Submitted by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
With apologies to Archbishop of Canterbury John Morton, I’m offering this version of his famous “fork”:
You’re a young idealist standing for the highest office in the land. Against many odds you’ve offered a candidacy of hope and change to an electorate tired of both war and the prior Administration that got them into those wars. There are rumors of widespread atrocities committed by that Administration in response to a horrific terrorist attack on American soil where thousands of your countrymen died. In your capacity as an US Senator, you’ve been briefed on several of these and you see a pattern developing. You’re a Constitutionalist; a lawyer; and a principled man, but you recognize the nation faces a real threat of nuclear holocaust at the hands of committed, well-funded terrorists supported and protected by renegade states and even some of our allies. These terrorists have a fanatical zeal and value martyrdom above self-preservation. You believe that if they acquire weapons of mass destruction the question will not be if millions of people will die, but which millions of people will die.
Riding a groundswell of promise and belief in your promises to restore American values, the electorate sends you to the nation’s capitol to change the way things have been done. During the course of the election, it has become clear that the drain on the economy caused by war, corruption, and old-fashioned greed has left the country in dire financial straits.
On January 16th you are briefed by the nation’s intelligence communities. You are told definitively that the intelligence community has engaged in extraordinary measures to fight America’s enemies which you conclude amount to torture, illegal renditions, detaining innocent people, and even Executive Orders approving the killing of persons deemed enemy combatants. You’ve inherited a Gulag within sight of the American coast and during the campaign you’ve vowed to close it. You are told that many senior members of the permanent intelligence community were aware of and approved the illegal measures employed in defense of the country. Losing these people would severely cripple efforts to defend the country as they form a sizable amount of the intelligence community’s institutional knowledge and memory. You’re also told that these senior intelligence officers have been promised immunity for their actions by the earlier Administration.
You convene your economic advisors who explain to you that the emergency measures adopted by your predecessor and designed to prop up the failing economy may well work but it will take time,and any shock to the nation could disturb this fragile trust building process. If the stimulus fails, the resulting shock could send the nation and Europe into a full-blown depression crippling the efforts to fight terrorism.
Moderate governments in the Mideast have come to you seeking aid to fight the fundamentalist movements that are fueling terrorist recruitment and sponsorship. They tell you that to continue the fight means more money and intelligence from the US or their efforts will be severely handicapped.
What do you do?
A. Continue the illegal policies of the past Administration reasoning that this is war and that your primary goal is to defend the nation at all costs. These repugnant policies seemed to have had some effect in curtailing the terrorist threat and your calling off the dogs is a real risk to your viability as a leader if you’re wrong and another deadly attack occurs on US soil. Another successful attack could throw the markets into a death spiral and the recovery might not occur for decades. You continue with the stimulus program and avoid any investigation of earlier illegal acts concluding that any shock to the fragile economy caused by the turmoil will reap more evil than it alleviates. You also avoid any investigation to eliminate the possibility of crippling the intelligence community. You share money and both illegally obtained and legally obtained intelligence with the friendly Arab states.
B. You reason that principle trumps expediency and stop all illegality. You immediately order investigations into the prior Administration’s handling of the war. You make public the results and bring indictments against wrongdoers. You do so even in the face of prior pledges of immunity reasoning they are void ad initio given our treaty obligations and on principles of international law. You make Herculean efforts to replace the intelligence officers lost to the investigations and you build morale by explaining your policies as being in the nation’s long-term best interest. You do what you can to stabilize the economy but you will not compromise in your efforts to prosecute those who have violated the law. You tell friendly states and Europe you understand their concerns about such a policy but you adhere to the adage that “let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
C. You adopt a middle ground approach reasoning it is best for the country that the economic recovery not be affected by criminal investigations of the American intelligence community and the prior Administration. You believe any move otherwise could lead to a weakening of American strength at the worst time and make that nuclear holocaust against an American city more likely. You change the illegal policies of the prior Administration to stop torture, curtail renditions and if absolutely necessary only to countries that will not use torture. You employ death warrants abroad and only against those your intelligence agencies tell you present a clear and present danger to the US. You fully support friendly states abroad against extremists and provide intelligence to them as well as cash.
D. Your Choice.
Now, the tough part: Defend your choice — and no changing facts that you don’t like in our “hypothetical situation.”
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Frank,
A song about your thought processes and the end result of Ron Paul’s Libertarian politics after the end of government and the Corporate Takeover. That he won’t win is irrelevant to the harm of what he preaches. You know Racism, Bigotry, Misogyny. He does hate war, but will love it when it’s privatized.
Hey stop making yourself feel so good about yourself by calling other all these racist words as to some of us less evolved they maybe signs of projection . We already know your other defense mechanisms of rationalization and intellectualization , don’t have to expose yourself totally here .
You deserve the clown that you got . Enjoy . Peace !
Your comment speaks for itself and further confirms everything I have said before about you . Enjoy your highly evolved being .
Frank:
“Mark , keep on waiting:-) you have to be out of your mind if you think I’m going to waste my time to help you see what honesty looks like .”
***********************
You could have fooled me since you spent six reply comments trying. I’ll keep waiting anyway since you graciously prove my point every minute you delay. By the way, I didn’t call Paul a bigot. I called him a racist and weird. Paul might be transformative. He just won’t do it from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and wasn’t that my point all along? As George says, “Who would lead? The clown!” I guess for you the answer is “yes.” How do you live with yourself?
Mark , keep on waiting:-) you have to be out of your mind if you think I’m going to waste my time to help you see what honesty looks like . It has been an interesting experience . Mark calls people as bigots and then complains that I called him names . You pretend like you are wanting to have a discussion when in reality you are so full of yourself that you can not even have a clue about what’s outside your bubble . I see you and mike as people who when hit by reality right between their own eyes they would say huh ? So no I’m not wasting my time on helping you see the light . Paul’s name will always be remembered as the refounder of the united states whether he wins or not, whereas you and mike no one will even know whether you ever existed . so please don’t wait . Have a good evening in your bubble 😉
Hey I found a classic depiction of Ron Paul and the libertarian aversion to helping people in the personage of none other than George Costanza:
Bron:
“Mespo is just too old to realize there are absolutes [not vodka]. And that most things are black or white when you get down to the bone.”
**********************
You know better than that. Explain to me how the Arab-Israeli conflcit is a black and white situation when you “get down ot the bone” and then we’ll talk.
ekeyra:
‘The only candidate that isn’t trying to start a war with iran is irrelevant?
The only candidate who wants to end the massive police state we are erecting in america is irrelevant?
The only candidate who actually believes in due process of law is irrelevant?”
***************************
You can be an angel from Heaven but if you only poll 13% nationally in your own political party, you’re irrelevant.
Frank:
I’m still waiting and waiting for one “honest fact” to prove Paul is relevant. Why don’t you be honest with your ideologue little self and admit that Paul is a weird little man with weird ideas and is perceived so much so by the American electorate that he’ll never be President. Oh he can find his way around a chat-room and mug for his supporters but down deep he’s that captain of the sinking ship who thinks “women and children first” is a moral outrage. He talks a good game about morality until you ask a question or two and then the crazy comes out and voilà, he’s just another fringe candidate. Once you’re honest about Paul’s chances we can talk about that moral superiority issue you have. Mike S has it right. Paul never distanced himself from his racist past and everyone knows that. Bye, bye Ronnie. The dust heap awaits.
Again I agree with you , now let me ask you this which presidential candidate is not part of status quo ? Which candidate had predicted years ago what will happen if we don’t change our domestic or foreign policies ?
Please check this out , maybe it will give u a different perspective : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Frank,
It’s our system that is corrupted and has to be fixed. We need to get the money out of politics and out of our elections. Citizens United aggravated the problem. We should also demand more of the news media and debate moderators. If the system remains as is, I think there is little hope for the future.
“when 93/100 senators vote for NDAA and then patronize their constituents by suggesting that they are the ones who don’t understand how wonderful this bill is , then I think we have to conclude that there is something very wrong with the mindset that votes for these people .”
Or you could just as easily conclude that there is something very wrong with the process that picks and presents candidates to the public for selection, namely campaign finance.
Who is to blame when your choices are crap and crap-lite?
The person choosing or the people defining the field for choice?
It’s little details like this that can be important and easily overlooked when one insists on putting things into orderly little boxes.
I agree Gene , there are flaws at multiple levels . We cannot exterminate them , though, by not calling dishonest as dishonest . That’s all I’m saying . When some try to rationalize indefensible , in my view , that makes it even harder to exterminate the parasites.
Elaine , when 93/100 senators vote for NDAA and then patronize their constituents by suggesting that they are the ones who don’t understand how wonderful this bill is , then I think we have to conclude that there is something very wrong with the mindset that votes for these people . Unfortunately most of the voters in their later ages , I said most not all , are very set in their ways and they keep on voting for people like McCain and Levin .
Again please don’t take that original comment wrong . I respect people no matter how old/young they are , However I can not respect anyone who defends dishonesty by confusing it with wisdom and experience of having been longer on this planet .
Frank,
I know who you were responding to. I’m not as clueless as you suppose a woman of my age to be. I understand the written word. You didn’t single out anyone when you wrote “since the age group that votes the most is similarly clueless we end up with the kind of morally corrupt people we have seen lately in the that position.” You included my entire age group…didn’t you?
I believe some people think that everything isn’t a black and white issue. Many people believe that one has to make some compromises in life. Some politicians compromise too much. Some politicians may be too rigid in their stances. People look at things differently. It’s complicated.
That said, I have been very disappointed in many of President Obama’s actions/decisions. I have also been extremely disappointed in elected politicians who have refused to work with our president–especially those who said they didn’t want this president to succeed. Shouldn’t t our elected representatives work with the president in order to do what is best for their constituents and this country?
By the way I’m glad Mike that my comments make you look good to yourself . Thanks for proving narcissism is alive and healthy. 🙂
Elaine I’m not writing a fork under the pretense of some grandiose intellectual exercise . I already explained in my last comment to you who I was referring to when I said what u responded to .
“I’m not writing a fork under the pretense of some grandiose intellectual exercise”
Frank,
You do’t have to explain anything to us, it’s obvious what you’re not capable of doing and we’d never confuse your unbacked assertions with intelligence. That clip you put up was FOXnews. But hey Frank, it’s obvious you prefer the Racist/Bigot in the race, so we expect little from you except for type of insult that we grow out of when we age past ten.
If you are referring to reality check , that’s not “foxnews”
You and your master are amusingly sad people
Frank,
You wrote: “It’s just sad how brainwashed people are and since the age group that votes the most is similarly clueless we end up with the kind of morally corrupt people we have seen lately in the that position .”
******
With that comment, you cast the people of my generation as clueless individuals who vote for morally corrupt politicians. So…should I assume that the people of your generation have never voted for the same types of candidates?
How is it that you and your morally superior generation can just dismiss the things that Ron Paul does/has done that aren’t of the highest moral order?
You have to be out of your mind . You believe that foxnews is pro Paul ? Incredible ! Anyway get back to polishing
@mespo: I’ll admit my biases if you admit your prejudices.
My only “prejudice” is against irrational thinking that is impervious to reason. If you think you know differently, you are wrong.
Ron Paul is not relevant to those who don’t have to worry about losing cognitive functioning because of traumatic brain injury . Maybs they think that they wont have much to lose if its already impaired … However i doubt they can think through that much..
Ron Paul is relevant to the troops though , and I do support our troops !