[Rhodes22-list]Wally's political reply

[Wally Buck]

MJM, I agree with your comment, I have said all along that Clinton was 
sleazy.

My question is what harmed the country more - Clinton's BJ or Bush's attack 
on a country that did not threaten us? One action caused scandal, the other 
action caused a bunch of people to get killed.

I am not defending Clinton .....just wondering why people seem more 
concerned about one issue verses the other.

Wally

>From: "Michael Meltzer" <mjm at michaelmeltzer.com>
>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 23:57:18 -0400
>
>For what is worth, Every man on this list would have been fired on the spot 
>for what happened, screwing around with the intern is
>the definition of sexual harassment No if and or butts. Contextual would 
>not help, The companies lawyers would demand it to help
>with the lawsuit.
>
>MJM
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Wally Buck" <tnrhodey at hotmail.com>
>To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 1:05 PM
>Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list]Wally's political reply
>
>
> > 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
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/