Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (70820)	6/5/2008 7:30:38 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542940

A different kind of Christian voter. From the Post. John Deem Expecting More From Our Candidates As a citizen and voter, I choose among political candidates based on their guiding principles and potential to lead. But as a Christian, I’ve reached the point where I feel I’m letting God down by pushing the button for any candidate. While politics in its purest form is about standing on principles, in reality it’s become about stomping on the opponent. It’s about War Room guerillas raiding opponents’ lives for enough radioactive material to produce a political dirty bomb. It’s about twisting words, stretching truths, converting context. The candidates and their campaigns act as though they’re part of a video game (Attack Ad 2008! Rated M for mature audiences only!) in which the cannonades leave only virtual carnage. We tend to excuse the malevolence of candidates and their supporters because, after all, it is politics. But should we? It’s as though the political careers of Richard Nixon, Gary Hart and Eliot Spitzer et. al., died miserably so future attacks – worthy or not of scandal status – would be forgiven through a twisted theology of electoral grace. What if our political candidates and their operatives were motivated by what sets them apart rather than tearing apart their opponents? What if candidates were forced to prove they were best-qualified for the job, rather than just not as bad as their opponents? And why don’t Christians – beginning with myself – demand the same conduct from our church and political leaders that Christ modeled for us? In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, two-thirds of voters identified themselves as Christians, and more than half said they attended church regularly, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. That amounts to more than 80 million Christian voters in the 2004 election, and 60 million regular churchgoers. What if those Christians united to declare that they were: § Putting faith above politics by making political contributions, volunteer work or any support – regardless of party – contingent on the conduct of each candidate and his or her campaign? § “Voting” with their pocketbook, remote and mouse by refusing to buy or view publications and broadcasts that fomented attack politics? § Reminding candidates face-to-face at political rallies, debates and other events what Christians expect? Many Christians lament what they see as the eviction of God from society. Yet so many of these same people – who profess their faith in a savior who declared that nothing we do is more important than loving God and loving each other, and that “all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" – display some of the most unchristian behavior imaginable when expressing their displeasure over our culture’s Godlessness. Yes, let’s keep God at the center of our society. But let’s do it by modeling Christ in our own behavior, by revealing God through our daily encounters with others rather than fighting, for example, over whether scripture belongs displayed in schools or courthouses, where it gradually fades from the wall and our consciousness. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama claim to be Christians. It’s time they – and the church leaders who support each of them – displayed more discipleship and less derision, more Christ and less acrimony, more grace and less guile. It’s time we accepted nothing less. John Deem is senior public relations account supervisor at Walker Marketing Inc. in Concord, N.C. He's a deacon, evangelism chairman and youth leader at First Baptist Church in Huntersville, N.C. He's also the author of "Jesus Alive! Elvis Still Dead."

To: Lane3 who wrote (70820)	6/5/2008 8:57:08 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 542940

<<<I notice Rich doesn't say "lies" here.>>> The pair of time lines in the book is an attempt to map the rollout of the administration’s false intelligence claims about Iraq, as typified by that mythical uranium from Africa at the center of the Valerie Plame Wilson case, and to contrast that often-fictional narrative with the contradictory intelligence that the White House failed to divulge to the public as it told and sold its story. As Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation began to prompt revelations about a desperate administration’s efforts to salvage its flawed case for war, the gap between these two narrative tracks became more and more visible -- and continues to widen with each new revelation of accurate intelligence that the administration either suppressed or ignored.

To: Lane3 who wrote (70820)	6/5/2008 9:27:03 AM
From: biotech_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542940

administration’s false intelligence claims One can blame false intelligence on a mistake but the word 'claims' takes it into deception territory - falsehood meant to deceive. Whether one calls it a lie or not is moot. It's possible Rich used 'false intelligence claims' rather than 'lies' to make it sound more authoritative and less tabloid. It's fairly clear AQ wanted the US to get involved in an unpopular war in the ME. That Ibn al-shaykh the top AQ member in US custody was thought by the DIA "to be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest". That the administration would rely on sources that even the CIA nicknamed 'curveball' for unreliability is quite telling. That this administration bit hard on false intelligence claims is not hard to fathom if one follows the money as Bob likes to put it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (70820)	6/5/2008 12:06:50 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542940

Lane3, just curious, did you have some other online SI names in the past. I'm wondering if you're the same "Karen" that had some heated discussions with me concerning the wisdom of the Iraq war when I was posting on FADG? Ed

To: Lane3 who wrote (70820)	6/5/2008 5:15:10 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542940

>>I notice Rich doesn't say "lies" here. How is it useful to insist on that word given how provocative it is and how hard it is to prove definitively? How does that advance anything of value? What is the added value of insisting on intentional deceit over gross errors?<< Karen - Is there a difference between making "false intelligence claims" and lying? I believe Rich's point is that the Administration did intentionally deceive the American people. Scott McClellan is saying the same thing in his book. Today's report from the Senate Intelligence Committee says the same thing, essentially. It's a shame that the word "lies" provokes such emotional reactions, but I believe the shoe fits. - Allen