[linskyjack]

An interesting and frightening tendency has emerged in the Bush Administration. It works something like this: A legitimate government employee--either at a high level or at a lower level, has the audacity to tell the truth. Then, Karl Rove gathers the hit team together, and they attempt character assassination in an attempt to move attention away from the reality. There have many such instances of this, the most crimminal being the attack on Ambassador Wilson and his wife the CIA Agent April. For those of you who forget, Wilson was delegated to explore the Niger claim on sale of nuclear materials to Sadaam Hussein. He discoverd that the papers involved were forgeries, and reported that to the President. Durning the Presidents State of the Union Addresss, knowing full well what Wilson's report had said, he insisted on mentioning the sale of nuclear materials to the nation. When Wilson heard this, he denied the claim and it was then that his wife's top security clearance and her job as a clandestine agent was exposed by a White House leak. When Chris Matthews questioned Karl Rove on this issue his response was "She is fair game"!

Since when do we expose the idenitity of our agents in order to kill the messenger, who both democrats and republicans agree was a fine statesman (after all the Bush administration picked him to go on this very important mission) George Bush Senior has said that the exposure of a clandestine agent amounted to the highest form of treachery (although he said this during his own adminsitration.) Thankfully, the FBI and Congress are investigating this, but there is little hope that the leakers and their supervisors will be caught.

This has happened several times--with Richard Clarke, and of course Paul O'Neil. I think it speaks volumes about what this administration will do to squash anyone who offers analysis that goes against the set policy of this White House.

Why hasn't Bob Novak been indicted yet?

[poochee]

They are masters of character assassination. AARP is the latest victim.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

An interesting and frightening tendency has emerged in the Bush Administration. It works something like this: A legitimate government employee--either at a high level or at a lower level, has the audacity to tell the truth. Then, Karl Rove gathers the hit team together, and they attempt character assassination in an attempt to move attention away from the reality. There have many such instances of this, the most crimminal being the attack on Ambassador Wilson and his wife the CIA Agent April. For those of you who forget, Wilson was delegated to explore the Niger claim on sale of nuclear materials to Sadaam Hussein. He discoverd that the papers involved were forgeries, and reported that to the President. Durning the Presidents State of the Union Addresss, knowing full well what Wilson's report had said, he insisted on mentioning the sale of nuclear materials to the nation. When Wilson heard this, he denied the claim and it was then that his wife's top security clearance and her job as a clandestine agent was exposed by a White House leak. When Chris Matthews questioned Karl Rove on this issue his response was "She is fair game"!

Since when do we expose the idenitity of our agents in order to kill the messenger, who both democrats and republicans agree was a fine statesman (after all the Bush administration picked him to go on this very important mission) George Bush Senior has said that the exposure of a clandestine agent amounted to the highest form of treachery (although he said this during his own adminsitration.) Thankfully, the FBI and Congress are investigating this, but there is little hope that the leakers and their supervisors will be caught.

This has happened several times--with Richard Clarke, and of course Paul O'Neil. I think it speaks volumes about what this administration will do to squash anyone who offers analysis that goes against the set policy of this White House.

Why hasn't Bob Novak been indicted yet?

And we keep getting elected in greater numbers! We will eliminate every liberal and destroy every tinfoil cap--we will outlaw aluminum entirely so that we can control the minds of all Americans!!! Today America--tomorrow the world!!!

Muuuuhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

And we keep getting elected in greater numbers! We will eliminate every liberal and destroy every tinfoil cap--we will outlaw aluminum entirely so that we can control the minds of all Americans!!! Today America--tomorrow the world!!!

Muuuuhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

you can destroy the man....but never his cap

[bassetman]

He also attacked McCain's character in the primaries in 2000!

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Mulder

And we keep getting elected in greater numbers! We will eliminate every liberal and destroy every tinfoil cap--we will outlaw aluminum entirely so that we can control the minds of all Americans!!! Today America--tomorrow the world!!!

Muuuuhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You see Mulder, this is why you are intellectually bankrupt---Your response to this thread is to talk about winning an election. Would you please comment on the content of the thread and stop with the idiotic--well we won so we were right and we are good! By the way, Hitler won legitimate election in Nazi Germany--and the German's were a lot smarter then the yeomanry from the Red States!

Look at what they did to Richard Clarke--to this day they have no evidence that he was anything but truthful. However the Clarke case is minor when we see how Rove had an undercover agent exposed--Thats goes beyond politics and into the realm of immorality. I doubt we will get any rational responses on this thread-----its to damaging and there is no rational response other then some name calling and Mulder's typical we won the election so this kind of behavior is okay!>

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

You see Mulder, this is why you are intellectually bankrupt---Your response to this thread is to talk about winning an election. Would you please comment on the content of the thread and stop with the idiotic--well we won so we were right and we are good!

An idiotic thread deserves an idiotic response.

[GoneForNow]

Given who posted this thread it should, more appropriately, read: linskyjack and the Art of Character Assassination.

[PaveFE]

Why this and other threads (or should I say threads by certain individuals) usually don't warrant a logical response.


Adjective: closed-minded

1. Not ready to receive to new ideas


Hard to have a conversation with people who no matter what information or ideas are given to them, they refuse to understand the other side of the opinion. This doesn't mean they must agree with the opposing view, but a simple acknowledgment of understanding that their own idea MIGHT be wrong, would be good enough. Unfortunately that doesn't happen often here at Civ Deb. If respect is wanted, it must be earned. In other words, if you want people to respond to you, try something a lot less inflammatory and blaming (since it is without facts or basis for support) or setup as theory based as fact. Also, when someone responds or even challenges you to your "theory", try and understand or respond with basis for your theory.
This place is fun to come to because it is so easy to watch people self-detonate because they think their opinion is the only one that matters. On a rare occasion is it worthwhile to see someone else's point of view because they actually speak with intelligence and have......an open mind.

[PaveFE]

Here's a good article on what I discussed above. Although it was for Journalists covering politics, it brings home the point. Link

Ruts Traps and Thinking Outside the Box

In the day-to-day of campaign coverage it is easy to lapse into oversimplifying the issues and people. Campaigns become games that we know so well we begin to think we know the answer to every question. And we write about it that way. Below are some ways of avoiding the kind of coverage that comes with over-familiarity.

1. Examine our Most Cynical Assumptions
Phil Trounstine, Political Editor, San Jose Mercury News
There is a difference between being skeptical and being cynical. The skeptic has an open mind; he or she is unsure, and wants to take into account all possible answers to a question in order to be sure. The cynic has a closed mind; he or she assumes they already know the answer -- and often it is the worst. In the day-to-day of coverage it is easy to get locked into a view of politicians as being "corrupt" in some way - pandering to voters, to big business, to big donors. But part of being skeptical is being skeptical of your own thoughts and biases and considering other interpretations of the action. It is quite possible, for instance, for a politician to take a position because he really believes it, then receive money from lobbying interests for doing so, and to please his constituents at the same time. That is, actually, how the political system was designed to work. All three things can coexist at the same time. Just because the politician profits from doing this does not necessarily mean that profit is his only motivation. Various journalists told us: Review your stories for cynicism. Most often, taking the cynical view may make you feel like a hard-bitten realist, but it may actually be simplistic. Read Trounstine's thoughts on Cynicism Versus Skepticism.

4. Beware of the Fallacy of Evil Men and Stupid Men
Tom Rosenstiel, PEJ Director
Rarely do people do things simply because they are Evil or Stupid. Usually, people do things for what seems to them like good reasons at the time, even if the result is disastrous. Politicians who want tax cuts to help the rich may not be doing it simply because they want to pay off greedy contributors. They may really believe this will create jobs (i.e. trickle down). Or those who want to build up government may not be doing it simply because they are trying to pay off union political contributors. They may really believe government is an instrument of social justice. In reporting, be sure to dig out the reasons why actions were taken originally. Don't infer. Don't assume. It is too easy to just see the negative consequences of a policy later and propose that people were foolish or even corrupt for enacting it. That picture may not only be inaccurate, but the more complex reality is more human and more interesting.

[bassetman]

I see the wingers are circling looking for weakness!

[linskyjack]

This is wonderful--and clearly shows why these people are so hypocritical. Lets see where the investigation goes--Aren't these right wingers the defenders of national security? I am telling you, they will never directly answer questions that cast this treachrous adminstration in a bad light! I doubt that anyone will directly respond to the thread because it paints a rather dark picture of the "Man" .

[PaveFE]

No one should respond because it is merely accusations by yourself (and obviously supported by others). There's no proof of anything or basis for support. State some facts to back up your claim and maybe someone will respond. Just because there are coincidences, doesn't mean the accusations are true. So no, it doesn't show that people are being hypocritical, they just want more than your baseless theories.

[linskyjack]

It's not accusations--this is part of the public record---Even Republicans were pissed off when this happened----Why would Wilson lie--He was the guy who was sent by the BUSH administration to Niger? Do you approve of leaking the names of under cover agents for political purposes??????? Do you approve of your President knowingly lying during the State of the Union Address?

[PaveFE]

If it's part of public record, then post those facts.