure in Congress that the President is using as one argument for it being legal? And of course, only eight members of Congress, Republicans plus Democrats, knew about it until just recently, so its not like you can say all the rest are only using it for convenient political hay because now's a good time; they started protesting the instant they knew of it.
smitty: there have been several studies done showing things such as that the current administration has put far more people in positions of power who are generally underqualified than any recent administration. Things like that and this are what make me dislike them. I note we're still awaiting any instance of another recent administration managing to carry off the bald-faced, repeat lying this administration has.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who entered public service with this mindset would either be minimalized or be under attack at all times.
This is true, now. That's why a general public call for accountability is so important-- so that we can root out the weeds, and encourage good government.
posted
As far as Bush being out of power, that may be, but he has a brother, children of his own, heck even a VP who may consider running for president someday.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
S&L Scandal the Clintons were involved in comes to mind, but I'd have to go back and research it. But first I would ask you to prove to me who is lying, so I know who I should be checking on.
Would you like me to do a study confirming something I believe? I can do it. It's not all that difficult. 97% of the people polled (plus or minus three percent) believe that there is a staple remover on my desk. 47% of the people polled believe I will use it to commit suicide before anything is accomplished in this thread. Of course, underqualified is something that's not definitive, so it can't be proven one way or another.
I like the current President because he's decisive. I'd rather be doing SOMETHING, than flip-flopping around, trying to follow public opinion. You're not likely to convince me otherwise. I'm not likely to rock you away from your convictions.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kinda doubt Jeb and Dick will have enough political pull to do that sort of thing myself. But, who knows.
Scott, how do you get the public to make such a call? Maybe I'm just a tad dissillisioned but I don't see how you can convince people of that.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A study by Representative Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, found that more than 60% of the IGs nominated by the Bush Administration had political experience and less than 20% had auditing experience—almost the obverse of those measures during the Clinton Administration. About half the current IGs are holdovers from Clinton.
I think I can dig up some more, but those are some of the recent activity prompted by Brown.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
don't worry about it kid, you'll see it once or twice more in your life.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
