[Rhodes22-list]Wally's political reply

[Wally Buck]

Well I am not sure that legally an intern is closer to being your daughter 
than an employee. I am not a lawyer but that sounds like nonsense. Monica 
was an adult women in her ealry 20s with a free mind, not an innocent 
teenager. From every indication it sounds like she chased him not the other 
way around. Sorry she was a slut, I don't cut her any slack. As I said I do 
think Clinton was sleezy. No argument here. I also agree he lied under oath. 
I have real problems with Clintons character and that is why I never voted 
for him.

Truman said it best "the Buck stops here". This was true when he was 
President, should be true today. Feel free to let Bush of the hook for his 
actions or lack of. The question from my perspective is what caused more 
harm to the USA; Monica or a war based on misinformation?

W


>From: "ed kroposki" <ekroposki at charter.net>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list]Wally's political reply
>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:54:27 -0400
>
>Wally,
>
>"The guy got caught messing around and lied about it."
>
>The messing around part had a more significant angle.  The lady was not 
>only
>a subordinate, but in a position where he had significant responsibility of
>trust to her.   An intern represents a unique position.  It is more than
>employer to employee.  Legally and ethically is closer to father and
>daughter.  She was not put there for his sexual enjoyment.  There is no
>question that a whole lot of women would willingly have had sex with him.
>And, I would have no problem with his doing so.  But his taking advantage
>the special relationship that the two positions had was a special wrong.
>And, he lied in a court proceeding under oath.  That is the crime of
>perjury.  He was disbarred for that in Arkansas; anybody else would have
>time in jail.
>
>"On the other hand we have a sitting president that claimed while running
>for office that he was against Nation Building. Once elected he spread
>around a bunch of rumors as facts leading us into war against a nation that
>posed no real threat to our National Security. This pisses me off much
>more."
>
>Here Rummy's evaluation of intelligence comes in perspective.  He was given
>information and looked at that information thru narrow blinders.  He
>evidentially did not fully evaluate all the alternatives.  It appears that
>those advisors close to him gave him primarily a narrow view or were 
>content
>to let him believe a limited view.  Maybe he did not have the smarts to
>predict the future or have trust in those who saw different possibilities.
>
>As President he expected the CIA and the Pentagon's office of military
>intelligence to give him good information.  I say that they did not do 
>their
>jobs.  The attorney general said that they were hindered by the previous
>administrations rules (memo).  I would say that was not a sufficient 
>excuse.
>The president should have been explicitly told that all information he was
>getting was weak and bias.  He should have been told that emphatically, and
>the fact that he was told that should have been documented (there is no
>information that this was done).  The fact that he was not strongly 
>informed
>of the weakness in his information is problematic.  However, I think that 
>at
>the time he as President of the USA, he had a right to expect he was 
>getting
>good information.  Now that we all know the some of flaws, the issue is, 
>are
>the flaws fixed?  Since the answers to that are state secrets, it will be
>years before the truth gets out.
>
>          Ed K
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963