A Correction and Apology (by Jim Wallis)
In my post on Monday, A War Pitched with a 'Curve Ball,' I ended by saying, "And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison -- after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."
Several readers have correctly pointed out that the heart of the gospel is forgiveness, and judgment is ultimately up to God. You are right, and I apologize. What I meant to say was in the legal context of "If they are found guilty," deliberately lying about going to war should not be pardoned. Remember Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon before he had even been tried for anything, or George H.W. Bush pardoning the leading Iran-contra figures? I do indeed believe in God's grace and forgiveness for anyone who repents. But the crime of lying about going to war should not be politically pardoned.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thank you for correcting that Jim, that last line of your blog made me uncomfortable. I was in total agreement with the rest of it, and I thought I knew where you were going with that last line, but it did come across as saying G. Bush should be condemned to hell. I'm with you now.
Posted by: Will H. | November 9, 2007 12:10 PM
Someone said recently, "when you mix politics and religion, you get politics." I saw that happen in you with that last post, Jim, and you really dropped in my estimation at the time. This apology helps, but please be careful to keep the faith and don't let the nastiness and narrow mindedness of politics pollute your heart. That happened to Pat Robertson and so many like him, don't let it happen to you, brother!!
Posted by: calvin | November 9, 2007 1:23 PM
I agree with you Jim. Thanks for standing up for Christian accountability, not cheap grace.
Posted by: Alexander | November 9, 2007 1:27 PM
I knew what Jim meant, and I'm sorry I didn't defend him on that. Drew correctly spelled out what was meant to be said, however unfortunate it was put.
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 9, 2007 3:01 PM
I don't believe that religion and politics can't mix. Jesus' cleansing of the Temple was a highly political event, denouncing the money changers who exploited the poor. Religion is salvific and political ... the notion that the two must be separate plays right into the hands of those who are exploiting the poor. If there's no exploitation, then religion won't be political.
Now, I do believe that religion should take pains to stay away from partisanship. I think that Jim Wallis generally succeeds. I don't see anything particularly wrong with his statement that Bush et al should be tried. We absolutely should forgive them ... after they have been fairly tried for their crimes. the final judgment is indeed up to God, but are we to let criminals run wild on earth? I think that would be very poor stewardship. Allowing war criminals to go unprosecuted is no different, and perhaps worse, than allowing murderers to go unprosecuted.
Posted by: Weiwen | November 9, 2007 3:10 PM
Statement: Someone said recently, "when you mix politics and religion, you get politics." I saw that happen in you with that last post, Jim, and you really dropped in my estimation at the time. This apology helps, but please be careful to keep the faith and don't let the nastiness and narrow mindedness of politics pollute your heart. That happened to Pat Robertson and so many like him, don't let it happen to you, brother!!
Answer: There appears need of correction (of) correction. First off, there is serious lack and need within church leadership to 'rather expose' evil that today is being done, and less some forget, God also hated both a person and a people. Today the church appears full of leaders that appease evil, rather than confront and "expose it" as commanded.
As far as Gods good justice, here we are talking of individuals that are documented to have deliberately lied, getting thousands of innocent people killed (more accurately murdered), we are told to send these murderer's directly up to God.
Now imprisonment (deserved) may seem unloving to some (enablers), but it falls far short of the condemnation that is suppose to occure, and that requires the taking of life to accomplish.
I might also point out to some saints slightly ruffled, does it make any difference that it is documented our gov has overthrown a number of Democracies (third world), installing in place regimes, so that the rape of third world resources might continue to be your "Blessings of god"? Before demonizing the denouncing of evil by others, look into the evil you condone through lack of discernment, remembering also the command to be as wise in these matters as the serpent.
The new spiritual man will make judgments in all things, but be subject to no mans judgment. My suggestion to any presently living off our present 80% importation from slaves of the third world, that find "exposing evil" as lack of love, that they go back to hyperventilating singing into whatever spirit that makes you feel good, and leave those not sitting on the fence alone.
It is likely such may be counted upon to vote for a lesser of two evils as a patriotic duty. The statement "you get politics" certainly missed the point that Wallis in statement was apolitical, meaning he is not an enabler that finds righteous anger as unloving.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 9, 2007 3:21 PM
Thanks Jim for clarifying. The original text left me seriously uncomfortable; you've cleared that up.
mark
Posted by: mark | November 9, 2007 3:22 PM
Absolutely, many members of the Bush Administration should be criminally prosecuted for literally lying us into a perpetual war. The evidence is in and the debate should be over on that one. I have come to believe these men are evil in every sense of the word. God has nothing to do with this kind of foreign policy, if you can even call it policy. It often seems more like a kind of chaotic sadism combined with extreme ethnocentrism. If fascism is a continuum from 1-10, with Nazi Germany beign a 10, I'd say we've become at least a 7 or so. Most of the world hates us now, not for our freedoms, but for our occupations, our moral relativism/hypocricy with regard to the use of torture, and our leader's arrogance.
Posted by: Brad Burklow, Harrisburg, IL | November 9, 2007 3:24 PM
And oh when I see Bush I'm reminded of a great line from Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, replying to Marlin Brando's homicidal maniac character, "so you disapprove of my methods" with "I can't see any method at all sir" or something or other.
Posted by: Brad Burklow | November 9, 2007 3:31 PM
Jim
Both of these complainers remind me of an old preacher that made significant impression on me, saying "some people are so heavenly minded, they are no earthly good."
I can appreciate trying not to hurt the perpetually immature Christian, that seems a way of life for most, but these are times when forceful men are needed as leaders in the (true) church.
I have seen your disgust for the unGodly standard of those in the DEM-leadership, that encourage way that destroy not only the individual, but family and nation. That you will speak out against error and evil within or being done by either political party, shows me you are obedient to God and not man, by man meaning secular loolishness.
Indeed be careful, do not however give indication of capitulation to carnal Christians that view this world yet with the worlds wisdom and knowledge. I believe the true church will deceive the deceiver, and the man of God will continue in obedience to God.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 9, 2007 3:46 PM
More partisanship from Jim. While I appreciate the apology/clarification, and have no problem with his opinion regarding Bush and his administration, Jim shows his true colors again when referencing controversial/questionable pardons.
Really Jim? No suspect pardons from the Clinton administration come to mind? Not 1 of 147 pardoned? Don't wanna lose your seat at the Dems table?
Posted by: Blake | November 9, 2007 5:22 PM
Jim-you goofed, you corrected the goof, you apologized; if only the Bush administration could follow your example!
Posted by: Tom McGurk | November 9, 2007 5:34 PM
No suspect pardons from the Clinton administration come to mind? Not 1 of 147 pardoned? Don't wanna lose your seat at the Dems table?
Two things: 1) Clinton has the right to pardon anyone he wants for whatever reason; and 2) Most of the complaints about his pardons, given the context, were politically motivated. You best believe that had he not done so the conservatives would have gone after, say, Mark Rich like no one's business -- part of their technique to eliminate their opponents was to take away their money, in this case with endless lawsuits.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 9, 2007 5:40 PM
dewayne; show me where the administration lied based upon the information they had. please include all the agreeing senators and representatives in your accusation of lying. what democracies has the u s overthrown? and..you said "my suggestion to any presently living off our present 80% importation from slaves of the third world..." what does this mean, exactly. wayne - please breathe deeply and get on a fence.
jim; please include all the pardons that clinton passed out. i need an apology for your not including them in your apology. why not just stay out of your partisan politics and work on good things.
Posted by: jerry | November 9, 2007 5:58 PM
Way to go Jim ............I think we all KNEW what you meant 'deep in your heart/soul' ... everyone makes a mistake now and then ......and you are correct .....they do and we do 'deserve justice' in our legal system, HE will make HIS own decision when the time comes for 'judgement!'
Posted by: Rick B | November 9, 2007 6:04 PM
Jim,
There's no need to apologize for this. I think just about everyone knew what you meant, and at at rate it's not in your power to condemn George W. Bush to hell anyway.
What I do think you should confess is your tendency to assign the worst possible motives to your opponents.
Intelligence is a difficult field, tough to gather, tough to interpret. "Curveball" himself was mishandled by the Germans, that much 60 Minutes concedes even as they try to prove that Bush should have questioned the intel he gave.
I think there is a case to be made that the War in Iraq was a tragic error. But Bush was not alone in believing that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The case that Bush intentionally lied about them is largely based on a mistaken belief that American intelligence is almost god-like in its omniscience and infallibility.
I would urge you to drop this smear. I think you would find that your movement would gain credibility if you did.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2007 8:37 PM
Thanks for admitting your mistake.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 9, 2007 10:30 PM
I agree that the wrong tone was used in that final paragraph - but I completely get what you meant.
As Alexander so aptly said up above "accountability rather than cheap grace".
Or as Jude warned:
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand umarked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Wow....I'm all for grace! I understand that we are all human and struggle each day against the world, the flesh, and the devil. How can any of us not understand that? I face the same battle each day. And sometimes, we win. And other times, each of we lose.
But that doesn't mean that people should escape the appropriate earthly punishment when they have done great harm to many people. That isn't grace - that is excuse-making and enabling!
But the reaction you received is far from an isolated instance within American Christianity. I have personally experienced the same thing. Heaven help the honest Christian whistleblower.
Many are the spineless cowards willing to look the other way when it comes to those with great power. Know what? They are singing for their supper. They are the same kind of glib, false prophets that the real prophet Micaiah faced in the Old Testament. "Go ahead! God will grant the victory! God is very pleased."
And did you ever notice that these "Get Out of Jail Free" cards are only offered to those with great power? The rest of us peons can't seem to afford or deserve them.
Yes, I pray that God grants Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld repentance - and they wind up standing before God forgiven and clothed in the righteousness of Christ. They deserve God's forgivness no less than I.
But the things they have done are not honest mistakes. The were planned and calculated. Pre-meditated. And affected thousands of people.
And just shrugging off such harm done makes a joke and a mockery of God's grace.
I'm glad the clarification and apology was offered. It is easy on the Internet to not realize how one's tone might come across. And it is very, very easy to get so intent on one train of thought - that you forget to step back and look at what you've written from a completely different angle. I've done that many times, so I know how that sort of thing happens.
But I am thankful for the thought of that article once it was corrected.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | November 10, 2007 2:27 AM
Jim, thanks for the clarification/correction/apology. I agree with you: I have a natural tendency to trust people, especially the President of the United States and his administration. But the whole Iraq War smacked of dishonesty and deceit from the beginning, and as the pieces of the puzzle get put together, the scarier the picture gets. I'm appreciative to hear an evangelical leader to muster up the courage and just say it: Cheney is lying to us, and the administration has been lying to us, and the President himself is letting it happen, actually condoning it. Thanks for the prophetic word. And thanks for the gracious response to your readers.
Posted by: clint | November 10, 2007 9:56 AM
Those who don't think intelligence was cherry-picked and when that wasn't enough, tailored and manufactured, either are willfully ignoring evidence to try to shore up their own assertions or are deriving their own opinions from others who are.
All too often, belief systems look for evidence to support themselves instead of the facts creating the belief system.
Lying to the voters in a republic is politically unforgivable if not repented of. It breaks the accountability of the authorities to the governed, creating the definition of a tyrant, one accountable only to himself.
The founders of this republic tried to restrain the war-making powers of presidents because they considered it likely to be the most dangerous and most likely abuse of power that would undermine the republican nature of the government they hoped we would keep.
Therefore when the lies of rulers, regardless of how justified because of present danger, the ignorance of the voters, the access to special knowledge by the governing, are used to manufacture public opinion to support a war that the rulers believe absolutely necessary, it is an unforgivable political sin, as well as a moral sin - unless redressed - because it undermines the very basis for the country.
At the very least, it is unforgivable up until the time that it is admitted and repented of.
God's willingness to forgive extends beyond human limit and ours ought to extend seventy times seven. But just like salvation, already extended to all, it's of no effect unless it's accepted.
The spirit of tyranny is one of pride. It's no accident that this spirit is so inimical to admitting wrong and giving apology and therefore remains in a state of being unforgiven.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 11:39 AM
What I do think you should confess is your tendency to assign the worst possible motives to your opponents
Posted by: Wolverine
Yes this shows a deity complex and he his anger shows through , he is becoming what he thinks he is fighting .
Politics is a harsh game , mixing it with religion is toxic, especially if you use for all the issues . When you start condemning motives for less regulation or government control on a Bibical perspective you are down a dangerous path .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 10, 2007 1:10 PM
"Lying to the voters in a republic is politically unforgiveable if not repented of. . . ."
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky."
Unforgiveable? It depends on who one is, and who one is forgiving, I imagine.
Posted by: joeck | November 10, 2007 1:25 PM
Pointing the finger at another wrongdoer doesn't make either one's behavior justified.
It's so immature - excusing bad behavior by pointing at other's examples of it.
Is evil made any less simply because you can bicker about someone else also having done evil previously?
If it's all relative, that is, it's only wrong when someone else does it, then the arbiter of right and wrong is simply the person who happens to wield power. Might makes right. Right is determined by my affinity with self-interest, wrong only with someone else's - for as long as I can stay in power over others, I become God and whatever I do is by definition right - or at least, by the Divine Right of Kings.
It's like the speeder who's caught using as a justification, "Everybody does it" or "That guy was going even faster than me."
I once heard the justification, (from executives, no less!) "It's wrong when they do it, because they are bad. It's not wrong when we do it because we are good."
But I guess this is par for the course - nothing is wrong for us, because when we do them, we have the correct God. Our enemies have the wrong God and therefore whatever they do is wrong.
We certainly have missed the point - the standard of Jesus, towards one another - all of humanity - the enemy.
There is one standard judging all of us, and like the sun and rain, it falls upon all.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 2:27 PM
" When you start condemning motives for less regulation or government control on a Bibical perspective you are down a dangerous path ."
It's difficult to impute to the current executive sincere motives
for less regulation and government control, based on the incredible growth of government expenditure and control into every area of life.
It might be true that they have favored this in connection to the actions of their own financial and ruling elites but it's not true for the public in general. For the public, the government is bigger and more intrusive than ever and has broken out of any constitutional constraints.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 3:00 PM
"Lying to the voters in a republic is politically unforgivable if not repented of. It breaks the accountability of the authorities to the governed, creating the definition of a tyrant, one accountable only to himself."
Then Bill Clinton lied about WMD's in Iraq, as did John Kerry, and every intelligence service in Europe. Yet George Bush is the bad guy.
Bush was able to find out what no one else knew for sure, yet launched a war knowing that his deception was going to be exposed. Please provide your evidence of this that I am supposedly willfully ignoring.
Posted by: Brent | November 10, 2007 7:44 PM
Just because a lie is propagated to others who in all sincerity believe and repeat it doesn't in any way deflect responsibility from the persons who knowingly authored the lie to begin with.
In fact, the latter are just victims too.
It seems many are not interested in getting to the truth or acknowledging it, but instead are propagandistically promoting or protecting their pet agenda using "whatever it takes."
Truth isn't important to such; what's important is legitimizing power with simulacra of truth sufficient to create an aura of manufactured authority.
This is the Big Lie technique, repeating disinformation over and over again to catapult the propaganda. Often it uses the amplified one-way megaphones in the media repeating the same talking points endlessly, with no real engagement in dialog possible.
Like other techniques used by enemies past and present, they have been reverse-engineered and enhanced
for use by our own power structure, by experts, without discriminating between national opponents or domestic critics.
When it's uncovered, endless flurries of lawyerly obfuscations in support of a guilty client don't change one whit what the client did to need representation.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 11, 2007 12:46 AM
Now, extend the Biblical truth (you are using) and preaching on "repentance" and "forgiveness" for those that engage in same-gender sex acts. And, to those that hold to abortion.
"Go, and sin no more."
Psalm 51.
Etc., etc., etc..
Posted by: Donny | November 11, 2007 7:18 AM
When you start condemning motives for less regulation or government control on a Bibical perspective you are down a dangerous path.
If the end result is social evil -- which is often the case -- there's good reason to condemn such motives. "Less government" was the reason white Southerners opposed the civil-rights movement, and the "Contract On" -- er, "With" -- "America" removing restrictions on banking that came from systemic abuse right before (and that indirectly caused) the Great Depression was connected to pure greed.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 11, 2007 2:45 PM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
"Less government" was the reason white Southerners opposed the civil-rights movement...
Actually, the main reason that white southerners opposed the civil rights movement was an irrational fear of black southerners.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 11, 2007 2:51 PM
Wolverine -- That's only partially true. Many times white Southerners said things like, "Things were fine until those 'Northern interlopers' showed up." But in fact, most of the progress made by blacks in the South was due to Federal intervention, and they hated that. It was a major factor down the road in Ronald Reagan being elected.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 11, 2007 9:04 PM
Wasn't Nixon pardoned so that the new president's time wouldn't be stolen by an issue that would hinder his governing? In that case, unmerited favor was given for the benefit of the many.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2007 10:04 AM
Thanks for admitting when you've made a mistake - that's a lesson in humility for our current administration! Peace be with you!
Posted by: shannon | November 12, 2007 5:00 PM
Before his execution Saddam Hussein atated he deceived and lied about the WMD's to the world, with his priamary motive to deter IRAN from invading IRAQ, he further stated he never thought the US or any other nation would challenge him on it...so let's lay off calling people who may have been wrong about the invasion of Iraq LIARS,it has been a blunder, misguided, malinformed but I don't see the total deliberatie LIE that any American leader committed....we were all duped beginning with our Congress and Administration...this incessant rant on the "LIES told to us" is futile, the lies came from a ruthless dictator....this generation kills me when they don't see the complexity of things, how often do we ask " why didn't anyone stop Hitler before he destroyed Europe ?" thinking the likes of him will never again appear ? well they will continue to appear and any freedom loving person should be aware of that, let's work out solutions with love anfd forbearance not finger pointing waggling accustations that only spew out more hate and judgement of other people's motives...too many stones being thrown
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2007 5:17 PM
Moral/Personal/Spiritual forgiveness are much different than legal forgiveness. While I do agree that we are scripturally bound to personally forgive those who have wronged us, repented, and asked our forgiveness. I do not think our legal system should forgive those who have so egregiously wronged our very way of life by selling the lives of our best and brightest to push their extremist jingoistic ideology! Personal/Spiritual forgiveness - Yes; Legal forgiveness - No. Those responsible should spend the rest of their lives paying for the evils they have done to our country and our children. No one expects that a murderer, whose victim's family has forgiven, should walk free. Our legal system demands a price for violating the law and that price should be paid.
Posted by: michael | November 12, 2007 6:40 PM
Yes, Ford pardoned Nixon - and that's why he lost immediately thereafter to Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 12, 2007 7:24 PM
Bush reminds me alot of king Saul.Although the difference is Bush was not annointed by God.
He would certianly have you believe he was and he certianly thinks and acts as if he was.
God help us all.....
LUKE 22:24 Then they began to argue among themselves about who would be the greatest among them.
25 Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’
26 But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant.
27 Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.
Posted by: caucazhin | November 12, 2007 8:59 PM
Don't we all like to condemn the ones we disagree with? You might condemn Bush, I up it with Clinton, then we get Nixon, and I go Johnson, who by the way lied to get us into Vietnam in a major way. I was send there once long ago.
Today, somehow we can only be at war with each other right here in this country. We talk about peace and peacemaking, and then we publish things like this. I am ashamed of it.
Posted by: Arthur Keith | November 12, 2007 9:49 PM
I'm sometimes surprised at how many times pointing to a grave issue about how the leadership of the country is behaving ("grave" as in deciding to go to war), is faced by an "but Clinton .
It sounds to me a bit like a Middle School debate--trying to establish who is a "cooler", "better", or "worse" person than another.
Is the issue today how folks compare to Clinton?
Maybe because I'm not American, but who cares? Really. Who cares?
(I actually opposed the Clinton administration for the stupid sanctions against Iraq which led to half a million children deaths in 10 years. And I don't care how it compares with 9/11. Forcing the death of half a million kids--sharing that blame with Saddam doesn't lessen the responsibility for the sanctions--is "bad" any day. And I didn't care then to compare with a previous Republican president's actions.)
Today the question is the ethics and decisions of the Bush administration--not because we miss Clinton, but because they're in charge and their decisions impact the whole world.
Time to have mature discussions about government and move beyond Middle School.
Peace.
Posted by: Eric | November 13, 2007 1:04 AM
Thanks for the correction. I like Mudkips, too.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2007 2:30 AM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 12, 2007 7:24 PM
Yes, Ford pardoned Nixon - and that's why he lost immediately thereafter to Jimmy Carter.
So - offering a pardon to Nixon so that we could go ahead with the work that needed to be done costs him a second term and that thrilled Dems back then and today. So - what is this 'forgiveness' thing that Sojo keeps talking about? It is OK for Dems but not for Reps?
Just asking the question
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 13, 2007 10:08 AM
So -- offering a pardon to Nixon so that we could go ahead with the work that needed to be done costs him a second term and that thrilled Dems back then and today. So -- what is this 'forgiveness' thing that Sojo keeps talking about? It is OK for Dems but not for Reps?
With Watergate, Nixon tried to subvert the Constitution. Anyway, the difference is that the Republicans generally won't admit they do anything wrong, without which forgivness and reconciliation are impossible.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 11:22 AM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 11:22 AM
So you wanted to see Nixon in prison for the rest of his life. OK - fine. I still say that as long as Senators are elected we will never see the impeachment process convict a sitting Pres. regardless of what they are 'accused' of doing.
So - what do you think about Kathleen's new book about the Clinton's? Allow me to answer for you...all lies, no truth whatsoever, she is just a political whore for conservatives. Did I get it correct? There is so much more that could be said but I think 'whore' kinda covers everything.
Be blessed -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 13, 2007 11:34 AM
Actually I enjoyed reading Dick Nixon's books subsequent to his resigning the Presidency.
This man whose character was spoiled by paranoia had a superior mind.
However, it remains true that Ford's pardon of Nixon did cost Ford re-election.
Ford's papers released after his death show the process of his deciding to grant the pardon. It appears foremost in his mind that Nixon might have committed suicide or his health been completely ruined with the same result. Ford therefore did what he believed to be an act of compassion.
However, pardons are usually justified on the grounds of repentance and admission of guilt. Unfortunately this component was missing from the process, so the electoral fallout was inevitable.
Without that context, it looked like a partisan quid pro quo.
It is simply tragic in our historical context that these powerful individuals could not have worked out that aspect of it, but pride obviously played a role.
Moreover, Nixon's failure to acknowledge his clear wrongdoing has fallout for us today, when people in government who served with Nixon are now making unrepentant arguments for imperial presidency and echoing Nixon's statements that whatever a president does is legal in itself, no matter what. If Nixon had admitted his guilt and apologized, he would have made such depredations far harder for those unrepentant about unitary executive arguments now.
Both Nixon and Ford could have served our nation better had this repentance taken place before the pardon. Ford would have been re-elected and Nixon could have been seen as a flawed but ultimately redeemed and great leader.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 13, 2007 12:26 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 13, 2007 12:26 PM
The Major Media Corp. in the US would have never allowed Nixon to be redeamed even if he had admitted fault. Pres. Pardons have become very partisan over the past few decades. In my reading about the Nixon years - he came to the conclusion that with a super majority of Dems in the House and Senate - there was no way he was going to get a fair hearing so why go through it and put the country through it. (the congressman from Michigan at that time tried to figure out a way of keeping Nixon from getting a VP after Spiro's exit so that the 'Dem' Speeker of the House could be put into the WH - isn't that one interesting)
So - NBC, CBS, ABC would have done their best to make sure that Nixon never got and good press on any issue even after he resigned.
So - you question Pres. Pardons...how to you access Clintons' and all the money the 'Rich' couple gave him and his library? I am sure that was approved by many on this site.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 13, 2007 2:16 PM
Our behavior as to do right or wrong ought not to be measured by taking a poll as to whether or not it will have the required partisan effect.
The first reaction to Hilary as President is to wonder why we need to reprise the Clinton years again, this time with a more hawkish, cynical take. Aren't there any other good people out there?
I thought that Clinton ought to have been impeached and Gore become President. But the partisans took stock and figured the right thing wasn't as important as capturing the White House. An incumbent President Gore wouldn't have been left hanging on each and every Florida chad.
I wanted Bush, not Gore President. I bought into that NR and American Spectator cartoon caricature that pictured him as some sort of weird creepy mole. And I loved those pics of Bush in a leather jacket embracing some Christian Riders motorcycle club members. Reagan came in on a horse, but Bush looked good on an all-American Harley.
So much for the political deception of image-making.
But Gore was not the personally immoral Bill Clinton, who made sure every child from tot to high school freshman knew what under-the-table fellatio was. Democrat or no, he is not of poor personal morality.
Big time.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 13, 2007 3:54 PM
speaking of "self-righteous rants"....
Posted by: canucklehead | November 13, 2007 5:45 PM
I don't feel self-righteous because I have to say, mea culpa, I was wrong.
Unless you can actually become self-righteous in a self put-down! (It is recursively possible I guess.)
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 13, 2007 6:16 PM
N.M. Rod - I think whoever I was responding to got nixed
Posted by: canucklehead | November 14, 2007 1:07 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?