Posted by zeugma on November 27, 2005, at 13:38:59
In reply to Re: ((((((zeugma))))))), posted by alexandra_k on November 27, 2005, at 1:18:01
> > i tend to get too worked up and then i can't coherently explain anything.
>
> Ah yes, I know that feeling rather well. I think... That is what I do at times too... In this case... I think it is my lack of knowledge. For example: who or what is Libby???>>Libby was an aide of Vice President Cheney. When he was indicted for perjury by a probe initiated by the CIA to investigate the outing of a secret operative, Libby resigned.
>
> > the trial may require that classified documents be declassified, in which case the CIA (and by extyension the nation) could be put in danger.
>
> How is the nation put in danger?
>
I don't know. I don;t know what, if anything, the CIA is doing besides the things we read here all the time (secret prisons in Rumania and the like). I do know that the former head of the CIA division that was seeking to find bin Laden resigned in disgust and wrote a book, "Imperial Hubris", strongly denunciatory of bush Administration policies.
> >cause these documents that chronicle white house transgressions likely will not only detail CIA wrongdoing, but also out our entire intelligence service.
>
> Oh. So the CIA and the entire intelligence service is in danger... But not the average joe, surely ;-)
>
hopefully not. What current controversies here revolve around is that it seems the CIA told Bush that Saddam and bin Laden had nothing to do with one another, that Iraq had no WMD's, and that an invasion was baseless. When the CIA inspector (not a secret operative) who had gone to West Africa to examine the evidence that Saddam had procured uranium from there, as the Bush Administration alleged, his report was that none was found and that the only documents supporting the allegation were known forgeries. It is believed that the outing of his wife (who WAS a secret operative) was an attempt to get revenge on an organization that had failed to produce trumped-up evidence to help convince the American public that war with iraq is necessary.
hope this little bit of background works by way of clarification.-z
> > my guess is that libby and the white house figured the CIA would not press an investigation too far lest it destroy itself as a working organization.
>
> Ah.
>
> > that is the paradox of deterrence: your weapon is so powerful it destroys everything and so can't be used rationally.
>
> Gottcha!
> :-)
>
> Though :-( really, of course.
>
> > of course the white house is playing the same game by inviting its own set of indictments, but i will guess the investigation will hinge on how much classified information is to be released. the information may well cause criminal charges to be brought against the entire administration. but what is the likelihood of that?
>
> Not very
> Not very
>
> > btw the British allege that Blair talked Bush out of bombing al Jazeera, that revelation (if true, and no reason to suppose it isn't) does not make me feel that current administration respects human life excessively. It is why I have been so troubled lately.
>
> I understand.
> I have been feeling pretty troubled about the current state of affairs in the world as well...
> And in reading about wars / conflicts.
> And in reading about Germany...
> And a bit about the science / economic stuff that contributed to the Hitler situation...
> And yeah, I actually...
> Feel rather afraid too.
>
> I have been thinking...
> I don't think politicians should be rich.
> I think they should get an average salary.
> Because if they are rich there is too much temptation for them to look out for them and their own.
> If they are middle class then they are more likely to have their eye to there...
> I worry when people buy their way into politics
> When fame / money buys one political power
> I worry about priorities of the people who are likely to be attracted to politics...
> I think the majority of leaders...
> Their priorities frighten me.
> Economic growth over welfare of individuals
> Etc etc.
> But you get that the world over
> Right through the history of the world
> :-(
> :-(
> It frightens me.
>
> And politicians are supposed to be civil *servants* they are supposed to serve the interests of the *whole* population. and when the majority of the population is not very well off at all and thats not even on the agenda... well then something is very wrong IMO.
>
> The main thing I have heard about why politicians need their high salaries and perks is that without that they would be too open to corruption and bribes.
>
> In response I think... That their present high salaries and perks don't seem to help them resisting either corruption or bribes.
>
> If someone does that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and dismissed in disgrace.
>
> The other reason I have heard is that without the high salary incentive why would someone want to do it?
>
> In response I would say - why do people become academics, or do volountary work for greenpeace or global policy forum or whatever? Because they genuinely want to help make a difference (some of them). Typically... People don't do those kinds of things for the money. They do them because of some kind of conscience... (except some peoples in academia but I think you get what i mean). it isn't like there is a shortage of people who know what they are on about.
>
> So...
>
> So there.
>
> And maybe...
>
> Those who are in it for the money / power would piss off back to their corporations...
> And somebody who actually wants to help the majority of the population might do it just because they want to help.
>
>
>
>
poster:zeugma
thread:574371
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20051022/msgs/582704.html