Let's talk about ethics, shall we?

[SmarterThanYou]

It's streaming video, long and lengthy but worth it.


Sec Rumsfeld grilled on pentagon and US contracting with human rights violators.

 

[musicman]

Uh-oh - guilty faces! Guess we'd better hang their asses!

I found the video to be almost inaudible, Smarter. You wouldn't have a link to a transcript, would you?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Uh-oh - guilty faces! Guess we'd better hang their asses!

I found the video to be almost inaudible, Smarter. You wouldn't have a link to a transcript, would you?

good idea, i'll see what i can find for you.

 

[musicman]

:shocked:

 

[SmarterThanYou]

well, besides killing the messenger, what about the unaccounted for money? That was the main reason I posted this.

 

[007]

I'm rapidly getting to the point of not trusting ANY politician, left, right, or in the middle. They're all crocked.

 

[MyName]

I'm rapidly getting to the point of not trusting ANY politician, left, right, or in the middle. They're all crocked.

THIS is the first thing Ive ever agreed with you upon, and I agree wholeheartedly

 

[dilloduck]

THIS is the first thing Ive ever agreed with you upon, and I agree wholeheartedly

dang Pale---I wouldn't recommend you walk down HER street at night ! :cof:

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm not trying to kill the messenger here just suggesting that it's a reach to suggest ethics when it's something hardly worthy of either side of the fence.
So what about the money, do you really think that me or you are truly ever going to get factual answers? maybe! What is the point, could this never be the case with the democratic party? these are the things that drive the wedge deeper everday here at home, we have such infighting going on over things that exsist on both sides of the political spectrum. Instead of coming together as one it seems easier for parties to rip one another for what they do or done. Just my opinion but I feel more of this turmoil is created by the democratic party.

The main parties consistently do this. They point out one side's supposed ethics violation while they were or are doing it at the same time themselves. It is much like children, "He did it first!" or "He's doing it now!" arguments. They rarely go anywhere and they never solve the problem.

We as citizens are the only oversight that most of these politicians get and we are sorely lacking in our duties as we ignore what is happening to all politicians in order to attack the "other" side never realizing that we shoot ourselves each time we miss the same from our "own" side.

 

[MissileMan]

I'm rapidly getting to the point of not trusting ANY politician, left, right, or in the middle. They're all crocked.

And they're all crooked to boot! :teeth:

 

[Annie]

So after thinking more about this one I tend to see problems withe this theory. If we as citizens are accountable we could have some major issues when it comes to some citizens way of thinking. Can input from a person like "Itsthetruth" actually be considered seriously? that's a scary thought! Like the creator of this thread, and I know that cupcake is pretty smart and well versed in politics it's still different ideals than mine and that I see as a simple problem when it comes to the infighting currently happening today.

If I'm hearing you correctly, I would agree-just prior to elections. However, ideology must matter, which is where I sometimes fall into disagreement with others here. There is no doubt more issues I disagree with the democrats with, but when GOP starts going for 'expediency' to push their agendas, regardless of the means, well I DO have a problem with that.

I saw this and considered posting it, then thought, 'no' , will just make others mad. But it fits in here, if I'm understanding correctly:

Links at site

http://instapundit.com/archives/022095.php

March 29, 2005
I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE DEBATE between Jeff Jarvis and Hugh Hewitt on the role of "theocrats" in the Terri Schiavo matter.

Hugh's right that it's hard to ascribe the Congressional legislation to "theocrats" when it was supported by Tom Harkin (and Ralph Nader!). There's much more going on than that; this is a matter on which all sorts of people, of all sorts of persuasions, can be found on both sides.

On the other hand, here's some advice, very similar to advice I gave to the antiwar movement: If you don't want to be confused with a movement led by theocrats, don't let actual theocrats be seen as your spokesmen. It may be impossible to shut Randall Terry up -- though if I were Karl Rove, I would have tried really hard -- but he needs to be loudly and regularly denounced as a nut. Otherwise you're in the same boat as lefties who don't want to be identified with Ward Churchill, but happily use him when they want to draw a crowd.

(In fact, the Terry / Churchill axis is surprisingly close -- they both view 9/11 as a necessary chastisement for a sinful America. If that's not a distinguishing mark of full-bore idiotarianism, I don't know what is).

Terry's getting what he wants from this: Attention, and a measure of undeserved legitimacy. But Bush seems to have fallen into a no-win situation. The Terryesque nuts on the far-right are mad at him for not standing in the hospice door a la George Wallace, while lots of other people see Randall Terry speaking, and George W. Bush rushing to sign the Schiavo bill, and associate the two. That may be unfair, but it's inevitable, and I think it may turn out to be costly.

As Rich Lowry wrote about Randall Terry: "I'm guessing that everytime he opens his mouth on TV support for keeping Terri Schiavo alive drops another couple of points." I don't think he's doing much for Bush, either. As I said about the antiwar people, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Randall Terry's a dog.

posted at 09:35 AM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[musicman]

There is no doubt more issues I disagree with the democrats with, but when GOP starts going for 'expediency' to push their agendas, regardless of the means, well I DO have a problem with that.

But, the fact that President Bush did NOT "[stand] in the hospice door a la George Wallace" should eventually reassure reasonable people that he was not acting out of expediency OR pushing an agenda. He upheld the Constitution, as he is sworn to do. We should be careful not to let eight years of Bill Clinton turn us into denizens of Pavlov's kennel. Being an elected official does not automatically make one a poll-driven reprobate.

 

[Annie]

But, the fact that President Bush did NOT "[stand] in the hospice door a la George Wallace" should eventually reassure reasonable people that he was not acting out of expediency OR pushing an agenda. He upheld the Constitution, as he is sworn to do. We should be careful not to let eight years of Bill Clinton turn us into denizens of Pavlov's kennel. Being an elected official does not automatically make one a poll-driven reprobate.

I never feared the President would do something like that. The idea though that some on the right are calling on Jeb to do that, well it's most definately got me concerned. Right now the extremists have signs that look like they are from moveon.org.

 

[no1tovote4]

So after thinking more about this one I tend to see problems withe this theory. If we as citizens are accountable we could have some major issues when it comes to some citizens way of thinking. Can input from a person like "Itsthetruth" actually be considered seriously? that's a scary thought! Like the creator of this thread, and I know that cupcake is pretty smart and well versed in politics it's still different ideals than mine and that I see as a simple problem when it comes to the infighting currently happening today.

However the issue lies in who we allow to speak for us. The most vocal parts of each of the parties is the fringe, when they are the only ones speaking the divide seems much larger and it is easier to get caught up in the blame game. The problem isn't that we should listen to the fringe, they already get enough coverage. The problem is those of us that are not on the fringe often give no input, thus allowing the fringe to speak for us and defaulting the face of the party to those that are least responsible to it and us.

The vast majority of Dems and Reps are Americans that only want the best for the country, that I believe Dems are misguided doesn't absolve me when I allow politicians to continue in hypocrisy so long as it forwards my cause.

In order to take back the party from the vocal fringe it will be necessary to insure that each person feels the duty strongly to set the standard and keep our representatives on an even keel; therefore insuring more participation at the local caucus level where the beginning candidates area chosen. If candidates that are not from the fringe or beholden to the fringe are not selected the voice of the party becomes entirely different.

 

[musicman]

I never feared the President would do something like that. The idea though that some on the right are calling on Jeb to do that, well it's most definately got me concerned. Right now the extremists have signs that look like they are from moveon.org.

I'm hip. But then, extremists are calling for a separate white nation, and reparations for blacks, and any amount of other comparable lunacy. It doesn't mean that anyone who matters is listening.

 

[musicman]

I'm hip. But then, extremists are calling for a separate white nation, and reparations for blacks, and any amount of other comparable lunacy. It doesn't mean that anyone who matters is listening.

Wish I could say the same about Moveon.org!

 

[Annie]

I'm hip. But then, extremists are calling for a separate white nation, and reparations for blacks, and any amount of other comparable lunacy. It doesn't mean that anyone who matters is listening.

Yes, but in this particular case they did. Now they have Terry there, who will only serve to undermine the mainstream message that the GOP has worked so hard to build. Only a few weeks ago, the message was the DNC was being directed from the moveon/Soros fringe.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, but in this particular case they did. Now they have Terry there, who will only serve to undermine the mainstream message that the GOP has worked so hard to build. Only a few weeks ago, the message was the DNC was being directed from the moveon/Soros fringe.

Agreed--wish the Gop could distance themselves a bit from Terry and I believe the recent drop in job performance polling reflects that a majority of the GOP power base feels the same way. Oh never mind--Jesse Jackson is there now and I bet he can fix anything !!

 

[Annie]

Off of the topic of poor Terri. Here is another area of concern to myself, illegal immigration:

Links at site

http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/2005/03/los_pollos_come.php#000783

Los Pollos Come Home To Roost
"The strength of (America) occurs when people are willing to associate voluntarily to solve common problems, without government telling them to." - George W. Bush, earlier this month, to the NY Post editorial board.
The Mara Salvatrucha crime syndicate is said to be “threatening Arizona's Project Minuteman, and reportedly plans to teach it ‘a lesson’ once the Minutemen begin fanning out along Arizona's border regions this weekend.”
The gang’s threats and – especially - any attacks it stages may soon lay a triple whammy on the Bush administration:

First, it trumpets that the border is a wide-open pipeline for smuggling weapons, drugs and undesirables into the United States. Mara Salvatrucha wouldn’t bother saber-rattling or taking violent action unless the Minuteman project was about to interfere with important gang business. An administration that has been in power for more than four years will not easily duck responsibility for what happens on its watch.

By highlighting the magnitude of the problem on the border this way, Mara Salvatrucha is also pointing a the spotlight toward the Administration’s own willful neglect of the nation’s border security in the service of its partisan political agenda for open borders. It will not escape notice that the Minutemen are coming together to address the exact problem the Administration is on record as perpetuating.

Third, public attention to the Administration’s trampling of our border integrity may facilitate new questions about other White House failures to fight the war on terror. These include making sure the airline pilots aren’t armed, levying multi-million dollar fines against airlines which take commonsense measures to prevent terror attacks, allowing “Visa Express” to keep running after 9/11 (then finding other ways to keep giving Saudis easy access to visas) and doing absolutely nothing during more than four years to overthrow Iran’s nuke-craving regime.

The Triangulator-In-Chief once again showed his true colors when he called the Minutemen "vigilantes," and irony would flow like cross-border contraband if the criminal empire he himself enabled now comes full circle to bite his politicking backside.

 

[Annie]

The Left really DOES have more of a problem in this area:

Many interesting links here, including one to the whole of the Miniter article.

http://www.celluloid-wisdom.com/pw/index.php?/weblog/entry/18200/

The next time you hear a group of anti-war hand-wringers attempting to criticize the war on terror by asking, portentously, "why haven't we caught Usama bin Laden...?"
...refer them to this Richard Miniter piece:

A lone U.S. ambassador compromised America’s hunt for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan for more than two years, The New York Sun has learned.

Ambassador Nancy Powell, America’s representative in Pakistan, refused to allow the distribution in Pakistan of wanted posters, matchbooks, and other items advertising America’s $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Mr. bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.

Instead, thousands of matchbooks, posters, and other material — printed at taxpayer expense and translated into Urdu, Pashto, and other local languages — remained “impounded” on American Embassy grounds from 2002 to 2004, according to Rep. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois.

While the American government was engaged in a number of “black” or covert intelligence activities to locate Al Qaeda leaders, Mr. Kirk said, the “white” or public efforts — which have succeeded in the past in leading to the capture of wanted terrorists — were effectively shut down in the months following the September 11 attacks.

Mr. Kirk discovered Ms. Powell’s unusual order in January 2004 and, over the past year, launched a series of behind-the-scenes moves that culminated in a blunt conversation with President Bush aboard Air Force One, the removal of the ambassador, and congressional approval for reinvigorating the hunt for Mr. bin Laden.

The full effect of Ms. Powell’s impoundment order is difficult to measure. Pakistan is a key theater in the war on terror. Virtually every Al Qaeda leader captured to date has been apprehended in Pakistan, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of the September 11 attacks.More than 600 Al Qaeda fighters have been killed or captured in Pakistan since 2001.

Mr. Kirk accidentally learned of Ms. Powell’s impoundment policy as part of an official congressional delegation visiting Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, in January 2004.

Well well. Looks like for all its private grousing about the pitfalls of unilateral foreign policy decisions, the State Department was not averse to employing functionaries who didn’t hesitate to initiate such actions on the micro level…