Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Moral Clarity

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 09:57 AM
Original message
Moral Clarity
Some freeper said that "moral clarity is at the heart of the war on Jihadistan" and I lit into him with the following.


What "moral clarity"?

There were so many lies and half-truths from the administration to get into Iraq that clarity is the last thing this war is about.

I guess it's "moral clarity" that prompted the current Justice Department investigation due to the treasonous and vengeful outing of intelligence operatives who disagreed with trumped up intelligence charges by the administration.

Or is the clarity you speak related to the lies about Saddam's attempts to obtain nuclear weapons? Cheney and Bush said there was proof Saddam had actually reconstituted nuclear weapons when there was no such proof.

Last October, Bush lied again--moral clarity again? He said, "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work." Inspectors verified that the missiles could only travel less than 200 miles --- not far enough to hit any of the targets or kill the number of people Bush claimed.

And let's not forget the moral clarity that has led all in the Bush administration to confuse the public to the tune of 70% believing that Saddam did 9/11. Bush, Powell, Cheney and Rice as well as Rumsfeld have continuously mislead the public into the thinking Saddam was connected to 9/11. The administration continues to try to make that misleading allegation ction at every opportunity. Condoliar Rice did it again masterfully on Meet the Press yesterday--repeatedly mentioning the Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence despite seeming attempts by Bush to clarify the confusion.

Maybe It was "moral clarity" that drove Rumsfeld to tie Saddam to 9/11. CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL .... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Surely it was "moral clarity" that led Bush to utter the following lie: "Our intelligence sources tell us that has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Bush said this with the knowledge that the IAEA's assessment that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

Are you referring to the "moral clarity" that led BushCo to claim an IAEA report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons? That claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed.

Perhaps you are thinking of the "moral clarity" that led Bush to claim that on any given day Saddam could provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists on October 7. Yet, declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released by the White House shows that U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely.

Of course we also heard from Bush that Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes. The truth is murdered scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the source of this report. British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source, considered the charge unreliable.

I know it was "moral clarity" that led BushCo to appoint Cheney's former energy-sector employer, Halliburton to rebuild. Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root received $7 billion to tend to oil field fires and (the real purpose) to do any retooling necessary to get the oil pumping at a decent rate, a deal that allows them a cool $500 million in profit. The fact that Dick Cheney's office is still fighting tooth and nail to block any disclosure of the individuals and companies with whom his energy task force consulted to make these appointments tells everything you need to know about moral clarity. Not to mention the fact that Cheney denied financial ties with Halliburton despite currently received deferred pay from the company.

So there you have it. BushCo is the antithesis of moral clarity. I hope that's the point you were trying to make because that's the only logical conclusion one can draw based on their actions.

We have no business trying to establish moral clarity elsewhere when it's sorely lacking in our own government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SnohoDem Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wow!
I liked that one so much I saved it to my HD. Awesome post, linazelle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. Gulp
Have they deleted the post and banned you yet?

Very nicely done, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. why would it be deleted and banned?
where are you going with this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. Good post
Just like "compassion conservative" I bet "moral clarity" is one of those adjective-noun combinations brainstormed up by an avertising firm working for the GOP. It "sounds good" but is just meaningless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. Right on!
Thank you so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pbeal Donating Member (506 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. its a winger buzz-word it doesnt mean what they think it means
When a winger says he has moral clarity it actually means that he will refuse to even consider evidence that contradicts his world view and never admit he is wrong, They use it to keep a black and white, us vs them world view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. great list... add this to it
Is it "moral clarity" to compromise an intelligence unit geared to stopping WMDs from falling into terrorists hands, in order to try to make the president look better (by discreding Wilson)? Wasn't the threat of WMDs falling into terrorist hands via Iraq one of the BIG reasons were given as to why we had the "moral imperative" to go to Iraq. How is it then "moral" to put the nation at risk of WMDs in the hands of terrorits, by leaks to the press, and then have NO investigation for two months into a) WHO compromised national security, and/or b) What was the long-term damage inflicted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. Superb!
Should be a letter to your local paper!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. I just might send it to the local newspaper
Thanks for the compliments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC