Jump to content

How's the Valerie Plame investigation going?


PastaJoe

Recommended Posts

JA loves to come here and talk down to us in an all knowing, paternal sort of way. Have you ever seen him post an original thought?

Hey, both parties suck. Never heard that one before! What a revelation! Don't you now feel enlightened?

It is no wonder that he has switched his screen name so many times.

441165[/snapback]

 

And he's gay. 0:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh come on. Every president is susceptible to bribery of this sort, be it free BJs, or contracts to friends, or sleepovers in the White House, etc. The Republican concern was not one that Bill would launch the nukes for good head; it was to shed light on Bill's piccadillos and bring shame to a guy they resented.

 

Again, I don't care that they did this: it's the dirty politics of time immemorial. What irks me is that they spent my fugging money to do it amidst the bigger and more important (but wholly undrelated to the BJ) rubric of Whitewater. Politicians will always dig up dirt. I don't like it, but it's a fact. Just have the decncy not to do it on my dime.

441326[/snapback]

Not every President is married to Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be yong lothar. It started with Watergate and Nixon.

441074[/snapback]

I've read enough historical perspective to understand the impact on the relationship between the media and the presidency. I assume you meant to use the sarcasm smiley - but Watergate WAS a watershed moment in terms of that relationship.

 

Young, yeah right :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you on't remember it, you're young. While it was happening, my teacher was using it as an example how the branches of govt. worked in our Amer. history class (11th grade).

441937[/snapback]

I guess compared to you, you old coot :) , I may be a young whippersnapper but I'm assuming 3 or 4 years does put us in the same generation. My seventh grade teacher didn't talk much about Watergate, but my appetite for understanding history and perspective led me to read much about both Watergate and the presidency in general. Here's some comments from a 5 year old article about media and the impact of Watergate:

 

govexec.com article 2005

 

For the national media, 1973 was also a watershed year. The Watergate scandal and the eventual resignation of President Nixon marked a profound shift in how the media viewed its role and relations with government officials and those in authority. Nearly an entire generation of journalists who came of age in the turbulent aftermath of both Vietnam and Watergate saw themselves not so much as skeptical watchdogs, but as aggressive investigators intent on exposing the essential venality of government officials.

 

"I saw journalism change during the Watergate era, when all of the reporters coming out of journalism school suddenly wanted to bypass the fundamentals and regular beats and go right into investigative reporting," says Otto Kreisher, a Marine Corps veteran and longtime defense correspondent for the Copley News Service. "Their mentality was increasingly that journalism was all about bringing down Presidents, embarrassing those in authority, and exposing how the military was screwing things up. That's a very different view from old guys like me, who saw the government solve the Depression and the military win World War II. Even today, I see an attitude in younger editors that if it ain't negative, it ain't news."

 

No one who has straddled the cultural divide between the media and military can fail to notice that over the past quarter century, the two professions have attracted Americans of vastly different natures and perspectives. In turn, these professions nurture and sharpen those natural proclivities. Media outlets entice people who are comfortable questioning authority precisely because they see their role as speaking truth to power. The military tries to attract and indoctrinate those who naturally respect authority because the battlefield brooks neither dissent nor questioning of orders.

 

Joseph Galloway, the former longtime defense and war correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, jokingly called the natural tensions between these two groups a struggle between the "anarchists" and the "control freaks."

 

Because journalists often view their role as protecting the underdogs of society even while serving as watchdogs of the most powerful institutions—or in the shorthand of the profession "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable"—journalists also tend to be liberal on social issues such as women's rights, gay rights and affirmative action. Given the tremendous risks in lives and even national survival inherent in the profession of arms, military organizations are notoriously conservative by nature, and they tend to attract those who embrace traditionally conservative views on social issues.

 

---

 

I find the last 3 paragraphs a microcosm of all that goes on on this board. Two views of the world where people talk AT each other instead of trying to understand the differences and seeking to resolve them. I know, I know, this is the moment when we all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" - it's not that, I just don't get the animosity between sides - reasonable discourse to solve issues seems so much more useful than screaming names and pinning labels at the opposition - more painful and difficult maybe - but in the end we all DO have to live in the same country.

 

OK, that's it for my diatribe. There's a lot of intelligent people on this board but I rarely see that expressed in ways other than belittling those we disagree with - I generally surf this board for comments that try and understand issues from a perspective different from my own. But if I read it every day, jeez - that would warp my world. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you on't remember it, you're young. While it was happening, my teacher was using it as an example how the branches of govt. worked in our Amer. history class (11th grade).

441937[/snapback]

 

Now this brings up another thread changing quesiton. Would your rather be young and liberal, or old and conservative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how some people say to get over it, it's old news, but are quick to bring up Clinton and even JFK. I just want this White House held to the same level of scrutiny that the Republicans gave to Clinton's. They opened the Pandora's box. Back to the original topic, the most recent news I've found is that lawyers close to the Plame investigation say there are signs that the 20-month-long inquiry could be wrapped up within weeks, and that the White House and Congressional Republicans continue to block the release of documents related to Rove and his involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how some people say to get over it, it's old news, but are quick to bring up Clinton and even JFK.  I just want this White House held to the same level of scrutiny that the Republicans gave to Clinton's.  They opened the Pandora's box.  Back to the original topic, the most recent news I've found is that lawyers close to the Plame investigation say there are signs that the 20-month-long inquiry could be wrapped up within weeks, and that the White House and Congressional Republicans continue to block the release of documents related to Rove and his involvement.

442472[/snapback]

Which is par for the course in Washington, contrary to your tiresome partisan whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how some people say to get over it, it's old news, but are quick to bring up Clinton and even JFK.

 

Followed by...

 

I just want this White House held to the same level of scrutiny that the Republicans gave to Clinton's.

 

 

It's truly lovely the way you abandon your "get over it" philosophy in one sentence. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the superpower factor too. Many countries EXPECT their leaders to be perverts and hedonists, but the US is held to a different standard simply because it's the US.

 

There were some very questionable things going on in the background with the Clinton administration. I sometimes wonder if they let the Monica fiasco run full course knowing it didn't really MEAN anything other than appearances, to deflect attention from other issues (China, for example).

441336[/snapback]

 

Despite Clinton being a "pervert and hedonist" ( :blush: ), I think it's almost certain there was (and still is) more respect for him in the rest of the world than there is for the current holder of the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...