Bushwater

[Scylla]

Elvis:

Oh, and Scylla, we’re still looking for a reason (from you, or anyone else) why those “exculpatory” documents are being kept secret by the White House. Surely, if an investigation thorough enough to satisfy even you cleared Bush and the rest of the Harken management, he’d be eager to demonstrate that.

You’re still waiting? You’ve missed the bus. I’ve addressed that three times directly in the big thread on the subject.

But if you’re happier keeping your fingers in your ears and yelling “La la la, it’s all about payback for Starr, la la la”, then there’s no point in continuing.

Then you can go away, can’t you?

And finally, were you as indignant over the treatment of Clinton then as you are now? I don’t seem to recall many posts from you on the matter. Am I mistaken about that, or did something change in the meanwhile? :cough, cough:

Actually I wasn’t posting until january of 2000 or so, which is probably why you didn’t see a lot of posts from me then.

And, in fact you are mistaken. I was happy to ridicule Clinton about Lewinsky, but shortly after I started posting, and again near the election I made several posts expressing my discontent with the way Whitewater was being used by my party.

I defended the idea of an investigation into that particular case but expressed discontent over the way it had turned into a media circus, and become wholly politicalized.

My stance has not changed. I resent your saying it has. And I think an ill-considered and immature ploy to suggest otherwise without having the common sense to check first.

I made comments against the way the Whitewater investigation was being handled in the why I don’t trust Republicans thread, as well as a few in some election threads. I also came out against the wag the dog scenario that was bandied about by some Republicans when Clinton fired some cruise missiles during the scandal.

I had the intelligence and foresight to check my posts before I posted this, so I would not put my foot in my mouth. It’s a shame you didn’t. How does it taste?

And, since you’re making the accusation, you can go look them up yourself.

[Scylla]

Elvis:

Oh, and Scylla, we’re still looking for a reason (from you, or anyone else) why those “exculpatory” documents are being kept secret by the White House. Surely, if an investigation thorough enough to satisfy even you cleared Bush and the rest of the Harken management, he’d be eager to demonstrate that.

You’re still waiting? You’ve missed the bus. I’ve addressed that three times directly in the big thread on the subject.

But if you’re happier keeping your fingers in your ears and yelling “La la la, it’s all about payback for Starr, la la la”, then there’s no point in continuing.

Then you can go away, can’t you?

And finally, were you as indignant over the treatment of Clinton then as you are now? I don’t seem to recall many posts from you on the matter. Am I mistaken about that, or did something change in the meanwhile? :cough, cough:

Actually I wasn’t posting until january of 2000 or so, which is probably why you didn’t see a lot of posts from me then.

And, in fact you are mistaken. I was happy to ridicule Clinton about Lewinsky, but shortly after I started posting, and again near the election I made several posts expressing my discontent with the way Whitewater was being used by my party.

I defended the idea of an investigation into that particular case but expressed discontent over the way it had turned into a media circus, and become wholly politicalized.

My stance has not changed. I resent your saying it has. And I think an ill-considered and immature ploy to suggest otherwise without having the common sense to check first.

I made comments against the way the Whitewater investigation was being handled in the why I don’t trust Republicans thread, as well as a few in some election threads. I also came out against the wag the dog scenario that was bandied about by some Republicans when Clinton fired some cruise missiles during the scandal.

How does that foot taste?

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by hansel *
**How very convenient for conservatives to take the moral high road now that it’s their guy under attack. **

Thank you for supporting my premise.

[hansel]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Thank you for supporting my premise. **

My post does not support your premise. My post observes an understandable cynicism on the left about the calls by conservatives not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

In point of fact, I generally agree with you. But you can’t ignore that, among the damage the Republicans did with their witchhunt, they made it harder for conservatives like you to justifiably attack the Democrats for another expensive and time-wasting political assassination.

[Scylla]

hansel:

I think it does support me. A person can only control how they behave.

Regardless of how one may feel about how one or one’s party was treated, one still makes the decision whether to behave properly or not.

It’s an admittedly hyperbolous analogy, but I don’t excuse somebody who abuses a kid, because he was abused as a kid.

If Clinton was treated badly that doesn’t excuse ramrodding Bush.

You can’t judge the current game by yesterday’s box score.

[keeper0]

I am going to restrict myself to the Harken stock sale.

I think the problem is that none of us has the full information and we tend to fill in the gaps according to our own prejudices.

None us has access to the information that the SEC investigation turned up. While they spent a reasonable amount of time for a preliminary examination, none of us really knows the vigor or comprehensiveness of the effort. After this, they decided not to pursue it any further… which is different than an exhoneration.

So, I see three possible opinions about it.

1. He’s clean! The report is so uninfected that it can be used in operating rooms.

2. There is no clear indication of wrongdoing, but also no clear absolution. (No smoking gun, but no clear alibi) Standard SEC procedure of the day was to not go further.

3. The investigators felt real, implied or imagined pressure to not indict the president’s son and ignored evidence of wrongdoing.

I am not a big fan of Bush, but I think #2 is the most likely. But the real lesson that Bush should have learned from the Clinton days is that stalling on full disclosure, claiming a right to privacy or other spin dancing only makes the problem worse.

If it is #1, he should obviously disclose the information.
If it is #2, I still think he should disclose it just to stop folks from thinking it is #3.
If it is #3, I want it disclosed anyway so we can know the truth. Obviously, Bush wouldn’t.

(If you are saying it has been “vetted” in the sense that the political operatives looked into it, all that means is that they didn’t think it would be harmful.)

One partisan witchunt would not excuse another. But, rightly or wrongly, we have set levels of privacy rights for our elected officials at nearly zero.

[hansel]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
I don’t excuse somebody who abuses a kid, because he was abused as a kid.

Your analogy misses, because I’m not suggesting that the Democrats deserve a free pass on “Bushwater”, as payback for Whitewater.

My analogy goes like this: your neighbour steals your lawnmower, and gets away with it through some legal chicanery. You plan to steal his lawnmower as payback, and he tells you “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yes, it is wrong to steal his lawnmower, both in itself and as payback, but you can see, I think, how that would stick in the craws of most people.

High minded conservative condemnation of Democratic attempts to investigate this administration are, incidentally or not, so self-serving as to be obnoxious.

[Scylla]

hansel:

Your analogy misses as well. Bush didn’t steal Clinton’s lawnmower.

It’s not the same people.

To fix your analogy:

To say I as a conservative stole your lawnmower and got away with it, so you decided to go and steal my friends’ lawnmower than that would fit better.

Even that’s not so good because your analogy talks about individuals while in fact we’re talking more about a loose set of ideologies, and using grudges between those ideologies to attack individuals.

Even if I grant your analogy in full. I still disagree.

Who says something has no bearing on whether it’s true or not. Truth is not relative that way.

If two wrongs don’t make a right is a truism, it doesn’t matter who says it. It’s still valid and true.

[xenophon41]

The problem with trying to simplify and compare two unrelated, complex series of political processes as if they were some sort of monolithic action/reaction pair is that this method ignores all contextual and ethical differences between the two sets of circumstances. There were all sorts of charges, allegations, points of interest, etc. within the Whitewater investigation; what it all finally turned on was the lack of validity of the initial allegations. Clinton shot himself in the foot when he gave his persecutors an actual ethical violation to work with. If he’d been an honest scoundrel, he would never have been impeached, despite the MRWC®.

If there is a “Bushwater”, it’ll turn on the validity (or lack) of the allegations against Mr. Bush, not on the motivations of his detractors. If there were no illegalities, all he has to worry about is if his political image is tainted by the truth. And it’s pretty much tough noogies if that’s unpalatable to him.

[Scylla]

xeno:

He also has to worry about his political image being tainted or undermined by a misrepresentation of the truth.

For example, if we grant simply for the purposes of illustration that Bush was entirely innocent of any ethical or legal wrongdoing in the Harken debacle, he has still nonetheless been tainted and undermined as POTUS. Doubt has been cast on his character and it effects his ability to lead credibly.

The very process of questioning a person’s character damages it.

Therefore it shouldn’t be done lightly unless of course that damage is the goal.

[hansel]

Even more convenient, then: it wasn’t us, it was our predecessors who unfairly hobbled a popular, two-term president from the other side. We’re just enjoying the benefits.

You’re trying to turn a political and emotional issue into a strictly moral issue, which is to your advantage, and then use that moral position for political ends: to cast doubt upon the justification for investigating this administration.

In your opinion, investigating Harken is unjustified. That’s not my opinion, and the investigations aren’t limited to Harken: they include Cheney and White and Enron and energy lobbyists, among others.

Note that there are no calls so far (of which I’m aware) for a special prosecutor with a blank cheque for an open-ended prosecution. Comparing Harken to Whitewater is a false parallel.

This whole thread is a conservative attempt to undermine inquiries into the current administration with some fast footwork. And it smells like politics, not morality.

[xenophon41]

And, of course, his opponents would have to worry about backlash against their party if Bush comes through the fire. (I think this is a real consideration, and is reflected in the so far rather mild mutterings from the Democrats.) I’m not sure we have to worry about any official process being undertaken lightly in the post-Clinton era.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
And, in fact you are mistaken. I was happy to ridicule Clinton about Lewinsky, but shortly after I started posting, and again near the election I made several posts expressing my discontent with the way Whitewater was being used by my party.

Then you shouldn’t mind Bush being at least “ridiculed” about something that’s actually fundamental to the concept of leadership, should you? If you really objected to your party’s treatment of Clinton as much as these endless protestations suggest, then that’s fine.

I’m sure you can see why your motivations might seem a little, well, self-serving, can’t you? Better be real careful about being tied with december as SDMB’s King of Trying to Look Like a Wounded Innocent When Asked Inconvenient Questions, ya know.

Just curious - have you taken your fingers out of your ears? Ready to face that this is a larger question than the technical legality of the Harken-Aloha stock deal, or are you content to look increasingly pathetically, willfully, out of touch here?

Now, as to this:

The very process of questioning a person’s character damages it.

Not at all. If a person’s character is questioned, but the nature of that character as revealed in other ways is such as to make the accusation itself not credible, it’s actually enhanced, while the accuser’s is damaged. But if the person’s character as revealed in other ways makes the accusation credible, then it’s his own damn fault for having such a character, isn’t it?

[Scylla]

elvislives:

Just curious - have you taken your fingers out of your ears? Ready to face that this is a larger question than the technical legality of the Harken-Aloha stock deal, or are you content to look increasingly pathetically, willfully, out of touch here?

Are you still beating your wife? Have you given up drinking or are you still in denial about your alcoholism?

I’m sure you can see why your motivations might seem a little, well, self-serving, can’t you? Better be real careful about being tied with december as SDMB’s King of Trying to Look Like a Wounded Innocent When Asked Inconvenient Questions, ya know

You’re simply attacking me instead of making an argument.

That is sad and pathetic.

You have my pity.

[Avalonian]

Scylla, I agree that a large part of Elvis’ post was inflammatory. However, he did make a good point at the end, and I think it is one which this discussion hinges upon.

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**If a person’s character is questioned, but the nature of that character as revealed in other ways is such as to make the accusation itself not credible, it’s actually enhanced, while the accuser’s is damaged. But if the person’s character as revealed in other ways makes the accusation credible, then it’s his own damn fault for having such a character, isn’t it? **

My question (without being offensive)… do you agree or disagree with the above?

To my mind, if a person has a strong character then people’s impression of it is only enhanced when it is questioned and shown to be, indeed, a very strong character. It’s basically confirmation of something that may have been only suspected before.

Moreover, when those who question the character of someone are proven wrong, they often come out looking like asses, especially if they’ve been confrontational or needlessly probing. I believe that this is especially true after the ridiculous Clinton probes.

However, if true impropriety exists, then why should we avoid questioning it? Should we avoid tarnishing someone’s character so they can hide their true character flaws (or at least flaws of conduct) from us all? Should we hide our questions from a President who will be asking for us to elect him again in a couple years?

I guess my feeling is about honesty. If Bush were to open his records and the SEC records to the public, one of two things might happen… they will prove that he was telling the truth and he did no wrong, in which case those questioning him look at least a little stupid, doubt about his character will be alleviated, and he can thumb his nose at his opponents… or they will prove that he did do wrong, the suspicions were justified, and even if we can’t jail him, at least we can have the knowledge we need and avoid electing him again. Again, though, the element of doubt is removed.

But by keeping his mouth shut, he only serves to engender more doubt… and that’s possibly the worst case scenario for everyone.

So, the point is, whether he is guilty or innocent, there are strong suspicions, and many of them are valid on the surface. What is wrong with asking a question?

[wring]

Avalonian I need to point out the third ( and IMHO the most plausible explanation) -
that an investigation will demonstrate that everything that he did was actually legal at the time, but morally or ethically questionable, especially in light of recent Enron scandals etc.

and it pains me to have to point that out, 'cause I really, really, really don’t like Bush.

[hansel]

Let’s play out a hypothetical scenario:

The Democratics decide not to attack, or even investigate, the Bush Administration without clear and overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing (ignore the catch-22 for the moment).

Eventually the Democratics are back in the White House, and the Republicans manufacture another partisan witchhunt that occupies the president and saps whatever support he has, making him, at best, ineffective in pursuing a Democrat’s agenda.

The Republicans are back in the White House, and the Democrats once again refuse to investigate without clear and overwhelming etc…

Eventually the Democratic are back in the White House, and the Republicans manufacture etc…

The Republicans are back in the etc…

I can’t help but notice that, in this scenario, the Democrats have quite virtuously gone to their political grave, and the conservative agenda is further entrenched with each Republican administration, while the best a Democratic president can hope for is to slow the shift. I can’t help but notice that the Republicans get all the marbles, while the Democrats get to sniff righteously “well, at least I played by the rules.”

Please explain, Scylla, how the Democrats can avoid losing by playing fair.

[hansel]

In my previous post, everywhere that I wrote “democratic” that doesn’t make sense, please substitute the word my brain had so much trouble communicating to my hands, “democrat”.

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by wring *
Avalonian I need to point out the third ( and IMHO the most plausible explanation) -
that an investigation will demonstrate that everything that he did was actually legal at the time, but morally or ethically questionable, especially in light of recent Enron scandals etc.

Yes, I forgot to include that one, but you’re right.

Doesn’t change my point much, though… wouldn’t that be important information for the voting public to have in hand in 2004?

And still, what’s wrong with asking the question?

[wring]

Oh, I want the question to be asked, but that response would be why A) Bush would be reluctant to open his books up for public rehashing and yet B) not necessarily be afraid of criminal charges.