|
|
|
|
climberchic
May 7, 2004, 4:54 PM
Post #1 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
The initial refusal of President Bush to let his national security adviser appear under oath before the 9/11 Commission might have been in keeping with a principle followed by other presidents -- the principle being, according to Bush, that calling his advisers to testify under oath is a congressional encroachment on the executive branch's turf.
(Never mind that this commission is not a congressional body, but one he created and whose members he handpicked.)
But standing on that principle has proved to be politically damaging, in part because this administration -- the most secretive since Richard Nixon's -- already suffers from a deepening credibility problem. It all brings to mind something I've wondered about for some time: Are secrecy and credibility natural enemies?
When you stop to think about it, you keep secrets from people when you don't want them to know the truth. Secrets, even when legitimate and necessary, as in genuine national-security cases, are what you might call passive lies.
Take the recent flap over Richard Foster, the Medicare official whose boss threatened to fire him if he revealed to Congress that the prescription-drug bill would be a lot more expensive than the administration claimed. The White House tried to pass it all off as the excessive and unauthorized action of Foster's supervisor (who shortly after the threatened firing left the government).
Maybe. But the point is that the administration had the newer, higher numbers, and Congress had been misled. This was a clear case of secrecy being used to protect a lie. I can't help but wonder how many other faulty estimates by this administration have actually been misinformation explained as error.
The Foster story followed by only a few weeks the case of the U.S. Park police chief who got the ax for telling a congressional staffer -- and The Washington Post -- that budget cuts planned for her department would impair its ability to perform its duties. Chief Teresa Chambers since has accepted forced retirement from government service.
Isolated incidents? Not really. Looking back at the past three years reveals a pattern of secrecy and of dishonesty in the service of secrecy. Some New Yorkers felt they had been lied to following the horrific collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Proposed warnings by the Environmental Protection Agency -- that the air quality near ground zero might pose health hazards -- were watered down or deleted by the White House and replaced with the reassuring message that the air was safe to breathe.
The EPA's own inspector general said later that the agency did not have sufficient data to claim the air was safe. However, the reassurance was in keeping with the president's defiant back-to-work/business-as-usual theme to demonstrate the nation's strength and resilience. It also was an early example of a Bush administration reflex described by one physicist as "never let science get in the way of policy."
In April 2002, the EPA had prepared a nationwide warning about a brand of asbestos called Zonolite, which contained a form of the substance far more lethally dangerous than ordinary asbestos. However, reportedly at the last minute, the White House stopped the warning. Why? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which broke the story, noted that the Bush administration at the time was pushing legislation limiting the asbestos manufacturer's liability. Whatever the reason, such silence by an agency charged with protecting our health is a silent lie in my book.
One sometimes gets the impression that this administration believes that how it runs the government is its business and no one else's. It is certainly not the business of Congress. And if it's not the business of the people's representatives, it's certainly no business of yours or mine.
But this is a dangerous condition for any representative democracy to find itself in. The tight control of information, as well as the dissemination of misleading information and outright falsehoods, conjures up a disturbing image of a very different kind of society.
Democracies are not well-run nor long-preserved with secrecy and lies.
Now, before you get in a huff about my idiotic rhetoric, let me quote the source of this wonderful piece of perspective:
Secrets and Lies Becoming Commonplace
by Walter Cronkite
King Features Syndicate, April 3, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
May 7, 2004, 4:58 PM
Post #2 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Figures. :roll:
Hey, Democrats lie.
Republicans lie harder.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
May 7, 2004, 5:15 PM
Post #3 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
And I thought this was gonna be a soft porn thread. :cry: :cry: :cry:
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
May 7, 2004, 5:20 PM
Post #4 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
oh, yeah. Sorry to get your hopes up, bumblie. Easy mistake.... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
bluto
May 7, 2004, 5:22 PM
Post #5 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 1525
|
I find it fascinating that during the Clinton years, persons on the far right made consistently absurd accusations, and floated numerous politically motivated conspiracy theories, which the media, and the american populace largely ignored and dismissed. However, now that the tables are turned, it seems that the absurd accusations and wacked out conspiracy theories are given much credibility and gushed about in the media.
The problem with all conspiracy theories is the fact that they endow certain individuals with far more power, and far more ability to suppress information than they actually have. Bill Clinton and George Bush can't keep rather trivial pieces of information, involving relative few individuals, such as Monica Lewinsky, or Bush's cocaine usage out of the paper. Yet we are led to believe that they can engineer vast fraud involving government agencies with thousands of employees. It defies all logic.
|
|
|
|
|
jackscoldsweat
May 9, 2004, 12:36 AM
Post #6 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 380
|
In reply to: Figures. :roll: Hey, Democrats lie. Republicans lie harder.
How exactly does one lie harder?
Bluto, very well said.
JCS
"Democrats have become socialists and Republicans have become Democrats." ~BILL COULTER
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."
- Barry Goldwater
|
|
|
|
|
bflank
May 9, 2004, 3:14 AM
Post #7 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2003
Posts: 48
|
In reply to: Figures. :roll: Hey, Democrats lie. Republicans lie harder.
I am surprised at you. Polliticians do not lie. By definition they do not. They may mispeak, make statesments that are factually inaccurate, etc but lie??? Heaven forbid. Out last president performed amazing legal gymanstics to allege that he did not lie - and people bought it. Barnuum was right!
No I'm sorry neither Republicans nor Democrats lie. And as to which mis-speaks more often, bigger, etc, I'm afraid that is more akin to school kids accussing each other of being the bigger booger-head.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
May 9, 2004, 3:43 AM
Post #9 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
In reply to: Figures. :roll: Hey, Democrats lie. Republicans lie harder.
I hate your ignorance.
Thank you for continuing to make this country worse by voting for a Democrat in November.
|
|
|
|
|
jackscoldsweat
May 9, 2004, 4:48 AM
Post #10 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 380
|
In reply to: In reply to: Figures. :roll: Hey, Democrats lie. Republicans lie harder. I hate your ignorance. Thank you for continuing to make this country worse by voting for a Democrat in November.
Amen.
"Cuz I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.
I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away." mjk
JCS
|
|
|
|
|
nthusiastj
May 9, 2004, 5:32 AM
Post #11 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2002
Posts: 1994
|
I like bush!
Wait... what are we talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
May 10, 2004, 12:37 AM
Post #12 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
In reply to: In reply to: -- the most secretive since Richard Nixon's -- How is this measured?
Don't you mean:
In reply to: Walter Cronkite"]-- the most secretive since Richard Nixon's --
I would suggest you ask him yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
May 10, 2004, 12:39 AM
Post #13 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
In reply to: Thank you for continuing to make this country worse by voting for a Democrat in November.
Oh, right. Because we've been doing SO WELL with a Republican in office.
:roll:
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
May 10, 2004, 12:51 AM
Post #14 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
IMHO
There are 3 things that a society need's to allow it's people to have good, productive and safe lives. I'm talking about things the Gov't should provide here. Also I'm not considering a military, that's obvious.
#1 Education- ie schools, teachers,etc.
#2 Police departments.
#3 Fire/Ems departments.
And what were 3 things Bush took TONS of funding away from?
He was all buddy- buddy with cops and Fireman after 9/11, too bad he helped create situations that allowed more of them to die on that day.
"Bush another word for c*nt"
josh
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
May 10, 2004, 2:28 AM
Post #15 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
In reply to: Oh, right. Because we've been doing SO WELL with a Republican in office. :roll:
Think outside your two party world for a minute, please.
These politicians don't care about you. However, go ahead and vote for them anyways, as nothing I say or do will matter.
I hate you all for fucking this country in the ass with a cactus.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
May 10, 2004, 2:31 AM
Post #16 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
In reply to: Don't you mean: I would suggest you ask him yourself.
I just want to know how secrecy is quantified. Someone must know, unless Mr. Cronkite is speaking from his bumm.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
May 10, 2004, 2:35 AM
Post #17 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
In reply to: #1 Education- ie schools, teachers,etc. #2 Police departments. #3 Fire/Ems departments.
A lot of the funding for these departments comes from local government; local taxes passed by community referendums.
You want to blame someone? Blame John Q. Public. They're the ones going to the polling booths voting "NO" on proposition X which would give the local school district the money necessary to build more facilities so a school built for 1800 isn't pushing 2600 students.
Oh yea . . . bring on the ignorance!
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
May 10, 2004, 4:06 PM
Post #18 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
In reply to: In reply to: #1 Education- ie schools, teachers,etc. #2 Police departments. #3 Fire/Ems departments. A lot of the funding for these departments comes from local government; local taxes passed by community referendums. You want to blame someone? Blame John Q. Public. They're the ones going to the polling booths voting "NO" on proposition X which would give the local school district the money necessary to build more facilities so a school built for 1800 isn't pushing 2600 students. Oh yea . . . bring on the ignorance!
Well considering I'm a fireman and know first hand how this stuff if funded, I wonder if maybe you aren't the one with the wool over your eyes?
Because guess what, jackhole, Local communities can't always fund this stuff the way it needs to be funded.
This is way you'll see firefighters holding BAKE sale's to fund new equipment etc.
Fact...one of the first things bush did in office was CUT(completely) the FIRE ACT which would have given MILLIONS to local fire departments. This is similiar to what the feds have done for police dept's. for years.- But then again bush cut alot of that as well....
I'm sorry to have to inform you of you're ignorance.
Feel free to continue on with your head in the sand...
josh
|
|
|
|
|
bluto
May 10, 2004, 4:23 PM
Post #19 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 1525
|
Why should the federal government fund local fire departments? Fire departments are typically city/county agencies. If there is a lack of funding, that needs to be dealt with by the local governing agency, rather than looking to the feds for a bailout. Pianoman is correct that the problem stems from the local citizens voting down a proposition or fighting higher property taxes. Why should a person in New York city, for example, which has enormously high property taxes, be forced to subsidize firefighting services in a county or city halfway across the country that refuses to pass a bond issue or raise taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
May 10, 2004, 4:44 PM
Post #20 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
In reply to: IMHO There are 3 things that a society need's to allow it's people to have good, productive and safe lives. #1 Education- ie schools, teachers,etc. #2 Police departments. #3 Fire/Ems departments. josh
I agree with this, but have several more things to add, including health care (why is this accepted that only the well off should be cared for properly?), and a functioning infrastructure.
In reply to: In reply to: Oh, right. Because we've been doing SO WELL with a Republican in office. :roll: Think outside your two party world for a minute, please. These politicians don't care about you. However, go ahead and vote for them anyways, as nothing I say or do will matter. I hate you all for f---ing this country in the ass with a cactus.
First off, I am not registerd with either Republican or Democrat, so I know not of this two-party world of which you speak.
Second, as you're discussing careless politcianS, I'm assuming you like neither. I still suggest you vote. Vote none of the above or Mickey Mouse, I don't care. The more votes that are collected for no one running, the more of a message it will send that the people in office are not cutting it. There is always more of the same because the people always settle on one or the other. "Lesser of two evils" is the phrase of choice, no?
I will do more of the same this election and vote John Kerry as I will do anything to keep Bush from getting another term. If I didn't care about either, I would vote none of the above.
As for your last statement, I doubt you would understand any of the above as I am obviously talking to a child.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
May 10, 2004, 5:10 PM
Post #21 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: I agree with this, but have several more things to add, including health care (why is this accepted that only the well off should be cared for properly?), and a functioning infrastructure.
Health insurance is available to everyone, yet many who live above "the poverty line" feel entitled to healthcare for free. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
May 10, 2004, 6:12 PM
Post #23 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: In reply to: Health insurance is available to everyone, yet many who live above "the poverty line" feel entitled to healthcare for free. Why is that? If it's paid for by taxes, so it's not very free, is it?
That's the point that so many don't understand. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
May 10, 2004, 6:15 PM
Post #24 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
In reply to: In reply to: I agree with this, but have several more things to add, including health care (why is this accepted that only the well off should be cared for properly?), and a functioning infrastructure. Health insurance is available to everyone, yet many who live above "the poverty line" feel entitled to healthcare for free. Why is that?
I never said that healthcare wasn't offered to everyone. I said "cared for properly".
Ever had an HMO? Ever tried to go to the doctors offered on Medicaid? Poor? Better not have a sick child (I'm talking major illness here)....
I suggest you ask someone on welfare with a heart problem or diabetes or a child on dialysis how great the "healthcare" system is here. Or just ask any elderly person about the monthly cost of their medications. Now go to Switzerland or Sweden and tell the people there your results and watch them clap their mouths in disbelief that the self-proclaimed "greatest country on earth" will not dish out basic health care for its' citizens.
This is what I mean by being "cared for properly".
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
May 10, 2004, 6:48 PM
Post #25 of 47
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Do you think it's practical to compare the US to countries like Sweden or Switzerland when looking at healthcare?
Apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
