veronica_rich (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
veronica_rich) wrote2012-06-01 10:09 am
veronica_rich) wrote2012-06-01 10:09 am
Edwards trial and big picture
Eight years ago, I voted for John Edwards - well, I voted for John Kerry, but Edwards was his VP candidate on the ticket, too. I liked some of his ideas, how he was one of the first to point out "the two Americas" and bring attention to the disparities in human services and distribution of opportunity in this country, and I liked that he didn't start out rich. (I'm also one of the few people who understands while you should never trust a lawyer too far, they're not usually evil bastards with no soul - I worked for a criminal defense lawyer for several years, knew others through him, and found they were basically decent people trying to make a living who largely believed even if a person HAD committed a crime, the justice system still needed to observe rules in treating them a certain way; trust me, they didn't like some of their clients any more than you or I would. And some of them even had lines - the one I worked for wouldn't take rape cases).
Yesterday, Edwards got off of federal charges of criminal use of campaign funds, on jury indecision and technicalities. Was this right? I don't know all the details, so I'm not going to tell you. I can say I don't think any conviction, had it happened, should have been based on his personal behavior involving his now-dead wife, mistress, and child - a low-down dirty dog he might be, but if there was campaign malfeasance, THAT'S what needed to be proven. (And I'm not saying there wasn't, just because it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt or convicted. Remember O.J. Simpson, y'all ...) For this reason alone, though, I know there are going to be people angry he didn't get his "just deserts." They're sure entitled to be angry with him personally, as am I. Possibly even on campaign finance law.
But what I want to know is, are these same people just as upset that there are war criminals still on the loose who were in charge of our country for the first several years of this century, who've never been charged or tried - one of whom got his portrait hung up in the White House yesterday? It's just a thought I had early this morning while driving to work.
Yesterday, Edwards got off of federal charges of criminal use of campaign funds, on jury indecision and technicalities. Was this right? I don't know all the details, so I'm not going to tell you. I can say I don't think any conviction, had it happened, should have been based on his personal behavior involving his now-dead wife, mistress, and child - a low-down dirty dog he might be, but if there was campaign malfeasance, THAT'S what needed to be proven. (And I'm not saying there wasn't, just because it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt or convicted. Remember O.J. Simpson, y'all ...) For this reason alone, though, I know there are going to be people angry he didn't get his "just deserts." They're sure entitled to be angry with him personally, as am I. Possibly even on campaign finance law.
But what I want to know is, are these same people just as upset that there are war criminals still on the loose who were in charge of our country for the first several years of this century, who've never been charged or tried - one of whom got his portrait hung up in the White House yesterday? It's just a thought I had early this morning while driving to work.
no subject
I think the hardest thing anyone can do is find a way to convey they're being respectful of someone as a person but still say "I don't agree with that." Because I think it means you're disagreeing with the person's reasoning, and many (if not most) people take offense to that. Sometimes I do, and I don't know if you do, but you might. So be aware that I disagree with your reasoning or conclusions sometimes, but don't associate your arguments with you as a total person - if that makes sense. *G* There was a time when as a country we recognized there are grades of good and bad, shades of gray (no, that that awful fanfiction book), but we've lost a lot of that in the last 20 years or so. (And while one might be able to put some blame on both sides NOW, the fact is I've been alive long enough to remember it was the elder Bush & Co. who kicked the whole "you're with us or agin' us" notion into high gear in the late 80s. I remember because there was a time in my youth that I did lean more Republican than Democrat, amazingly enough. There are things that pushed me away from that side of the center, though a centrist by and large, I remain.)
I don't disagree with everything you have here, but there are a couple, and I'll start with the main one that jumps out at me. At best you can say the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan was misguided, if well-intended and had some halfway standable logic behind it regarding bin Laden at the time. But move over to Iraq, and there's no question it was not justified - it was an act of war unsupported by any solid evidence of anything you're supposed to go to war over. There were officials in the administration at the time who never denied charges in later years that they manipulated WMD information and outright lied about much of it in order to justify the invasion to the U.S. citizenry. To me, lying in your official capacity to justify an act of war against another nation is a war crime.
My own mother, a lifelong Republican who never let any of MY opinions influence her in more than 30 years of my existence, was one of many who turned against Bush & Co. later in their terms because of this very thing - only, she didn't even wait until his second term. She changed her vote at the last minute in 2004 because she couldn't stand the idea of so many people being killed in a war that did not happen for the reasons the administration stated it was begun. This was based on her observations and news consumption (hence my remark about my opinion not mattering) and sense of right and wrong. She did not enjoy being fooled, especially on something like that.