- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Jim White, William Timberman, Nuf Said - thanks for the kind words. I lurk here alot but don't often comment, glad to know you found what I said valuable.
Holly M - Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the military had a lock on professional ethics. I'm not even sure it's more 'common', esp on a per capita basis, to see ethical behavior in the military. The counter-examples abound. Since hanging up my uniform, I've met quite a few people who exemplify the kind of thing you say we shoudl have more of ... mental health providers, engineers, public servants. I've learned a lot from them. That said, I've yet to run across anything comparable in terms of the culture and accountability ... your fitness reports reflecting your ethical decision making, your peers holding you to harsh judgment for ethical missteps. My experience has been more along the lines of trying to convince 'professionals' why it's a bad idea to lie to their managers, their clients, government regulators, etc, just because they could avoid penalties or make a lot of money doing it ... or, why it's a bad idea for a humanitarian NGO to steal grant money intended for Afghans and use it to buy their swank new London HQ ... and had them look at me like I had three heads, and of course turn against me because my 'attitude' presented a threat to their scams.
Cocktailhag -- thanks for the correction. It all comes back to me now. Vaguely disturbing that I would substitute the face of Ollie for that of Fawn Hall, no?
Aycharaych - either you misunderstood my inclusion of your view, or you're trying to pick a fight. I wasn't slipping in a back door argument, I was simply saying that if you believe as you do that they are all suck-ups, then you aren't going to see it as any particular loss that they were sold down the road. Your post was tangential to my point, but relevant in the way I suggested.
My point was that they have a lot to answer for ... I think they have more to answer for because they *aren't* suck-ups (I'm not going to try to convince you that David Grange, who lost his second star for *not* being a suck up ... in an instance where he also exercised very poor judgment, is not a suck up, or that Wayne Downing has never kissed an ass in his life, whatever else his faults may be ... how could I? you don't know anything about these people and your mind is made up). The fact that they were lied to and thrown over by an administration that is all too ready to do this even to their poster children is disgusting, but it doesn't take the burden off of them. They know better. (in your formulation, they allowed themselves to be lied to) They were taught and spent their whole careers in an environment where they knew better. And they know that ... if they didn't, they wouldn't risk going on record in the NYT saying so.
About Powell, sure, he lied, he *is* a liar, as you put it, because he stood up at the UN and lied. I have other issues with Powell that don't have anything to do with this thread. I wasn't defending him, I just wrote the sentence in a way that was grammatically correct.
If all that is moot and you really were just looking to pick a fight, then sorry, I'm not interested.
