TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Newest Figure for Character Assassination: John Dean
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo from your comments I get the impression that the sealing of files is a one way street , favoring the administrational branch of government. If thats is what your implying, your wrong.

Hmmmm, now I have go through the trouble of exculpating myself from this erroneous implication.



I wasn't implying anything in regards to being one-way, but please educate me on how the sealing of files benefits us or any other concerned American citizen wanting to know the truth.

Thanks in advance.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm not talking about intelligence data. I'm talking about the rationale and motivations behind policy decisions. It's fairly clear that the Bush administration simply chose WMDs as the reason for invasion simply because it was the "easiest" thing to use. But that's not what motivated their Iraq policy. That much should be clear to everyone. So instead of the whole wmd circus games they fed to the public and congress, why not be truthful about their case for war? There's a reason why congress is the sole branch of power that has the authority to declare war. Therefore they should be privy to ALL the facts and motives when making a decision to proceed. The actions of the Bush administration clearly tip-toes around the concept of democracy and the separation of powers since their root motivation in the middle east was not removal of wmds as they presented, but regime change regardless of the excuse needed to accomplish that. I suppose it is, in part, congresses' fault since the congressional approval for war, while good intentioned perhaps, contained holes that Bush was able to utilize and trample over what good intentions it may have had.

Your skepticism is understandable to a point.
where your argument loses steam is the fact that there was not just this administrations accusations of WMD's. Ther was a GLOBAL concensus, involving many if not dozens if independent commissions, inteligence agencies and fact finding groups spanning many years of investigations and records that in the end determined this man was a chemical threat that had to disarm. Maybe he did,and lied about it. Maybe he didn't and lied about it no one is for sure, maybe not even the president. Bush was not about to take that chance. There were other motivations that I have opined in other threads, but they are opinions.

Look at it this way. If the president was so duplicitous in his motivations like most Bush-haters claim he and his administation are. Why didn't he just plant some there during the invasion, under the fog of war. It would have been so easy given what we knew about the weapons inspectors. He would have avoided this mess entirely in an election year.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You forgot to mention that Bush has sealed both his father's and Reagan's presidential files as well. I wonder what they're hiding now?

I didn't forget, read my first post in this thread They were most likely sealed because they were considered a political liability.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It's fairly clear that the Bush administration simply chose WMDs as the reason for invasion simply because it was the "easiest" thing to use.

I'd go farther than just saying easy. WMDs were used to incite fear in the public. Saddam supposed WMDs served as a perfect vehicle for the administration t combine our cold war fears of nuclear weapons with the recent treat of terrorism. Who could be against disarming a malevolent dictator who was determined to give nuclear weapons to the terrorist who would intern use them against us? Even though most experts would agree that Saddam would never give nukes to terrorist group, the public bought it hook, line and sinker. I must say who ever came up with the idea to use wmd to win public support was a genius.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I didn't forget, read my first post in this thread They were most likely sealed because they were considered a political liability.

Reagan's files are a liability to who?

Bush, Sr.?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Hmmmm, now I have go through the trouble of exculpating myself from this erroneous implication. I wasn't implying anything in regards to being one-way, but please educate me on how the sealing of files benefits us or any other concerned American citizen wanting to know the truth. Thanks in advance.

First off my statement "the sealing of files is a one way street , favoring the administrational branch of government" was erroneous. I meant the executive branch. WTF is the administrative branch?

Each branch of government, as you probably know, has the right to, but not exclusively, maintain sensitive proceedings and files from the eyes of other branches of gov. It is a right held up by the constituion
"Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal"
I'm sure there are other articles that cover this, but anyway its not going to applicable to our argument.

I can't defend our countries need or constitutional right to maintain certain documents underwraps from the public. All I can say is that we the people elect these officials in trust to protect the the rights afforded under the constitution.

The truth is out there

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Reagan's files are a liability to who? Bush, Sr.?

Do i need to really break it down for you

1. Since his father served during the Reagan administration as the vice president. Maybe he doesn�t what his father's misdeeds dragged up for public scrutiny? Read up on the Iran-contra scandal and you might be able to figure out why he wouldn�t want papers released that might reveal to what extent his father was involved in illegal drug and weapons trades to terrible regimes, like Iran and Iraq.

2. Reagan, Bush, and Bush II are all Republicans. Do you think bad press about past misdeeds during a republican administration would help bush�s reelection?

So you find it more reasonable to seal 16 years old Presidential papers because they would threaten national security today. If you have a more plausible reason, I'd love to hear it?

Future of Freedom

Having an open government can be easier to corrupt than having a secret government. One should not be so quick to believe that the openess of government will relieve us of all our troubles or concerns.

If we are to learn any lessons, opening government, as has been done considerably in the US since 1971 has led to an increase in political financing and lobbying. What some would call bribery or corruption in other terms.

Although I will agree, opening archives is defintely a positive endevaour, keeping much of the decission making secret, behind closed doors is a wise policy.


...
I encourage all of you to read the best political book of the century to take another unique and enlightening perspective on what we have come to accept of democracy:

The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846

This book raises just this critique and does a wonderful job of it ... better than I could ever dream.

This books is defintely not a rightwing soap or a democratic whacko fling, it is written by an intellectual middle of the road natrualized American, and would be the one book I would recommend to anyone in the field of modern politics and philosophy.






...
as for Mr. Dean, I guess the Bush team is gonna pull a Yassin on him, eh Occrider?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Do i need to really break it down for you 1. Since his father served during the Reagan administration as the vice president. Maybe he doesn�t what his father's misdeeds dragged up for public scrutiny Read up on the Iran-contra scandal and you might be able to figure out why he wouldn�t want papers released that could reflect poorly his father who may have engaged in illegal drug and weapons trades to some terrible regimes, like Iran and Iraq. 2. Reagan, Bush, and Bush II are all Republicans. Do you think bad press about past misdeeds during a republican administration would help bush�s reelection? Or do you think Presidential papers that are over 16 years old would threaten national security today. If you have a more plausible reason why he'd seal them I'd love to hear it?

That pretty much sums it up. Thanks.



It's good to see someone else posting this. I was getting tired of doing it all by myself.

Just the mere fact that he's in this mess and we haven't found any WMD's speaks volumes in the defence of Bush lying about it all!

Do you think he wanted this from the outset?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.