A sad commentary on the current state of affairs

[j2k4]

This is a column by registered Democrat Charlie Reese; it struck an old, familiar chord.

No Honor

If there were any honor at CBS, then both the president of the news division and Dan Rather would resign. They, not the underlings who have been fired, are responsible for what goes on the air — in this case, the claims about the president's National Guard duty based on phony papers.

It's a pitiful excuse when the bosses claim that their employees deceived them when it's the bosses, not the employees, who have the final say. This behavior, however, is typical of corporate America.

We live in an age when the rich and powerful substitute good lawyers and good public-relations specialists for good character. It was not always so in America. There was a time when a man's honor meant more than his life.

One of the most intriguing characters in American history is Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy. Stephens was a shriveled little man and a notorious hypochondriac, though nevertheless a brilliant lawyer and an outstanding orator. After the war, he was elected governor of Georgia and got into a dispute with another individual.

Needless to say, the other individual towered over Stephens, who was less than 5 feet tall and never weighed more than 91 pounds. They got into a knife fight, and in no time, the larger man had Stephens flat on his back, with the blade of his bowie knife at the little man's throat.

"Retract, damn you, or I'll cut your throat," the man growled.

"Cut it," said Stephens.

Fortunately for Stephens, bystanders intervened, but the point is that Stephens' word meant more to him than his life. He had told the truth, and he would die rather than retract it. There might be one or two men in Washington who would react the same way under similar circumstances, but the majority would probably change their tunes faster than a jazz musician can play two notes.

I have long argued that lobbyists should not be blamed, as editorial writers are inclined to do, for corrupting politicians. The lobbyist can only ask and offer; it is the public official who consents and accepts. When politicians sell their votes, they are just demonstrating that they were dishonorable people long before they got into public office. The only difference is that in private life, they didn't have anything to sell.

Furthermore, the lobbyist's loyalty is only to his client; it is the politician who has sworn to be loyal to the Constitution and to the people who elected him or her. The betrayer of public trust is the politician, not the special interests.

You would think that with the nation as overcrowded as it is, we could find some better people than the 535 who do all the federal legislating. By and large, they spend most of their time bloviating, raising money and selling or trading their votes. They have voted themselves far more money and perks than they are worth, and they spend the people's hard-earned money like it was confetti.

We have come a long way since a Kansas farmer was first elected to Congress and came home and told a friend: "Why, Bob, this is wonderful job. It pays $40,000 in salary alone."

Well, today it pays well in excess of $100,000 "in salary alone," and members of Congress have, in another dishonorable act, voted to get cost-of-living raises every year. They have the best pension system in the Milky Way galaxy.

Honor, as a screenwriter once had a character say, is a gift a man gives to himself. You cannot eliminate dishonesty, a lack of ethics or bad character with legislation. If the American people, by and large, are dishonest or at least apathetic about corruption, then so be it. We are never going to have a government better than ourselves.

And by the way, you can have one of those plush jobs, provided you can raise $300,000 or so for a House seat or several millions of dollars for a Senate seat. We ought to ask ourselves: When does a democracy get so expensive that it's no longer a democracy.

So sad that "character" has gone out of style. :huh:

Thoughts?

[ilw]

No Honor

If there were any honor at CBS, then both the president of the news division and Dan Rather would resign. They, not the underlings who have been fired, are responsible for what goes on the air — in this case, the claims about the president's National Guard duty based on phony papers.

It's a pitiful excuse when the bosses claim that their employees deceived them when it's the bosses, not the employees, who have the final say. This behavior, however, is typical of corporate America.

Just a shot in the dark, but are you having yet another subtle sideswipe at Bush for not quitting over Iraqi WMD? You people make me sick, leave the poor man alone.
:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Just a shot in the dark, but are you having yet another subtle sideswipe at Bush for not quitting over Iraqi WMD? You people make me sick, leave the poor man alone.
:rolleyes:

I am an enabler of those desiring sickness; it is my calling.:D

[Biggles]

At one time politics was a calling that some answered after having accomplished other things. It was not unusual for such individuals to hold views that crossed political boundaries. Winston Churchill changed parties twice.


The modern world is filled with political professionals and the game is highly partisan. If one breaks ranks then the rug is pulled firmly from under the feet.

Politics is much less about what the individual believes than it was once - in my view at least. However, I may simply becoming a curmudgeon. :ermm:

[j2k4]

Then I will wear the same shoe.

We need more shoes... :huh:



I have worn the label of "curmudgeon" for some time here; however, I am glad to share it around with my friends. :)

[hobbes]

Just a shot in the dark, but are you having yet another subtle sideswipe at Bush for not quitting over Iraqi WMD? You people make me sick, leave the poor man alone.
:rolleyes:

No J2,

Let us not brush this comment off with a quip.

The situations are precisely parallel.

Bush took his country to war over something that was not there.

He then blamed "bad information" for this.

You are right, there is no honor.

Bush should have stepped down saying, "I got bad information, but I was the enabler".

You cannot hold Rather and CBS to one standard and Bush to another, just because you disagree with one and agree with another.

Doing so makes ones' speech about "honor" just empty words.

[Sid Hartha]

If there were any honor at CBS, then both the president of the news division and Dan Rather would resign. They, not the underlings who have been fired, are responsible for what goes on the air — in this case, the claims about the president's National Guard duty based on phony papers.

Well, let's look at this: CBS' reputation if further tarnished, American voters get the lowdown on what happened well before elections, Dan Rather ends his long career with his credibility permanently damaged beyond repair...

...and the man he went after, George Bush, gets re-elected by a comfortable margin.

Even in victory, conservatives never fail to find something to cry about.

[j2k4]

'Tis not my speech, Hobbes, I merely agree with it; but, if you insist-

I could argue special circumstances for Bush (EVERYBODY else was fooled, too), but will forego that to state that, all other things being equal, I would see Bush remove himself over what I see as a mistake where culpability should be shared.

I believe also that every Senator who voted to authorize the war should fall on his/her own sword, too.

I presume you have some recollection of who that would include?

Every citizen who supported the war would be chastized to whatever extent his support was known.

There is about your post a whiff of something I abhor-do you smell it?

It's called moral equivalence, and if we hold to it strictly, we must also lay waste to the rest.

Just think, though-if the U.N. subscribed to the idea, they would not have been able to ignore their own resolutions, and would have been compelled by principle to remove Saddam.

That particular see-saw tilts in an infinite number of directions.

[hobbes]

'Tis not my speech, Hobbes, I merely agree with it; but, if you insist-

I could argue special circumstances for Bush (EVERYBODY else was fooled, too), but will forego that to state that, all other things being equal, I would see Bush remove himself over what I see as a mistake where culpability should be shared.

I believe also that every Senator who voted to authorize the war should fall on his/her own sword, too.

I presume you have some recollection of who that would include?

Every citizen who supported the war would be chastized to whatever extent his support was known.

There is about your post a whiff of something I abhor-do you smell it?

It's called moral equivalence, and if we hold to it strictly, we must also lay waste to the rest.

Just think, though-if the U.N. subscribed to the idea, they would not have been able to ignore their own resolutions, and would have been compelled by principle to remove Saddam.

That particular see-saw tilts in an infinite number of directions.

Bush was the ultimate ENABLER- he is the man who should suffer the blame.

[j2k4]

Even in victory, conservatives never fail to find something to cry about.

Your response is classic knee-jerk, Sid.

Did you read the column?

Are you so blinded by dislike for conservatives you don't agree the sentiment being discussed applies to all who are without honor?

[j2k4]

Bush was the ultimate ENABLER- he is the man who should suffer the blame.

I really hate to put you and Sid in the same bag, Hobbes, but, there you are.

Odd that everyone here (especially yourself) but me is free to step away from ideology in order to discuss a common vexation.

Fuck it.

Whichever mod sees this first, please close this thread?

[hobbes]

I really hate to put you and Sid in the same bag, Hobbes, but, there you are.

Odd that everyone here (especially yourself) but me is free to step away from ideology in order to discuss a common vexation.

Fuck it.

Whichever mod sees this first, please close this thread?

I have critcized Bush, I have defended Bush. I call each situation as I see it. To suddenly label me as one who is unable to step away from my idealogy to discuss this concept of a loss of honor is unfair.

I think the two situations are parallel.

but....

[hobbes]

My point is that I think neither Bush nor Rather should step down.

If both Rather and Bush acted or reported in a way that was truly what they believed, although erroneous in reality, both are obligated to apologise or recognize publically that they made a mistake, but "honor" does not require that should step down.

Had the US Government gone on to construct phony "WMD" findings to cover their asses, that would have been dishonorable. In fact, I was a bit proud that when the media proclaimed that all these illegal chemicals had been found and the government consistently came back a said, "No, it was just pesticide". That was some serious crow eating.

Similarly, had Rather not fessed up to his error that would have been dishonorable.

So I think the authors attack at CBS and it's honor was a poor example of what honor is.

Had they known they were broadcasting lies, or if Bush knew there were no weapons of mass distruction, these acts would be equally dishonorable.

So, you may still have a valid point that a persons' sense of honor has taken a turn for the worse. That a handshake, which was to be as binding as a legal document, is now just a physical motion.

I just didn't think the author made an apt choice of example. I used the Bush scenario to show where his logic went awry.

I was not jumping on the kill Bush bandwagon, that is already full. I was disagreeing with the example put forth by the author.

[TheDave]

all politicians are greedy liars. nuff said

[j2k4]

So I think the authors attack at CBS and it's honor was a poor example of what honor is.
I just didn't think the author made an apt choice of example. I used the Bush scenario to show where his logic went awry.

The author's point was to illustrate that honor-in the media, in politics, in business, in society, in the main-is not prevalent; indeed, does not exist any longer.

The CBS fiasco is a perfect example of this, never mind the Bush aspect.

As a lead-in to the larger issue, should he reject a perfect specimen (one which possesses the qualification and reader recognition) in order to avoid stepping on anti-Bush toes?

Reese's aim is to point up that the historical regard for honor no longer exists; what better example than the most recent and contemporary?

Honestly, I am baffled-most of my threads go more than two posts before veering so far afield. :huh:

[j2k4]

all politicians are greedy liars. nuff said

Just so, but to phrase it thus doesn't make for much of a thread, Dave.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=Mr JP As an aside, I do not believe that all politicians can be tarred with the same brush. I believe that there are degrees of tarrage.[/QUOTE]

An appropriate adjunct, to be sure.

This is when the discomfitment of assigning a moral shading occurs; people have been known to flee in terror at the prospect of it.

[Biggles]

Gavyn Davies, Chairman of the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3434661.stm)

Mr Davies resigned as a result of the findings of the Hutton Report. His organisation had made errors (I believe they were genuine errors). It was roundly criticized for them and the top man resigned.

Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said Mr Davies had "done the honourable thing" and she would now advertise for his replacement.

As an aside, I do not believe that all politicians can be tarred with the same brush. I believe that there are degrees of tarrage.

Likewise Greg Dyke also resigned from the BBC following the Hutton report. It has to be said that he took considerable sympathy with him and a fair degree of the moral high ground. Thus showing that the honourable path is not without its benefits.

[j2k4]

Likewise Greg Dyke also resigned from the BBC following the Hutton report. It has to be said that he took considerable sympathy with him and a fair degree of the moral high ground. Thus showing that the honourable path is not without its benefits.

Hear, Hear!!

Chief amongst these benefits is a large measure of dignity, which is also in short supply these days.

Forgive me please for noting that an image of Paris Hilton just popped into my head.

Sorry...

[Biggles]

Hear, Hear!!

Chief amongst these benefits is a large measure of dignity, which is also in short supply these days.

Forgive me please for noting that an image of Paris Hilton just popped into my head.

Sorry...


:ohmy:

Now her I have seen on TV. The aim being, as far as I can see, to prove that despite upbringing and opportunity it is possible to bring out the inner trailer trash in oneself. (Note: I am not entirely sure what trailer trash are but I have seen the expression used and it seemed apposite)

I fear your for your head J2 :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Biggles-

It was just the point about dignity; she (like CBS/Rather) serves as a current exemplar of this relevent lack.

My head is fine.

Mr. Fugley-

If it is as you say between yours and ours (and I suspect that it is), I prefer yours.

The American public should be constantly enraged, but it is not; or at least not so stirred to action.

Off now; chores await.

[Biggles]

Biggles-

It was just the point about dignity; she (like CBS/Rather) serves as a current exemplar of this relevent lack.

My head is fine.

Mr. Fugley-

If it is as you say between yours and ours (and I suspect that it is), I prefer yours.

The American public should be constantly enraged, but it is not; or at least not so stirred to action.

Off now; chores await.


Glad about the head - these would be cultural icons can be tricky to get out once they have wormed their way in. However, some hard wotk and chores do wonders. :lol:

I need to do likewise - seems like all my white goods are threatening to pack in at the same time :angry: - time for some essential maintenance - sigh!

[UKResident]

I could argue special circumstances for Bush (EVERYBODY else was fooled, too)

Fooled? A strange turn of phrase j2k4, don't you mean the rest of the world was lied to? Blair stated that he had seen unequivocal proof that WMDs existed, as there were none, the evidence was not therefore unequivocal; who showed him the proof?

The inspectors weren't fooled either, they knew there were none there, that's why Bush decided to invade before they had a chance to tell the world the truth. Now all we hear is "liberation" "freedom" "democracy", show me where Bush mentioned these things before the invasion.

He should have apologised and stepped down, or at least he should have apologised, admitted he was wrong and asked the people of America to forgive him and re-elect him to put things right. The fact that he didn't, that he piled lie upon lie shows what a snivelling piece of shit he is.

[j2k4]

Fooled? A strange turn of phrase j2k4, don't you mean the rest of the world was lied to? Blair stated that he had seen unequivocal proof that WMDs existed, as there were none, the evidence was not therefore unequivocal; who showed him the proof?

The inspectors weren't fooled either, they knew there were none there, that's why Bush decided to invade before they had a chance to tell the world the truth. Now all we hear is "liberation" "freedom" "democracy", show me where Bush mentioned these things before the invasion.

He should have apologised and stepped down, or at least he should have apologised, admitted he was wrong and asked the people of America to forgive him and re-elect him to put things right. The fact that he didn't, that he piled lie upon lie shows what a snivelling piece of shit he is.


HI, BILLY!! :D

[UKResident]

HI, BILLY!! :D

My, my, l expect that sort of idiocy from the trolls j2k4, but from you? You disappoint me, a fuck and moment of madness in the space of two days. Billy will be pissing himself over this. :lol:

[j2k4]

My, my, l expect that sort of idiocy from the trolls j2k4, but from you? You disappoint me, a fuck and moment of madness in the space of two days. Billy will be pissing himself over this. :lol:

My, my....aren't you mysterious? :rolleyes:

[Rat Faced]

EVERYBODY else was fooled, too

No they weren't.

There were many members of this board sayiing that there werent for starters..

There were many countries saying there werent.

The inspectors were saying there werent.

Millions of people throughout the world were saying there weren't, publically in the largest demonstrations this planet has ever seen on one single issue...

So, no-one was fooled except the American people... because im damn sure that Bush knew there werent any too. ;)

[j2k4]

No they weren't.

There were many members of this board sayiing that there werent for starters..

There were many countries saying there werent.

The inspectors were saying there werent.

Millions of people throughout the world were saying there weren't, publically in the largest demonstrations this planet has ever seen on one single issue...

So, no-one was fooled except the American people... because im damn sure that Bush knew there werent any too. ;)

Define "weren't", Rat.

[hobbes]

No they weren't.

There were many members of this board sayiing that there werent for starters..

There were many countries saying there werent.

The inspectors were saying there werent.

Millions of people throughout the world were saying there weren't, publically in the largest demonstrations this planet has ever seen on one single issue...

So, no-one was fooled except the American people... because im damn sure that Bush knew there werent any too. ;)


Actually, that is not true. I heard people protest war, but I never heard a single utterance that people knew there were no WMD.

Even on this forum, I can recall not a single pre-War post that stated that there were no WMD in Iraq. They simply stated that war was not the answer.

I think a link to millions of people pre-war stating definitively that there were no WMD is in order.

And how would they know?

Actually, I would like a single post by you stating such, then I will eat crow.

I am looking right now.

So far you authored no thread stating such. Now I will check as a contributor.

Couldn't find an article by the BBC, either.

[Rat Faced]

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=1661&page=1&pp=10
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2485&page=1&pp=10
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2542&page=1
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=4272&page=1&pp=10
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=4559&page=6&pp=10
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?p=45606#post45606
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2941&page=5&pp=10


A couple of threads to look through..

I believe i put my views in the last one and the 1st one :P

I think most of the threads/posts i recall have been lost though :(

For example the links refering to other threads dont work :dry:

[hobbes]

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=1661&page=1&pp=10
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2485&page=1&pp=10
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2542&page=1
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=4272&page=1&pp=10
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=4559&page=6&pp=10
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?p=45606#post45606
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2941&page=5&pp=10


A couple of threads to look through..

I believe i put my views in the last one and the 1st one :P

I think most of the threads/posts i recall have been lost though :(

For example the links refering to other threads dont work :dry:

Just post a single post where you posted that WMD were not there.

I looked through a few of your links which were not helpful.

The "facts" were that he had WMD, as best the world knew

Just one explicit post is all I asked for.

[j2k4]

I think you all have covered the WMD issue quite rigorously in my absense, so I will dispense with the obvious to say merely that, having nothing with which to back a claim of "no WMD", no-way, no-how,not ever, ever, ever, I will claim, at minimum, a moral "draw" on that particular point.

Can we move on? :dry:

[UKResident]

There were plenty of comments here, when it was inevitable that the invasion was on, along the lines of waiting for the inspectors report before going in, so to say no-one said there were none there is misleading. Even the inspectors asked them to hold off until they were finished their work, Bush refused because he knew what the inspectors were going to say.

[hobbes]

Well, I'm sorry I found RF's post abrasive and deceptive.

RF himself was unsure of whether there were WMD or not. (I say this from memory and it is made in good faith)

Now suddenly everyone knew, everyone except those stupid(implied by tone and context)Americans. Even though there were war protests in America.

I looked at those pre-war protest signs, not a single one said that WMD was a lie. Not a single person in this biased forum started a thread stating that there was no WMD. Some mumbled about having doubts, but no one was willing to stand up and aver that they were definitely not there.

Saddam had us all bluffed.

Now Bush went a screwed the pooch to be sure, but I guess I am reacting to how Rat constructed his post. It's abrasiveness and distortion was a disappointment coming from him. He must have had some bad cheese or something.

[j2k4]

I have a dim memory of Billy Dean nixing the idea of WMD, but he was the only one, I'm sure of it.

I'm also sure this is precisely how everyone else on the entire board remembers it, too, without exception.

[Rat Faced]

Just post a single post where you posted that WMD were not there.

I looked through a few of your links which were not helpful.

The "facts" were that he had WMD, as best the world knew

Just one explicit post is all I asked for.

You asked for posts by members, so i gave a few threads...

For me? I said i could not recall.. however this was in one of those threads.. posted 15th Feb, 2003..


Black Propaganda is the art of the state turning public opinion their way.

The best example was the CIA stating that Iraq had no Nuclear capability last year in such terms as to scare the crap out of everyone. They said that Iraq was "GIVEN the FACILITIES and MATERIALS, were only 3 years away from producing Nuclear weapons"......as the HOW part is readily available, this is true of every high school in the USA. It is a way of saying 'they dont have any nuclear capability, and arent getting it'.


That good enough for you?

[Rat Faced]

Appendum:

I also recall a thread stating that any "weapon" can be described as WMD, and thats why they were using that phrase... a rifle can be a "WMD" if you kill enough people with it.

Cant find that thread either though, and i like that one.. :(

The correct term is NBC.

[vidcc]

Point of order here.

NOBODY with the exception of Saddam himself and some of his government knew one way or the other about saddams WMD's before the war. There was purely speculation.
Everyone else either believed the information they were given or dis-believed it, either way it could not be stated as fact and backed up at that time.

There are some who now wish to change the fact that Bush said saddam "did have them" to he "wanted them"

I do think Bush believed he had them, i don't think he lied, however he should do the honourable thing and at the very least appologise for the mistake and accept responsibility instead of making excuses. This is why i don't see honor in Bush.
Much as i would like to see him step down i don't see that as being the right thing to do in this case.

[Biggles]

Robin Cook did stand up and was counted as one who did not agree that Iraq was a current danger or was currently engaged in such activites. His resignation speech was a good example of how to use honourable dignity to deliver a kick in the crotch.

The question then was "what, if any, remained of the 1980s stockpile and why was it suddenly an issue"?

This was, not surprisingly, debated at length on my work intranet with a fair number coming down on Cook's side as he had been Foreign Secretary and had seen the relevant papers.

I must confess I said on that board that Saddam probably had residual capability and at least a small cache somewhere. Who knows? Perhaps there still is.

My main claim to fame was that I predicted that the war would be over in two weeks (my argument being that Saddam was not a realistic military threat to a single NATO country) and we would inherit the biggest Northern Ireland (and invoice to cover costs) imaginable. If only I had filled out my lottery card at the same time. :(

[j2k4]

Point of order here.

NOBODY with the exception of Saddam himself and some of his government knew one way or the other about saddams WMD's before the war. There was purely speculation.
Everyone else either believed the information they were given or dis-believed it, either way it could not be stated as fact and backed up at that time.

There are some who now wish to change the fact that Bush said saddam "did have them" to he "wanted them"

I do think Bush believed he had them, i don't think he lied, however he should do the honourable thing and at the very least appologise for the mistake and accept responsibility instead of making excuses. This is why i don't see honor in Bush.
Much as i would like to see him step down i don't see that as being the right thing to do in this case.


Hmmmm.

I can live with that, apart from the necessity of an apology; if he didn't lie, he has done nothing warranting an apology.

If he were to say, "I feel bad for leading America into a war with multiple objectives, only to find out that concern over the chief objective was subsequently mitigated or ameliorated by circumstances that cannot be discerned with a degree of specificity satisfactory to my political enemies", I should think that would suffice, absent any liberal requirements regarding tone, or "sounding like he means it" or what-not.

Abject sobbing should not be necessary. ;)

[Cheese]

"I feel bad for leading America into a war with multiple objectives, only to find out that concern over the chief objective was subsequently mitigated or ameliorated by circumstances that cannot be discerned with a degree of specificity satisfactory to my political enemies"

I'd give him a round of applause if he could say that three times. Really fast.

[Biggles]

I'd give him a round of applause if he could say that three times. Really fast.

If he could say it once I would be impressed. :ph34r:

[vidcc]

J2
The point being a MISTAKE was made. It matters not if it wasn't intentional. The buck stops with him, this isn't a responsibilty forced upon him...he actively applied to have the responsibility.

[j2k4]

If he could say it once I would be impressed. :ph34r:

I'm working on that; give me some time.

He keeps tripping on ameliorate, much as he does on new-kew-ler.

It keeps coming out "amercuthiolate", best I can tell.

He has assured me that he would like to say it, almost as much as he wishes that he could say it. :huh:

[vidcc]

I'd give him a round of applause if he could say that three times. Really fast.

i'd give him applause if he could actually pronounce all of that.

edit: j2 obviously has less distractions so can post faster today and beat me to it :angry: :lol:

[j2k4]

J2 ...this isn't a responsibilty forced upon him...

Just so, but...

In his capacity as Chief Executive, it is difficult to force anything on him, besides which, when was the last time you heard a President (especially one holding majorities in both houses, as well as every other politically relevent card) apologize for anything?

I honestly can't remember if Slick Willie apologized for banging interns with a cigar, but if he did, the last I remember before that was Nixon, and if any President ever owed an apology for screwing up, it was Carter.

If it is not a matter of serious and sincere political expedience, no apology is ever forthcoming.

I say this not necessarily as a statement of belief with regard to Bush, but as strict political reality.

ALL presidents play the percentages, and there is no percentage in handing out apologies willy (sorry)-nilly.

[hobbes]

Appendum:

I also recall a thread stating that any "weapon" can be described as WMD, and thats why they were using that phrase... a rifle can be a "WMD" if you kill enough people with it.

Cant find that thread either though, and i like that one.. :(

The correct term is NBC.


We all know what WMD means. One bomb, one small specimen, clandestine delivery, millions killed.

That whole thread was specious and I know the one you are talking about.

Bush admits there are no WMD, so he did NOT distort the description of a "conventional weapon" to label it as anything other than what it was. Even the old warhead that was found to contain "sarin" or something was dismissed as a non-issue and from a long ago war. The missles that flew beyond the allowed range were also dismissed.

Had he stated we found WMD and presented these items, than you might of had something.

[hobbes]

You asked for posts by members, so i gave a few threads...

For me? I said i could not recall.. however this was in one of those threads.. posted 15th Feb, 2003..



That good enough for you?

When you go on to state that the whole world knew there were no WMD except those in the US, I take exception to that.

I would think such common knowledge would show up on protest signs and at least one person here would have had the balls to start a thread "I predict no WMD".

Maybe there was more doubt back than our retrospective vision now sees.

[vidcc]

Just so, but...

In his capacity as Chief Executive, it is difficult to force anything on him, besides which, when was the last time you heard a President (especially one holding majorities in both houses, as well as every other politically relevent card) apologize for anything?


I find that interesting considering the thread was started to point out the lack of honor these days.... surely this man of "values" would set an example


I honestly can't remember if Slick Willie apologized for banging interns with a cigar,
Why should he?

the ONLY person he owed an applogy to was hillary


but if he did, the last I remember before that was Nixon, and if any President ever owed an apology for screwing up, it was Carter.

If it is not a matter of serious and sincere political expedience, no apology is ever forthcoming.

I say this not necessarily as a statement of belief with regard to Bush, but as strict political reality.

ALL presidents play the percentages, and there is no percentage in handing out apologies willy (sorry)-nilly.

please clarify this for me.

You start a thread mourning loss of honor, then you justify the lack of honor by using precedents. :unsure:

[vidcc]

It's spelt Presidents.
no it's not

precedent
1.
1. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
2. Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.

[j2k4]

You start a thread mourning loss of honor, then you justify the lack of honor by using precedents. :unsure:


I started a thread mourning loss of honor?

After gallivanting around the entire galactic periphery of irrelevence, you choose now to remind me that I have gone astray?

Surely you joust.

Who justified what?

I just stated one of the principles of leadership.

That it has been exercised since time immemorial is exactly on point, and recalling Presidents who have apologized when they saw no recourse does not disprove the tenet.

[j2k4]

no it's not

precedent
1.
1. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
2. Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.

I think you've been had, vid.:whistling

[vidcc]

I think you've been had, vid.:whistling

you think?

[j2k4]

you think?

You could always ask, if you're not sure...:huh:

[vidcc]

You could always ask, if you're not sure...:huh:



It's been said before, people will judge by what they read.

I have only what is in front of me :)

[hobbes]

Looks like Vidcc has been spared the hook.

[j2k4]

Looks like Vidcc has been spared the hook.

For the nonce...:)

[manker]

It's spelt Presidents.Spelt is wheat :dry: :wink:

[Snee]

One of the most intriguing characters in American history is Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy. Stephens was a shriveled little man and a notorious hypochondriac, though nevertheless a brilliant lawyer and an outstanding orator. After the war, he was elected governor of Georgia and got into a dispute with another individual.


Vice president of the confederacy?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is the same confederacy that made the bulk of their money by, what shall we call it...unorthodox employment of labour, to facilitate for maximal profits in production of raw materials for textile manufacture?

Someone who'd condone those kinds of goings on might be called a lot of things, a paragon of honour doesn't strike me as being the first on the list, tho'.

[Cheese]

Vice president of the confederacy?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is the same confederacy that made the bulk of their money by, what shall we call it...unorthodox employment of labour, to facilitate for maximal profits in production of raw materials for textile manufacture?

Someone who'd condone those kinds of goings on might be called a lot of things, a paragon of honour doesn't strike me as being the first on the list, tho'.

:lol:

I like this version of his little knife-fight story better:


In 1848 he had a personal encounter with Judge Cone, of Greensboro, which illustrated the physical courage for which he had been noted from youth--the courage that comes, not from principle or duty, but from utter indifference to consequences. The difficulty grew out of a quarrel on the Clayton compromise of 1848. Cone cut Stephens terribly with a knife and cried : "Now, ---you, retract, or I'll cut your throat." The bleeding, almost dying Stephens said : "Never !--cut," and grasped the swiftly descending knife-blade in his right hand. That hand never again wrote plainly. Few of the witnesses of the affair, which occurred on the piazza of Thompson's hotel, Atlanta, expected him to recover.

Source (http://www.famousamericans.net/alexanderhamiltonstephens/)

[Snee]

the courage that comes, not from principle or duty, but from utter indifference to consequences.

They've still got it, I reckon. :01:

[lynx]

Spelt is wheat :dry: :wink:Spelled is pedantic. :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Vice president of the confederacy?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is the same confederacy that made the bulk of their money by, what shall we call it...unorthodox employment of labour, to facilitate for maximal profits in production of raw materials for textile manufacture?

Someone who'd condone those kinds of goings on might be called a lot of things, a paragon of honour doesn't strike me as being the first on the list, tho'.

The Confederacy's blueprint for "Honor" was correct; though they were not possessed of that particular version of enlightenment which allowed them to question slavery.

Remember your historical context, SnnY.

Our framers had slaves, too.

The nuts and bolts of "honor" are the same, it's just more inclusive, yes?

[Snee]

I don't really want to get into this argument, but for someone to take someone else as a slave simply on the belief that they are inferior, or animals, isn't honourable any way you look at it. (The same is also true for many other civilizations as well, like ancient Rome and Greece.)

How they could do that to anyone else, to a thinking and talking individual, will always baffle me.

The fact that they could do it, makes me think that cheese's version of that particular display of courage is more accurate. That it would be the kind of courage that comes from not thinking things through, or the kind of honour that comes from being mule-headed rather than enlightened. Willing themselves not to see what they didn't want to.

Honour without compassion is pretty hollow.

This is just an opinion mind you, and not in any way to be concieved as an attack on yourself.

[j2k4]

I don't really want to get into this argument, but for someone to take someone else as a slave simply on the belief that they are inferior, or animals, isn't honourable any way you look at it. (The same is also true for many other civilizations as well, like ancient Rome and Greece.)

How they could do that to anyone else, to a thinking and talking individual, will always baffle me.

The fact that they could do it, makes me think that cheese's version of that particular display of courage is more accurate. That it would be the kind of courage that comes from not thinking things through, or the kind of honour that comes from being mule-headed rather than enlightened. Willing themselves not to see what they didn't want to.

Honour without compassion is pretty hollow.

This is just an opinion mind you, and not in any way to be concieved as an attack on yourself.

I understand your point perfectly, SnnY, but if I might persuade you to think of historical mores in toto, you would, I think, have to conclude that many attitudes/beliefs which existed previously would be considered outrageous by current standards; for example, the outdated belief that Christians are, to this very day, looking to launch a new crusade in order to persecute minority religions or "pagans".

Odd, isn't it, that many make excuses for jihad, which is not much more than a crusade?

This is not to even sniff around the edges of excusing the horror of slavery, but think, in more modern terms, of the Holocaust, etc.

It would be difficult to argue that slavery is worse than "purification", don't you think?

Yet "purification" is, even today, more abided and prevalent than slavery.

All of the building blocks civilization is built upon have cracks in them.

[Snee]

Modern society is built on misery, this is probably true for every society in the world.
I'm not arguing with anything of what you just said.

But that doesn't make that man more honourable from my point of view.

Any idiot can have "honour" in the context of his own society, but the truly great people in history have broken free of whatever warped framework surrounded their society.

Those I truly admire, and would deem honourable, are those who have shown compassion when they didn't have to, those who have fought such as the laws that allowed for slavery, and those who have refused to follow insane religious strictures.

Refusing to give in to someone with an advantage and thus avoiding to break your word doesn't qualify as honourable in itself, I feel. Or rather, it's not honourable enough to be upheld as evidence of how much greater people once were. I think there are plenty of people in the world who'd rather die than break their word, but I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[vidcc]

I wonder how Kamikaze pilots are viewed by the members of the board?

They were prepared to die for what they believed in. It may be argued that this was because they were brainwashed however isn't everyone to the level of the culture they exist in?



I guess this may be a case of it depending on whic side of the fence it is viewed from, but it would be interesting to find out.

[j2k4]

Modern society is built on misery, this is probably true for every society in the world.
I'm not arguing with anything of what you just said.

But that doesn't make that man more honourable from my point of view.

Those I truly admire, and would deem honourable, are those who have shown compassion when they didn't have to, those who have fought such as the laws that allowed for slavery, and those who have refused to follow insane religious strictures.

Sad then, that we had no choice but to build on, and be informed by, what came before.

Would you mention an example or two of historical figures whose sense of honor you find notable?

[Snee]

Oscar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg, many of the members of the Emancipation movement. And so forth.

They did the right thing, as far as I know.

Whether there was honour or not in that man, doesn't affect what your country is today, a nation should be measured by the people who live in it, not those who lived in it a century or more ago.

[j2k4]

Oscar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg, many of the members of the Emancipation movement. And so forth.

They did the right thing, as far as I know.

Whether there was honour or not in that man, doesn't affect what your country is today, a nation should be measured by the people who live in it, not those who lived in it a century or more ago.

Good choices, and quite rightfully.

My point is only that the idea of honor did not hatch fully formed; if we had no construct (however flawed) from which to work, we'd still be flailing about for even the word.

[j2k4]

However, many people argue that the sins of the Fathers are carried forward to their Sons. That seems harsh to me, unless of course the Sons continue the sins themselves.

Sounds like the Kennedys, to me.;)