CIA Analyst: 'No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably'

[OS]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: maluckey
So where are the "moral candidates"? You know, the ones with no personal agenda. If you would like to post their names, I'm sure that many would like to see if they are truly selfless and moral as you suggest.

Douglas Adams had a novel idea in his "Hitchiker" series. He wrote that anybody truly wanting to be President of the Galaxy was by definition, unworthy, and that only a person that didn't want the job, could truly be without hidden agendas.

It would take someone falling from the sky, then elected without their own will to run, to find untarnished goods. Even Ghandi theatened the British to make his point, when he told them (I paraphrase) That the thousands of British could not truly do anything to stay in India if the millions of Indians did not wih them there.

Apathy is not the same as acceptance and understanding of human nature. Man has lied since history began. It's a fact. The extent of the lies varies, as does the motivations, but lies they are. A totally black and white view of humanity as right or wrong, is an overly simplistic view of reality and fully fails to encompass true human nature. Man lies, cheats, kills, steals, and a vareity of other behaviors. Some are common in the animal kingdom, while others are unique to man. To realize that no man is without his own agenda, and no man is without sin, is the first step.

You're starting to sound like a Bush apologist. Either that, or you learned reading comprehension from Sir Cad.

As I said before, "there are a whole spectrum of behaviors that fall under the heading of 'competition'. One doesn't have to be Machiavellian to be competitive. It is possible to be both competitive and moral."

It is ridiculous to assert that being a "moral" candidate requires having no personal agenda. Yes, people look out for their self-interests, but that's not the end of the story. In most people, self-interests are tempered by a sense of right and wrong. Most people balance self-interests against their responsibilities. People can and do sacrifice their self-interests for the greater good of others.

Small children place self-interest above everything else. As one matures, most people learn they must co-exist with others. They learn to resist temptation. They learn that altruistic concepts like sharing and taking turns and not hurting others are a necessary part of society. They learn that other people have rights too. Civilization cannot exist without self-control.

There is a difference between understanding human behavior and excusing it. In my opinion, you are the one striking a black and white view of the world. You are saying since all politicians lie, all politician's lies are equal. You are trying to excuse Bush-lite's blatant contempt for the truth, his flagrant disregard for what is right, by claiming other politicians lie too. I find this position deplorable.

All lies are NOT created equal. Some lies can be dismissed as political rhetoric. Other lies represent a complete breach of the public trust. Bush's lies to
invade another country, at a cost of thousands of innocent lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, are a clear example of breaching the public trust.

Some good writings going on here, it's kind of interesting how maluckey has some good pieces but at the same time has such huge logical holes in his arguments.

 

[maluckey]

So now some lies as inherently harmless? I disagree. If you want to stand on pure morality, as you seem to suggest, then no lie is ever acceptable.

People can set aside their own agendas and are tempered by a sense of right and wrong, true, but not as President, or as a soldier. You do the job of protecting the interests of the country, regardless the percieved morality or costs. Morality is invented by man, and varies by culture, and timeframe of history. What is immoral today may be moral tomorrow (just ask the question of Gay Marriages). At times, you may have to compromise your own set of morals, for the greater good. Hundreds of thousands of lives at the expense of thousands. It is always horrible to lose lives, but our soldiers gave theirs, they weren't taken, like life under Saddam. I still disagree with most about the resons of this conflict. l believe that the conflict is an economic action meant to ensure the oil flows unimpeded and that the terror camps and money flow get closed. It's secondary purpose, if it was even a factor at all, was the saving of lives and making the world a safer place. Once you accept that more have died, and would continue to die under Saddam than under our invasion, is where you have to weigh the long term effects of any decision. What bad, other than losing fair weather friends (France, Germany, Canada) came of this? I am curious to hear. The economy is booming, the Terrorists are hurting, no further attacks have occurred n the U.S., or against U.S. interests outside of Iraq since the invasion.

If a person or country has the ability to help someone in distress, it is not an option to the truly moral person to help them, even at the risk of your own life. To weigh the lives of our soldiers more heavily than three hundred thousand (U.N. estimates) Iraqis in unmarked mass graves, and the systemic torture, rape, and execution of dissidents is close to being a self centered point of view.