Ethics Dunces Update: 59 And Counting Democratic Members Of Congress Boycotting The 45th President’s Inauguration

democrats-boycott-trump

The epic hypocrisy continues.

Last October, the Democratic Party furiously insisted that it was dangerous and undemocratic for Donald J. Trump to suggest that he might not accept the results of the 2016 election. Today, while their leaders stand mute, a large, prominents and vocal segment of that party and its leadership is refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election.

The #1 task fasing Donald Trump, say his critics (and his supporters too), is to heal the divisions and rifts in the nation. His foes (I’m a critic, not a foe) say that he is the primary cause of those divisions and rifts. (Of course, the primary cause has been the intentionally divisive Presidency of Barack Obama.) Now 59 members of Congress, all Democrats (it may be over 60 by the time I write this), have intentionally signaled to their constituents that they want and intend the division to continue, and indeed to worsen. They are leading their constituents to oppose and reject the government of the United States. They are rejecting their duty as representatives of that government, showing disrespect to the citizens who chose its leadership, encouraging civil discord and risking violence.

Their conduct is exactly like a citizens group holding a protest demanding that the government extinguish fires burning out of control around a town, then marching to each conflagration and tossing gasoline on it.

Piers Morgan, of all people, a British citizen and tabloid journalist who was sharply anti-Republican and anti- conservative in his unsuccessful run as the successor to talk show host Larry King on CNN, demonstrated that even he has a firmer grasp on this nation’s ideals and traditions than many Democrats, writing in part,

Friday is Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration, a moment that comes every four years and which heralds the very cornerstone of American democracy. This should thus be a time for national unity, reflection and celebration. Instead, it’s been turned into a bile-laden battleground…

Oh the irony of those who hate Trump because they perceive him to be a nasty, spiteful, bullying piece of work, themselves behaving like nasty, spiteful, bullying pieces of work.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, Congressman John Lewis decided to mark the occasion of MLK Day by dismissing Trump’s presidency as illegitimate. There is no more serious charge to level at a presidency, or indeed to the American democratic system itself. Lewis, 76, knew exactly what he was doing…he was fully aware that by saying he doesn’t believe Trump is a ‘legitimate president’, he was lighting the touch-paper for a new round of frenzied Trump-bashing in the lead up to his inauguration…

Forgive me if I don’t join in this chillingly predictable tirade of abuse at the President-elect… The sustained campaign right now to delegitimize Trump’s presidency before it’s even started is not just a disgraceful attack on Trump…It’s also a disgraceful attack on American democracy and freedom. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said: ‘On each national day of inauguration since 1789, the people have renewed their sense of dedication to the United States.’ Friday should be a day when the country comes together, not a day when it splinters even further apart. Trump, whether you voted for him or not, whether you love him or loathe him, is the democratically elected President of the United States. If you refuse to accept it, then you flip the bird at democracy.

And when you insult democracy…you insult America.

Bingo.

And perhaps the first extended opinion by Piers Morgan that I have ever agreed with in my life.

I could expand on Morgan’s final point, as the culture within the Democratic Party has increasingly curdled with anti-American positions, values and conduct. I’ll just note at this time that it appears to be a seriously corrupted institution, and its response to Trump’s shocking election has exposed the depth of the malady. How much damage this irresponsible and unethical conduct will do to the nation, its institutions and democracy itself is unknown and unknowable.

This is the most shocking aspect of the fiasco, perhaps. President Obama could have prevented this before it began, or ended it once his party began it. All he had to do was to be the responsible, just, unifying President of all the people that he promised to be before he was elected. All he had to so was to tell the nation, his supporters, his party and particularly his race that January 20 was a day to honor America and the Constitution, and to come together as a people. There would have been nothing unusual or radical about such a statement, and it was clearly the right and Presidential thing to do.

Obama chose, deliberately and with full understanding of what his choice meant, to allow the divisions in the nation to fracture along the fault-lines he stressed,  and to undermine his successor by feeding disunity.

This is signature significance, and delivers the final, damning verdict on the leadership and character of Barack Obama.

 

96 Comments

Filed under Character, Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Etiquette and manners, Government & Politics, Incompetent Elected Officials, Leadership, U.S. Society

96 responses to “Ethics Dunces Update: 59 And Counting Democratic Members Of Congress Boycotting The 45th President’s Inauguration

  1. charlesgreen

    Not that anyone cares, and for what it’s worth, but I quite agree with you that the boycotting of the inauguration by Democrats, including the ‘illegitimacy’ comment by Rep Lewis, are wrong, and counter-productive to boot.

  2. If President Obama were to actively seek to curtail this latest melt down in the overall Democrat temper tantrum and be successful, how would you evaluate his entire 8 years on a divisive/unifying scale?

    Would he be a net unifier or still a net divided based on the pst 8 years of intentional division?

  3. Wayne

    “A Nation divided cannot stand”!

  4. Wayne

    My version of Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech.

  5. Steve-O-in-NJ

    I say let them ALL stay away if they want to. It will just be proof that the Democratic Party has no standards except double standards and no principles except the will to power.

  6. Warren

    You go out of your way to impugn President Obama (who is certainly not among those sitting out the inauguration) in a post about Democratic legislators. One can argue that his presidency further polarized an already deeply divided country, but I fail to see how he, or any other POTUS in recent history, led an “intentionally divisive” administration, as you put it. I completely agree that the stand being taken by these House members is misguided, dangerous, and unethical. The election was legitimate; Democratic politicians ought to accept it in good faith and assume the more responsible role of critic rather than outright foe. But your criticism of Obama leaps over congressional foolishness in order to lodge one more spear in the side of an outgoing executive who is doing his duty to peacefully pass the baton to an incoming amateur whose first foray into national politics was to call into question his citizenship. It seems to me that Obama has demonstrated exactly the kind of dignified acceptance which you are — rightly — encouraging among the more hysterical members of his party.

    • Other Bill

      But Warren, the President is also the head of the party in which he was elected. President Obama should LEAD the Democratic Party. He should be the adult in the room. (He’s famously, like Bill Clinton, always billed as the smartest guy in the room. Of course Democratic presidents are always the smartest guys in the room.) He’s not being dignified by standing aloof and letting all he children act out and stamp their feet. He’s passive-aggressively enabling and encouraging them. But of course, he’s never engaged with any members of congress, either party’s, in any way the entire time he’s been in office. Hence the charges of arrogance and narcissism.

    • charlesgreen

      Well said. I completely agree.

    • junkmailfolder

      Interesting that you bring up the birther issue. Obama intentionally strung that out, leaving it unaddressed for what, 3 years(?), before finally releasing his birth certificate. It was deft–make your opponents string themselves up by looking like racist fools (not saying they weren’t).

      When the black Harvard professor was accosted in his own home by the police, Obama’s initial reaction, absent the facts, was to call the police stupid and suggest racial profiling.

      When Trayvon Martin was killed, we all know what Obama said about it (again, absent the facts). I can understand why he would–give everyone assuming the young black male was at fault a gut check.

      There are plenty of other examples where Obama acted in a way that was understandable, and I’m sure many black people appreciated the refreshingly sympathetic approach from a government official. However, intended or not, the result was to bring race and color to the forefront of everyone’s thoughts. Rather than letting his race be incidental to his legacy as a president, he seemed to want it to be front and center. I think that backfired.

      I think Obama’s behavior had a very big role in the resurgence of tribalism and division that we’ve seen in the last few years. He had an opportunity to be post-racial, and leave his legacy as a president without making it about his race, but I think the temptation to stick it to the culture was too great.

    • No, I am simply stating a fact that the President’s defenders deny. The strategy of division began in 2008, and I flagged it then: opposition to Obama was linked to racism. (John Lewis called John McCain the equivalent of George Wallace.) This continued and intensified throughout the past 8 years. Democratic officials, White House surrogates, prominent Democratic leaders and celebrities, as well as journalists, especially MSNBC, returned to it again and again. Obama could have stopped it, but he didn’t, because it was politically beneficial. Most of the dirty work was done by the Justice Department, through Eric Holder, who pursued racially divisive positions and prosecutions, with the head of the Civil Rights division, Thomas Perez, pursuing a policy that held that only whites were capable of civil rights violations. The Tea Party, which was a product of Obama’s divisive approach, was tarred as racist from the start, by Lewis among others, as Obama stood by. When Obama personalized the Trayvon Martin episode, identifying with the victim despite the fact that racial motives were never shown in the episode, it exacerbated the racial division. Holder used Sharpton as an ally and an adviser, and Sharpton is regarded in the white community as an anti-white race-baiting demagogue, because he is. Holder, and later Lynch allied in the Martin, Ferguson and Freddie Gray episodes with the victims and against police, signalling that the episodes were racist in motivation (no actual evidence in any of them). The long-running cynical twist of representing voter ID laws into black voter suppression measures, and the administration line that the SCOTUS ruling correctly finding that Federal meddling with state laws could continue to be justified by 1964 data regarding racist state policies almost 50 years after they were set was pure due process and yet Obama allowed his party to tell the public that the Civil Rights law had been “gutted.” (The solution, if Obama cared, was to make a deal with Congress to update the law, but that would have required him to make compromises and negotiate, which he neither could do or would stoop to.)

      All the divisiveness flowed through Obama’s hyper-partisan rhetoric. He blamed Republicans for all the nations ills well into his second term, and in foreign countries disavowed past policies to an unprecedented extent, part of his refusal, lately on display again in farewell interviews, to accept accountability for failure. Meanwhile, Obama’s position on illegal immigration sought ethnic division, justifying Hispanic lawbreaking while, again, accusing critics of bias. His approach to seeking rapid acceptance of gay marriage was to have the Justice Department attack religious organizations and individuals that had relied on moral edicts for centuries (religions) or their whole lives (individuals.) This led to aggressive legal measures against private businesses on the cusp of public accommodation status, but also quasi-expressive, like bakeries, dress shops and photographers, but also against religious organizations, like the Little Sisters of the poor.

      On the gender front, Obama pit women against men deliberately, allowing his renomination convention to promote a false “war against women” because Obamacare opponents believed that forcing insurance policies to pay for personal birth control was excessive, but mostly because it was a usefully divisive message. That it was cynical is proven for me by allowing Bill Clinton, of all people, to be the star speaker. Obama allowed his Education department to encourage an anti-MALE gebder war on campus, with the infamous “Dear Colleague” letter, threatening schools if they didn’t punish male students without evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” He allowed his party and surrogates to represent criticism of Hillary Clinton’s conduct as based on gender, which is personally insulting, in my case.Obama endorsed “Occupy Wall Street,” encouraging class division, a particularly dishonest act since the 1% was the most successful segment of society under his administration. He endorsed, and allowed his party to endorse, Black Lives Matter, even as the organization rejects the findings of the Justice Department in the Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin deaths. He has helped to turn black communities against police, resulting in murders, increased crime rates, and police deaths. In his rhetoric against guns, another nakedly political effort, Obama slurred gun owners and those who believe strongly in gun ownership rights as being complicity is the deaths of children, demonizing large segments of the nation, particularly in rural areas,

      That’s just a summary, and off the top of my head. Black against white, poor against middle class, middle class against wealthy, rural against urban, liberal against conservative, religious against gays, blacks against police, women against men, female students against male students. Obama allowed these divisions to be exacerbated, participated in their expansion, and benefited by then politically. Then denied, as always, accountability.

      • On the matter of racial division, this essay came up today. Worth reading.

        • Then there’s this news item:

          Rialto, California, held a regularly scheduled city council meeting last Tuesday after a city councilman apologized for planning an event to discuss the possibility of Rialto becoming a “sanctuary city.”

          Luis Nolasco, a community engagement and policy advocate for the ACLU of Southern California, stood up to speak at the city council meeting and attacked many of the white people present, saying they are not actual residents of Rialto.

          Nolasco said, “This is my town.”

          He said that the important part of the sanctuary city discussion is “who are the people we are talking about.”

          The ACLU official said that “the people in this room are not representative of Rialto. Sorry to break it, but growing up here white people were the minority.”

          “The reality is that black and Latinos are the majority of the city, and that is representative of the city, and that’s going to continue to be the case for future generations,” Nolasco, 26, added.

          The city of Rialto is 72.4 percent Latino, according to a 2015 Census estimate.

          “It’s kind of mean for me to say it but these people have probably like five years left,” Nolasco said while gesturing to the white attendees at the meeting. A video of the meeting shows that several of them were elderly.

    • joed68

      It would be much more difficult for Obama to dodge this obligation, in every conceivable way.

  7. Does anyone doubt my previous statements that here is an ongoing society wide ethical flush happening in the United States; politics and the general mindset of an extreme segment of the public seems to be all about propaganda, posturing, and the ends justifies the means.

    Again…

    There is genuine hate being intentionally ginned up for political purposes. Many in the public have completely succumbed to the hype and they’re literal pawns in a dangerous game of fabricating a faux Constitutional Crisis. This is a very dangerous game!

    There is lots of hyped up political posturing going on in DC right now by anti-Trump politicians and anti-Trump political figure-heads across the USA are ginning up the hate in their base, this is very concerning; but, right now I’m more concerned about the Trump Derangement Syndrome lunatics, like Rep. John Lewis, and what they are going to actually do on January 20th and thereafter. It’s the hyped up talk that turning into real physical actions that concerns me. There is genuinely violent potential brewing, the divisions are clear, the hate has been ginned up, the short fused lunatics have been stretched to the end of their leash, logic – ethics – and morals are all being tossed under the bus, Sicilian Ethics are at bay, and the boiling point is just around the corner.

    The stage has been set, the players are at places, the house lights have been dimmed, the audience is anxiously awaiting, the orchestra has begun the overture; what happens when the curtain rises on Friday?

    Watch out folks, I think we’re in for a rough ride.

    Pray for peace but prepare yourselves for the unexpected.

    • John Billingsley

      I am fearful that you are correct about what the future holds. Although not agreeing with many of Mr. Obama’s policies, I had initially been very hopeful of him using his position to further calm passions and improve racial harmony. I believe there have been multiple opportunities for him to provide true leadership for all Americans to further unite us as a nation but on almost all occasions he engaged in rhetoric that drove the wedge between us deeper and further inflamed passions.

      My hope is that the majority of people are not now so polarized that they are unable to find a way to work this out and remain united as a nation. Unfortunately, I see the leadership of the Democratic Party of today behaving like the Democratic party of 1860 did before and after that election. I pray that they will soon act responsibly and ethically and engage in the process of healing the nation and ensuring the future of Democracy. Otherwise, I pray for the future of my children and grandchildren.

    • dragin_dragon

      All of my weapons are clean and close-to-hand. Not much more I can do to prepare.

      • There is more to preparing for unrest than having clean weapons and ammo; which you will likely never use; think outside the ammo box. What if the electricity goes out for an “extended” period of time, what if there is a run on the grocery stores, what if there is a run on the banks, what if gas stations have no gas to sell you, what if… I had a discussion of preparing for things somewhere on here a while back.

        • joed68

          I like how you think. It’s a real rabbit-hole when your mind goes down that path, though. So many things would go wrong. Hell, most people would probably die of thirst in a few days, maybe weeks.

  8. I’ll be really interested to see if any of these boycotting Democrats will be joining in with the planned anti-Trump protest events.

  9. John Staszak

    Warren, the President’s role as leader of the Democratic Party is to lead it. Simply accepting the election results personally is not enough. He missed the opportunity to lead his followers; explaining to them the necessity of coming together and supporting American ideals during the transfer of power. And, further, explaining to them that their mission should be to continue to fight FOR their beliefs, not AGAINST the new president. He either did this intentionally or because he just doesn’t recognize why this is crucial. Either way, a large part of the blame for the hysteria surrounding the election belongs to President Obama.

    • Other Bill

      Ooops. Sorry John. You’ve already made my point more eloquently.

    • I disagree… I see the President’s job as an (often futile) effort to try to be a bi-partisan president for everyone. It may have only been a fig leaf, but past presidents (at least in my memory, which admittedly isn’t very long) at least made the effort to attempt to couch their language, if nothing else, with words of exclusivity.

      Obama bucked that trend, pointing out divisions between race, sex, class, political leaning, and sexual orientation, just off the top of my head. And I already hear the seals barking and clapping “It was good and necessary that he did it!”

      Sure. Fine. Whatever. You can believe that these were good and necessary discussions to be had, and I wouldn’t disagree with you, but that doesn’t make these discussions less divisive. I’d argue that even if you want to argue those discussions were good, you cannot argue they were not divisive. These are not mutually exclusive terms. Emancipation? Deeply divisive. Still the right thing to do. But for all of Obama’s vaunted oration skills, he handled all of these topics with the grace and poise of a bear cub in boxing gloves trying to scratch his left testicle. He wades in headfirst into topics deeper than his understanding in ways almost designed to be ineffective, so he can’t even be divisive in a productive way.

      Argue against that. I dare you. Argue that Obama’s rhetoric has been productive for the causes he’s championed. Please. Do it.

      And so now that Obama ran through a bush and ripped the fig leaf off on a branch, the bar is lowered. Hillary’s Basket of Deplorables rhetoric (I don’t care how she tried to pedal that back a day later, she said what she said and she meant it.) And damn near everything Trump said that wasn’t immediately wrote off by everyone as less than presidential… These are the logical conclusions of allowing the bar to lower, Bush was an inept speaker, but he never gave Zach Galafanakis time on Between Two Ferns.

      • Other Bill

        Simple example of what you’re talking about: Obama talked about angry people clinging to their guns and their religion. HRC spoke of a basket of deplorables. Trump said something like, I love the uneducated. Obama also famously said, I won. Looking back, sometimes I wonder how.

    • Mike

      Obama is the personification of that old French Revolution chestnut, “I MUST catch up to them. For you see, I am their leader!”

  10. Carcarwhite

    This actually is good. Let the childish, immature, behavior come out for all to see. People are not as stupid as those doing this think.

    To really heal sometimes things have to get worse and when the rug is lifted the crap stinks.

    Did you see mlk’s son’s comments to the press after his meeting with Trump? The press tried to bait him and his answers were brilliant. He sure learned it seemed from his dad. It’s on YouTube.

  11. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Speaking of division, check out the latest and greatest from a cartoonist you once dubbed an Ethics Hero:

    “Everything is always a political act. Now the stakes are even higher.

    If you’re a member of the armed forces or the police, you are morally required to resign and find another job.

    If you work in a political post within the federal government — the diplomatic corps, for example — or a post that has policy implications, like the NSA or CIA, a morally upright person has no choice but to quit in protest.

    If you have the opportunity to expose wrongdoing from within, you must act as a whistleblower.

    If you have the chance to resist Trump’s protofascist policies, you must do so. You must hide the undocumented immigrant on the run. You cannot submit a bid to construct the Wall. You must, if you work for an insurance company, try to avoid enforcing rules that deny healthcare.”

    Soooo, essentially the whole policymaking echelon of the Federal government is morally required to quit, or be declared not morally upright, and every cop, soldier, sailor, marine, airman and guardsman is morally required to turn in his credentials.

    This is more than Ethics Dunce, this is Ethics Moron.

    • Chris

      Where did you find that? It’s incoherent. How is anyone supposed to have the opportunity to expose wrongdoing from within as a whistleblower if they have a duty to resign? What morons.

    • Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeap shot! I’ve designated lots of habitual ethics violators Ethics Heroes. The designation is almost always based on one action or statement.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Actually I used that designation to avoid saying the jerk’s name, so you and I would both get who I meant. He DID get his EH based on one action, but I put that down to even a blind squirrel finding an acorn. However, I also think he’s worthy of being designated an Ethics Moron for that incoherent and ridiculous statement.

  12. Neil A. Dorr

    Jack,
    In the first paragraph, “promiments” is pluralized unnecessarily. In the second paragraph “fasing” should be “facing.”

    “… and particularly his race”

    Obama isn’t the king of black people, no matter how much Michael Eric Dyson says so.

    • John Staszak

      “Obama isn’t the king of black people, no matter how much Michael Eric Dyson says so.”

      I’m not sure what you’re implying by highlighting this. Obama is certainly a leader of the black community. This would be true by virtue of him being the first black president even if he hadn’t spent the last eight years positioning himself as such .

      What I really wanted to say, though, is that “promiments” should be “prominents” in your comment. Unless you were be ironic…which would be pretty clever, actually.

    • I’ll fix all that…not to worry.

      “Obama isn’t the king of black people, no matter how much Michael Eric Dyson says so.”

      No, but he’s a national leader who about 97% of that community favors no matter what he does. In practical terms, his influence is greater than many kings.

    • joed68

      Wasn’t The King of All Blacks one of Howard Stern’s troupe?

  13. Wayne

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” ~Sir Walter Scott

  14. “President Obama could have prevented this before it began, or ended it once his party began it.”

    I don’t think Obama could have prevented it or aborted it, or even been successful in inhibiting it (even if he wanted to – but of course he wants this stirring-up to be brewing – so he can have more subversive fun, and make tons more money while having it, “leading” more crises, starting Jan 20). Partyism (and anti-party-ism) is far too strong right now, and probably will stay that way indefinitely (and not unfortunately). So, on with the war…

    If I understand Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution correctly, the boycott action presents an opportunity for unprecedented use of censure power. But then, that would require every one of the Republicans in the House to have “grown a pair.” It probably should be expected that any legislative proposal, any budget proposal, that Trump backs is not going to receive a single vote of approval from any of the boycotters. Republicans ought to mount strong campaigns, starting today, to unseat as many boycotters as possible.

    I’m going to do my best to avoid traveling through any of the boycotters’ districts, and buying any goods or services provided by businesses in, or residents of, those districts – at least, businesses in, and residents of, those districts who support the boycotters’ holding of office on behalf of their districts. That should be easy, actually, in most cases; for the most part, those districts are “not my country,” and most of their residents are not my countrymen, just as the Trump inauguration-boycotting House members are not my representatives. But, I might switch my voter registration to one of the nearby boycotters’ districts, and help with the campaign against her re-election. “Immigrate…infiltrate…then muddle, subvert, and subjugate.”

    So the populace is in, or nearing, the “Achtung Juden!” phase. Good. The lines of Clemenza in the movie, “The Godfather,” in the scene where he is coaching Michael on how to do a hit job, are more spot-on than ever. There’s a lot of bad blood, and a war like this needs to happen from time to time. Thomas Jefferson is famously quoted for similar thought. On with the war! Ethics, it seems, is always and forever a troublesome luxury.

    • Wayne

      It is awfully difficult for Congress to censure members of the House or Senate, the last one being Charles Rangel in 2010. A reprimand is probably the best that could be hoped for unless a congressmen bangs a page and gets caught.

  15. fattymoon

    Watching Fox News this morning while waiting for my car’s water pump to be replaced. Four ladies (3 blondes and a black lady with, um, black hair) and some Congressman, I forget who, were all over Obama’s butt regarding his pardon of Chelsea Manning. Fox also showed some clips of others, some Dems and some Repubicans, calling it a disgrace. Anger everywhere. So… I’m wondering if and how this will factor into all the hate going round.

    For the record, I’m fully in favor of the pardon.

    • Other Bill

      Why are you in favor of the commutation, fm? It strikes me as nothing more than pandering to the trans sexual and related communities and the pro-wiki leaks crowd (you know, all the Democrats who are in favor of leaks until they involve HRC and the DNC) and a parting slap in the face to the military. But I assume Jack will post on this.

      • fattymoon

        You’re correct, Zoltar. Commutation.

        Responding to Other Bill, and presumably you, Zoltar, I’ll refer you to Glenn Greenwald who, as you know, has long championed Manning. https://youtu.be/LowRS7ncyt8

        Other Bill, your response is lacking in that, although I do not particularly endorse transsexualism, I am not opposed to people of consenting age having a sex change operation. It’s just not my business. Same goes for the whole LGBTQIAPK shmear. I neither endorse or oppose.

        In short, Manning is a hero. If you haven’t watched Collateral Murder, I suggest you do so. Then get back to me.

        • fattymoon said, “Manning is a hero”

          Manning is not a hero in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of the President of the United States, and not in my eyes. He released Top Secret documents related to ongoing war efforts and endangered lives, it;s quite likely that someone in the military or CIA or such dies as a result of his actions. By definition Manning is an admitted traitor and there is no one that will convince me otherwise.

          • fattymoon

            I won’t try to convince you, Zoltar. I will, however, refute your allegation that his leaking documents endangered lives.

            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-sentencing-hearing-pentagon

            On Fox News this morning they were saying shit like he’s partly responsible for the Arab Spring and even (unknowingly) helped create ISIS. Ree dick a lis.

            • fattymoon

              Just one more link, Zoltar. (There are more.)

              Just How Damaging Were Manning’s WikiLeaks? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/just-how-damaging-were-mannings-wikileaks/

            • Just to be really clear; in the article you linked to it states that “no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases”, I agree with that very specific statement. Endangering lives of those in the military in that region and CIA in general and the possibility of military or CIA lives lost as a result, whether direct or indirect, of Manning’s actions is NOT limited to the individuals that were directly named in the documents.

              Now knowing that, reread my statement from above, “He released Top Secret documents related to ongoing war efforts and endangered lives, it’s quite likely that someone in the military or CIA or such died as a result of his actions.” Doesn’t have to be direct result, indirectly causing death as a result of releasing Top Secret documents related to ongoing war efforts, the indirect results are not known but there are most certainly indirect results.

              • fattymoon

                “Doesn’t have to be direct result, indirectly causing death as a result of releasing Top Secret documents related to ongoing war efforts, the indirect results are not known but there are most certainly indirect results.”
                That is speculation. “Most certainly” is an opinion, yes? So… you can’t offer proof… hey Jack, is there some sort of argument fallacy Zoltar has going here? Or is it me? I trust you… chess… football… hahahahaha!

                • fattymoon said, “That is speculation”

                  I’ll grant you that this part is speculation “there are most certainly indirect results”; however, you need to consider that those indirect results could be as simple as using the information released as recruiting tools for insurgents filling their ranks with more fighters or suicide bombers to escalate their war effort to kill more people including US and other Collation Military members in the region. It’s also speculation to assume that there are absolutely no indirect results of the treason. There are good reasons that treason during war time is such a serious offense; treasonous activity shouldn’t be made more “ok” by commuting the sentence of someone convicted of treasonous activities.

                  fattymoon said, “Jack, is there some sort of argument fallacy Zoltar has going here?”

                  Yes, I’d like to know if I’m arguing unethically too.

                  I stand behind what I said, “He released Top Secret documents related to ongoing war efforts and endangered lives, it’s quite likely that someone in the military or CIA or such died as a result of his actions.”, “Doesn’t have to be direct result, indirectly causing death as a result of releasing Top Secret documents related to ongoing war efforts, the indirect results are not known but there are most certainly indirect results.” The rules for Top Secret are not a game to be toyed especially during with during wartime; treason is treason.

                  fattymoon,
                  We may be having a difference of opinion regarding this because of background differences; I am X Army Infantry and have close ties with Soldiers and Marines who have been in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. I have lost Army buddies from past units and nearly lost a very close Marine family member in Afghanistan in 2014.

                  Just to help my perspective on your opinion, were you ever in the military and if so, what branch? This kind of perspective difference in a discussion of this type is relevant but feel free to ignore that question if you like, I won’t hold it against you in any way.

                  • fattymoon

                    Enlisted Oct. 1965. Basic training Ft. Jackson, S.C., Medic training Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX. Psychiatric training Walter Reed Army Hospital, Washington, D.C.. MOS psychiatric technician. Final duty station Valley Forge Army Hospital, Phoenixville, PA. Honorable discharge Sept. 1968, the year I started college.

                    For some reason I was never sent overseas. Thought I would cause a medic is a medic is a medic and it was the Vietnam War.

                    Worked orthopedic ward prior to assignment working psychiatric ward. I’ve seen everything war has to offer (stateside). Everything.

                    Zoltar, here’s a tidbit, please read… One Black Soldier (the day the Vietnam War came home to me) https://medium.com/@FarkleUp/one-black-soldier-the-day-the-vietnam-war-came-home-to-me-26460c4be9b9#.3mdbdm2o6

                    I have nothing but respect for our military men and women. But I decry our government putting them in harms way for nefarious reasons.

                    • fattymoon,
                      Thank you for your service.

                    • joed68

                      You got out a month before I was born, presumably to help prepare the world for my arrival?

                    • fattymoon said, “please read… One Black Soldier (the day the Vietnam War came home to me)”

                      Thank you for sharing that.

                    • fattymoon said, “But I decry our government putting them in harms way for nefarious reasons.”

                      Knowing what “nefarious” means, I’d have to agree with you on that point.

                      I’m curious, is that related in any way to your opinion that Manning’s actions are worthy of a pardon?

                    • Chris

                      Defending Manning’s actions is not necessary to justify the commutation (not pardon). She was given the longest prison sentence of any whistleblower in American history at 35 years, and has served much of her seven years in solitary confinement; her treatment has prompted numerous suicide attempts. She was also clearly manipulated into leaking the documents in a plan that could easily be argued to have amounted to entrapment. I think the commutation was absolutely the right and necessary thing to do.

                    • You can’t call her a whistleblower. She illegally gave classified material to a foreign entity with malign intent. I have no position on the commutation—personally, I think it was a transgender bloc pander—but please don’t fog her crimes. Whistle-blower go to authorities, the media, you know, within the system. What she did is properly called treason.

        • Other Bill

          Sorry, fm, Glenn Greenwald and I don’t inhabit the same universe. I’m clearly his intellectual inferior and hence, not as cock-sure as he is about everything and anything.

          • fattymoon

            Why not take time to learn a bit about the man? BTW, I’ve been following him before Snowden, before Manning. I find him to be a passionate journalist who refuses to peddle blatant untruths. Yep, he’s another one of my heroes, as is Snowden.

            After you read the wiki article, why not hop over to The Intercept and chck out the reporting by him and others.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

          • fattymoon

            You’re welcome, Zoltar. And as for you, joed68, glad I could be your midwife.

          • fattymoon

            Yes, I apply the word nefarious to our invasion of Iraq which, it is generally conceded, was based on a lie, that being that Iraq was seeking weapons of mass destruction. Why didn’t we go after Saudi Arabia where, it’s also conceded, most the the 9-11 attackers were from (and possibly financed by Saudi money)?

            So, in my view, Manning did our country a great service by bringing to light the ugly underbelly of the war. Just my opinion.

            • fattymoon said, “Yes, I apply the word nefarious to our invasion of Iraq which, it is generally conceded, was based on a lie, that being that Iraq was seeking weapons of mass destruction.”

              Two quick questions;
              1. Who fabricated that lie?

              2. Was Iraq in compliance with all the provisions set forth in formal ceasefire UN Resolution 687 from April 1991 and the subsequent final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations resolution 1441 from November 2002?

              fattymoon said, “Why didn’t we go after Saudi Arabia where, it’s also conceded, most the the 9-11 attackers were from (and possibly financed by Saudi money)?”

              You’re asking a question that I can’t possibly answer because I was not part of the decision making process; however, I will say that all things seemed to point to the fact that the terrorists that instigated 9/11 were in Afghanistan and being harbored by the government of Afghanistan not in Saudi Arabia.

              fattymoon said, “So, in my view, Manning did our country a great service by bringing to light the ugly underbelly of the war. Just my impinion.”

              Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember that anything Manning released was about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion or about the 9/11 attacks, so I’m a little confused why it seems you are trying to connect the three things, the 9/11 attacks, the intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion and Manning’s treason. Now if my knowledge on this needs to be corrected, someone please help with that.

              • fattymoon

                Question #1… I plead ignorance so I refer you to Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

                #2… I don’t even understand the question. Seriously, I haven’t the foggiest.

                You said, “I will say that all things seemed to point to the fact that the terrorists that instigated 9/11 were in Afghanistan and being harbored by the government of Afghanistan not in Saudi Arabia.”

                According to the the 9/11 Memorial Museum, “Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt.” Reference https://www.911memorial.org/faq-about-911

                You said, ” I don’t remember that anything Manning released was about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion or about the 9/11 attacks, so I’m a little confused why it seems you are trying to connect the three things, the 9/11 attacks, the intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion and Manning’s treason.”

                If I implied that Manning released documents concerning the lead in to war, I apologize. What I’m saying is that Manning volunteered his service during a time of war, was revolted by what he learned in Iraq and some other middle east nations, and decided to leak to WikiLeaks.

                What Bradley Manning Revealed http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/21/what-bradley-manning-revealed/

                • fattymoon said, “Question #1… I plead ignorance…”

                  Saddam Hussein and his minions fabricated and intentionally spread the lie so his enemies would think twice about attacking Iraq.

                  fattymoon said, “#2… I don’t even understand the question. Seriously, I haven’t the foggiest.”

                  The question was clear. Iraq’s continuing violations of UN Resolution 687 is why Bush went to the United Nations Security Council. The correct answer to the question was “No” and that is the basis for the Iraq invasion. Violate the ceasefire agreements and the ceasefire is over.

                  fattymoon said, “According to the the 9/11 Memorial Museum, “Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt.” Reference…”

                  Maybe you should reread this a couple of times, your response to it indicates that you might not have understood what I wrote. You asked why we didn’t go after Saudi Arabia and my answer in part was “I will say that all things seemed to point to the fact that the terrorists that instigated 9/11 were in Afghanistan and being harbored by the government of Afghanistan not in Saudi Arabia.”

                  fattymoon said, “What I’m saying is that Manning volunteered his service during a time of war, was revolted by what he learned in Iraq and some other middle east nations, and decided to leak to WikiLeaks.”

                  It’s not relevant that he volunteered for service during wartime or that he was revolted by what he learned, what he did was treason.

                  For your information: the Counterpunch article you linked to had the ends justify the means rationalization plastered all over it. Something that you should already know from your military experience is that if something is identified as classified and you choose to release it during wartime it’s treason; it’s irrelevant why it is identified as classified, the fact that it is classified is what’s relevant – there is no grey line.

                  I’m bowing out of this conversation, I’ve said what I needed to say. Feel free to have the last word.

          • fattymoon

            Thanks, Chris. Those are facts I didn’t raise in my defense of Manning’s commutation. And yes, the name Adrian Lamo still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/17/all-the-people-who-betrayed-chelsea-manning.html

    • Obama did not pardon Manning he commuted his sentence.

      I completely disagree with this decision for Obama.

      • Other Bill

        Z, you are right but I suspect people in favor of this (and doubtless the White House itself) will try to make much of the fact it was a commutation and not a pardon. Pardon, commutation. No difference, as far as I’m concerned.

  16. fattymoon

    Looks like I was incorrect about Manning not related to the Arab Spring. Looky! https://medium.com/@ifikra/chelsea-manning-and-the-arab-spring-1907fec77df1#.mnmhq89sy

    But ISIS? What are those people smoking and can I have some?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s