Rowley tries to mislead public
--posted by Tony Garcia on 11/29/2005
OK, granted, Chris Kroc's croc-o-crap show has a very small listenership. So don't comment about "no one listens to him anyway." That is not the point here. He had a substitute last night. That sub was talking about the Able Danger story and decided to bring Coleen Rowley on as an expert on the matter. Rowley used her access to 50,000 watts of radio power to mislead the public.
Problem: The very moment Rowley announced her candidacy for Congress she lost her full standing as an expert on anything...especially when polluting the airwaves with her drivel. Why? Because every word she utters is driven for her candidacy regardless of the issue.
She was called to task on that especially since she took pot shots at the "leaders" regarding Iraq. Iraq was 100% irrelevant to the conversation. She acknowledged the possible problem, but assured the audience this particular discussion had nothing to do with her candidacy. This discussion had nothing to do with her candidacy for Congress. Proof that her views are not related to her run for Congress is she wrote many papers on the subject, some of which are on her website, which she gave out. www.coleenrowley.com.
Did you check out her proof that her conversation last night had nothing to do with her candidacy?
Perhaps you would be just as shocked as I was to find out that while claiming to seperate candidacy from her speaking as an expert on intelligence matters she referred people to her expert papers through her Congressional website.
Is that the "Ethical Decision Making" that Minnesotans can count on from her?
(-5).
2 Comments:
Man, you've got the goods on Rowley here. Since she doesn't maintain a separate web site to afford the public access to papers she wrote before declaring her candidacy, she's clearly a corrupt individual and a bad, bad person.
Furthermore, I find this statement interesting: "The very moment Rowley announced her candidacy for Congress she lost her full standing as an expert on anything...especially when polluting the airwaves with her drivel. Why? Because every word she utters is driven for her candidacy regardless of the issue."
I am forced to conclude that you believe that all politicians, regardless of party, are driven solely by their desire to win the next election, and therefore everything any politician says is "polluting the airwaves with drivel". Or are politicians you support somehow exempt from this analysis?
That being the case, why do you spend time and energy blogging about politics? Are you that interested in analyzing drivel?
You miss a very important distinction with Rowley and other politicians. I am not surprised that you miss it. Apologists generally have little intellectual honesty within them.
Rowley began running as an outsider who has unique expertise. THAT is what makes her different from the typical politician. Wetterling is in that same class...a Name.
These are the people that mislead the public the most. See, this posting was about how she claimed a division between her prior career and her run for office and the reality was she was directing people to her campaign website under the guise that it was seperate from where her papers were housed. The guise was intentional and unethical.
Given you comments on other postings it is clear that you are unable to understand what "ethics" really are, you are a Rowley apologist...a hack. I would be my mortgage that there is nothing Rowley could do that you would not try to defend.
Now, I will answer your question directly (you have to warn hacks like this or they will miss the point). Yes, all politicians, regardless of party, are driven solely by their desire to win the next election. The degree of that desire is different and for some the desire does not override their ethics or principles. Rowley is NOT among the group with ethics over winning desire. I actully used to think Wetterling had some principle that stood above "winning" but she has proven me wrong.
And before you even think of linking the two...negative campaigning IF ABSOLUTELY TRUE is NOT unethical. When a campaign uses assertions, insinuations and photoshoping these are symptoms of a message that has broken the standards of ethics and truth.
You have proven over you many messages that you are unable to actually discern the messages I type, twist their meanings to fit your apologist rationalizations and cannot provide intelligent discussion to the forum. It does not surprise me, you're an apologist for the unethical Rowley campaign. But you are a waste of my time and I will not respond to your pap again.
Post a Comment
<< Home