Scott McClellan, Colin Powell, etc. It’s so safe for them to talk about how they were opposed to administration policies or at least upset at them after they’ve left the White House. Of course they’re in it for their own skin. Public servants are supposed to serve the public and not their own butts. If you think administration policy is going to hurt America, resign and talk. Don’t wait until you get a book deal to do it.
Where they stand morally is the guy who sees a drunk walking to his car, gunning his engine, then saying the next day “I thought it wasnt a good idea, and now that bus full of kids is dead.”
Let’s not kid ourselves. These public officials/servants are appointed by the President and work for the will of the president. They can be hired and fired at the will of the president with no questions asked. Let’s forget about the monetary, career, and future financial losses that in all certainty would befall any appointed official going against the policies and person of the President of the United States, let’s think about the fear for one’s life. Even if he came forward, would his opinion make a difference or stop a war that the President, Cheney and all the other neo-mass liars are determined to keep going and dump on the Democrats and swear that they were winning before the Democrats stopped it.
To say this individual, Scott McClellan did not fear for his life is an understatement. He was not only going against his president, the most powerful man in the world and the leader of the world’s superpower (so brags Americans); he was going against his family traditions and loyalty to the President and the Republican Party.
Truthfully, during the Valerie Plame drama, I personally thought Scott McClellan always looked like a deer in front of headlines. He seemed to me to be extremely uncomfortable and not believable. I always thought it was because of his inexperience before the camera or under pressure. Now I think it was because he was truly torn and afraid.
I can’t imagine being a part of an administration that I had believed in and my whole family and friends believed in and worked for, and then, I found information to prove that it was morally deficient. Common and good sense would tell McClellan that these highly ranked officials could justify killing him for what they would consider treason and these men would get away with it because they have all the resources of the government (executive, legislative, and judiciary) to do so. I’m feeling McClellan’s dilemma.
Somehow John Dean did it.
Oh, Oliver. That’s sooo pre-9/11 thinking.
In other words, june_rachael “Let the bullies win.”
june_rachael: Common and good sense would tell McClellan that these highly ranked officials could justify killing him for what they would consider treason and these men would get away with it because they have all the resources of the government (executive, legislative, and judiciary) to do so.
If you really believe that, I’m actually relieved. Because it also means you’re probably too stupid to figure out how to vote.
Yes, Sean D. Martin. I am stupid. I am so stupid that I can understand fear because I have felt fear and seen fear on the faces of others. And as far as the bullies, the majority of American citizens bullied me and others like me, who were against this war and called us un-American, unpatriotic, and stupid. I was called stupid because I didn’t believe that there were weapons of mass destruction as stated by the Bush Administration. I believe that the sanctions of from the Clinton and Bush Administrations and Iraq’s defeat in the Persian Gulf War had economically weakened Iraq and its ability to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
Sean, are you calling me stupid to tell me to shut up? I am far too stupid to shut up when someone calls me stupid, in fact I become quite talkative and fired up instead. Sean, I am hurt that you called me stupid on this forum. I can understand it if you felt my comments were naïve and simplistic and you wanted to help me become better informed.
Sean, I do vote, not that I can understand why you brought it up in your criticism of me. I am so stupid that I think I have the right to vote and I exercise that right. So sorry Sean, because when I cast my stupid vote, my stupid vote will cancel out your highly intellectual vote.
I don’t know how this forum works but I just wrote about what my initial feelings were towards Scott McClellan. I would have welcomed him stepping forward and being a hero, our country needs more heroes, not to get back on course, but find a new direction – a change.
I think Scott McClellan was afraid but he could have been just a disgruntled fired employee, regardless, I am so happy that he found enough courage to come forward for whatever reason he did to criticize this current administration and shake that tree – who knows what else might fall.
Colin Powell is detestable.
He knew the invasion of Iraq was wrong.
He had the power to stop it.
He failed to do so.
Detestable.
As Secretary of State Colin Powell knew that he was pedaling lies. He knew that he was harming American Foreign Policy and he acquiesced. Had he resigned in the Fall or Winter of 2002 he would have stopped this madness. Instead he prostituted himself out. As a result we are bogged down n a needless occupation of Iraq and the good name of America has been tarnished for generations.
Colin Powell is scum. He had the opportunity and the ability to stop this madness and he chose not to — what a horrible piece of work he is.
june_rachael, this is what you said:
- Public officials/servants who go against the president need to fear for their very lives.
- The statements by a key person in the administration that the administration was lying would have NO effect.
- Common sense [Say what???] would tell McClellan that the president could justify have him killed for treason if he spoke out.
Those are extremely stupid statements. Would there be a cost to someone who had turned on the president? Sure. These are vindictive and powerful people who, like any bullies, don’t like being pointed out as the liars and brutes they are. But execution? Nonsense. Joseph Wilson sure caused the administration a passel of grief but he’s still alive and well.
And having someone in McClellan’s position come out and say he’s being instructed to say things which are just not true would certainly have had an effect. Not as much as if, say, the Secretary of State had had the courage and sense of honor to actually speak the truth. But certainly enough impact to be another significant chink in Bush’s credibility. Who knows, maybe even more. Only one person to refused to move to the back of the bus and look at what that set off.
Also,
I can’t imagine being a part of an administration that I had believed in and my whole family and friends believed in and worked for, and then, I found information to prove that it was morally deficient.
Methinks you make too much of McClellan’s position with the whole “family and friends” bit, but even if that were the case does it excuse him? When you find out you’re working for criminals and then choose to continue doing so you don’t get to say “But I like them soooo much!” and expect our sympathy.
june_rachael: And as far as the bullies, the majority of American citizens bullied me and others like me, who were against this war and called us un-American, unpatriotic, and stupid. I was called stupid because I didn’t believe that there were weapons of mass destruction as stated by the Bush Administration.
So we should give in to bullies because thay act like bullies and call us names?
I am far too stupid to shut up when someone calls me stupid, in fact I become quite talkative and fired up instead.
Oh, well, that’s better then. And at least this time when you get talkative you’re making more sense.
Sean, I am hurt that you called me stupid on this forum. I can understand it if you felt my comments were naïve and simplistic … I don’t know how this forum works
OK, sorry if I seemed particularly hard on you if you’re new here. But what you originally posted was patently ridiculous. Folks here aree actually pretty accepting of differing views, as long as they are well stated. ANd when they are not, you can expect to get called on it.
I think Scott McClellan was afraid but he could have been just a disgruntled fired employee, regardless, I am so happy that he found enough courage to come forward for whatever reason he did to criticize this current administration and shake that tree
I don’t think it was courage at all. Courage would ahve been coming forward when he was still working there and found out things were rotten in Denmark. Courage would be talking to reporters to let the people know what he does and talking to law enforcement to see if he has any information that punishable crimes were committed. Being paid considerable money to write a book and then leaking bits and pieces to drum up interest and increase sales is not courage.
“If you think administration policy is going to hurt America, resign and talk.”
Or don’t resign and talk. Just talk when it can make a difference.
“If you really believe that, I’m actually relieved. Because it also means you’re probably too stupid to figure out how to vote.”
If I said something like that, you would start attacking me.
If an insider objects vehemently to administration policy, he has two choices: Act to change or mitigate it from the inside or resign out of principle. By all accounts, Powell attempted the former and was forced out for his trouble. McClellan attempted neither.
–|PW|–
Sean, this is my last response to you and I apology in advance if it is ridiculous and not well stated, but please endure it encouraged by the fact that it will be my very last to you on this subject.
PLEASE – Do Not Paraphrase Me - I stand by all my words – not any of your summaries and/or opinions of my words.
“June_rachael, this is what you said:” No. No. No. This is what you, Sean D. Martin said.
- Public officials/servants who go against the president need to fear for their very lives.
- The statements by a key person in the administration that the administration was lying would have NO effect.
- Common sense [Say what???] would tell McClellan that the president could justify have him killed for treason if he spoke out.
I never said that telling the truth would have no effect. Of course it would have affected the political discourse and emboldened this administration’s critics with more ammunition against this war. I said it would not have had any effect on stopping this war that has been fully invested in by this administration and for the past several months the Democrats and the public have not raised objections and pressure to stop this President and this Administration from stopping this war because he is handing it over to the Democrats as “almost won – now the Democrats are the cowards to stop our victory.”
I’m not going to ask you to re-read what I said because I think you have closed your mind to any opinion of me other than negative. Now my last statement ……
When speaking of the McClellan’s position as a White House appointee, I was not talking about public, civil servants, government employees or contracted government employees; I was speaking about Presidential appointees, hired and fired at the will of the President. The same inner circle of Presidential appointees who think they don’t have to answer Congress or the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenas because of Executive Privilege (extended to them by the President) and are not answerable to the legislative and judicial branches of government.
About courage. I think it takes more courage to tell the world that you lied, you mislead the American public and had no courage when you should have and you cowardly (for whatever reason it was kept quiet and went along with actions that were wrong (possibly criminal – we don’t know yet ), especially when people’s lives depended on you doing the right thing. Over 70% of Americans have turned against this war and are angry at this administration for gas prices and the economic woes that they are suffering. The American public wants an escape goat to blame for misleading them – don’t you think that McClellan knows and knew the criticisms he would receive for coming forward. McClellan was fired but he still have rode on the Republican coat tails and still gotten work and lived his life in self-shame and not the avalanche of criticism, anger and ridicule that he will receive for the rest of his life. Look at what happened with “Deep Throat.” Republicans wanted him tried for treason.
About courage, how can you assume I gave in to being bullied about my beliefs or politics. I have relentlessly bashed Bush and this war that was started on my birthday (more salt in an open wound). I bashed Bush and his administration so much that my friend’s two and a half year old daughter came over to me when I entered her house for a family gathering, not remembering my name and said “BUSH!” We laughed so much that when there was a loll in conversation we would shout “Bush” and we could not stop laughing (It was so funny – you would have had to been there). She is almost six years old now and when she hasn’t seen me for a while she says “Bush,” her mom laughs and calls me on the phone.
About courage these days, It takes courage to be Dunkin Donuts, or maybe not. I can’t believe that Dunkin Donuts couldn’t stand up and say “For God Sakes, it’s just a black and white scarf – not a symbol to be a terrorist sympathizer by Rachael Ray. Does Dunkin’ Donuts really think its customers could mistake Rachael Ray for a terrorist sympathizer? Dunkin Donuts canceled the ad in which Rachael Ray wears a scarf that looks like a headdress worn by Arab men, that Fox News’ Michelle Malkin says has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad and she feels Americans should boycott Dunkin Donuts.
My final last words would have been a quote from the Godfather movie - Only because I love to quote Michael. When speaking to his wife who told him that Presidents don’t have men murdered – he response was classic. I would have quoted him but I know you think I’m so stupid that I would confuse real life from fiction so I am finally tired and silent on this issue.
“If you really believe that, I’m actually relieved. Because it also means you’re probably too stupid to figure out how to vote.”
If I said something like that, you would start attacking me.
I was gonna say, Sean. Calling June_Rachael stupid seemed a bit out of character for you.
CSS: If I said something like that, you would start attacking me.
No, I wouldn’t. My comment was clearly sarcastic and hyperbolic and I don’t see anything wrong when folks do that. But it’s a moot point because you wouldn’t say something like that. You would say something like “You’re a fucking idiot who doesn’t deserve the right to vote because you aren’t even human.”
My comment was clearly sarcastic and hyperbolic and I don’t see anything wrong when folks do that.
Then you have to use the sarcasm and Hyperbole tags.
June, I see your point, but let’s try to stay calm and remember that Washington isn’t always a Len Deighton novel.
I think even our left-wing biased media would notice if a White House spokeperson turned up murdered for talking smack about the White House.
SpiderJ: I was gonna say, Sean. Calling June_Rachael stupid seemed a bit out of character for you.
I’m actually grateful that it struck someone that way.
I understand her need to vent and clearly her comments are going along in a stream-of-consciousness kind of way, but even so some of her statements were so outlandish and making excuses for McClellan that I was put off enough to respond as I did.
But, yeah, it was not the way I usually do things. Which was partly why I already apologized for being so hard on her (and am refraining from responding to her more recent comments about me.)
Me: “If I said something like that, you would start attacking me.”
Sean: No, I wouldn’t. My comment was clearly sarcastic and hyperbolic and I don’t see anything wrong when folks do that.”
I think June disagrees with you on both points.
Sean: “But it’s a moot point because you wouldn’t say something like that. You would say something like ‘You’re a fucking idiot who doesn’t deserve the right to vote because you aren’t even human.’”
Style Over Substance with a hint of hypocrisy.
Style Over Substance with a hint of hypocrisy.
Couldn’t have described you better. Thanks!
Arianna nails it.
“Couldn’t have described you better. Thanks!”
Wow. How incredibly childish.
I don’t treat anyone here with any less respect than they deserve, and it seems to me that you are on a crusade to prove you don’t deserve any respect.
Don’t bother responding to my posts unless you want to deal with all of it. If you ignore my point and go for an insult, it just shows you are no desire to debate in an intellectually honest way and are nothing more than a troll.
No go ahead, pretend you are better than me. ‘But, but, but I never used the word ‘fuck’ like you do. When I insult someone one, I’m not as direct as you are. So I’m better than you.’
Would you two just make out and get it over with? Sheesh.
I don’t treat anyone here with any less respect than they deserve
And thereby hangs the place we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Me: “I don’t treat anyone here with any less respect than they deserve”
Sean: “And thereby hangs the place we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
Fine.
But as a recent example, I debated Haplo9 about the difference between a racist and a non-racist attack. I never insulted him, I never called him sub-human, I presented evidence, counter-evidence, and even said what I would require of him to support his case.
In the end, he ran. I took the time and energy to debate him in an intellectually honest way, and he ran, thereby wasting my time.
What level of respect should I show him next time? More? Less? I’m thinking less.
In the end, he ran. I took the time and energy to debate him in an intellectually honest way, and he ran, thereby wasting my time.
You mean that isn’t a victory to you?
CS, if the only purpose of the argument is the argument itself, then the whole enterprise strikes me as a waste of time. I, personally, relish when somebody in one of these tete-a-tete’s stops responding; to me it means they no longer have any idea how to argue against the intellectually honest position I presented.
Or, y’know, it means they stuck their fingers in their ears, pouted like a second grader, and took their ball and went home. Either way, point to me.
I admit that I’d be infinitely more satisfied to hear them say “Okay, you got me there. I’ll reconsider this position I’ve been taking.” But let’s be realistic; it’s a rare online debater that is going to change their mind about their pet argument.
“You mean that isn’t a victory to you?”
It’s a Pyrrhic victory.
“CS, if the only purpose of the argument is the argument itself, then the whole enterprise strikes me as a waste of time. I, personally, relish when somebody in one of these tete-a-tete’s stops responding; to me it means they no longer have any idea how to argue against the intellectually honest position I presented.”
Here’s my side of it…
If I take the time and energy to craft the argument, you should respond with the same time and energy. If not, then next time I’m going to spend less time and energy debating that person and more energy insulting them, because that’s what they have proven they are worth.
If not, then next time I’m going to spend less time and energy debating that person and more energy insulting them, because that’s what they have proven they are worth.
Why spend any time and energy on them at all the next time? That’s a large part of what I don’t get. You make such a big thing about how you always take the time and energy to present what you see as a reasonable and supported argument and, if the other side fails to do similar, you spend your energy on insulting them. Which is less reasonable, the person who doesn’t put up a reasonable position or the person who wastes energy on them once it’s clear they aren’t worth debating?