In most countries of the world, men in power are assumed to be

[Veggie Meathead]

venal or corrupt to some degree.In America, men in power are presumed to be virtuous,God-fearing, upright, honest and other good things even in the face of overwhelming evidence against these presumptions.When they are caught with their hands in a cookie jar, there appears to be an endless supply of defenders who attest to the purity of motives of the rulers.Why is there such a difference between the rest of the world and us?

[fishface]

1. Well in the case of the republicans...

it's merely a matter of that infamous sliding scale of morality they use.

[izzie]

2. Well I am not so sure as this is what I usually hear. "They are all crooks

The war power act sure leads me to believe that may be a near true statement. How could they have done that? My Congressman did not. But I am sure both the Sen. did. How could have Kerry after what he did after Vietnam?

[SheBop]

3. I don't know that I agree. Sorry.

Do you have some back-up and/or links for your opinion?

I am more inclined to believe that the 'gullible' in this country are a vocal minority.

:shrug:



:hi:

[Veggie Meathead]

4. I will cite a couple of instances that made me put up this post.Last

weekend, Bob Schieffer of CBS had Terry McAuliffe on his show.Terry McAuliffe made a statement that the entire Iraq war was based on lies.
Schieffer,looking very perturbed asked him "Are you calling the President of the U.S. a liar?".I didn't know if I should laugh or cry at that statement. A similar situation arose with Don Rumsfeld when someone asked him about the Abu Ghraib tortures.He was specifically asked if he authorized the tortures and his response was that whatever previous statement he had made on this matter (denying it) was the truth and that was the end of the matter.The questioner simply dropped the matter without a followup,giving me the impression that despite the evidence to the contrary she accepted the explanation because it came from Rumsfeld.This was in stark contrast to the correpondent in Ireland who subjected Mr.Bush to relentless questioning.

What I am talking about is the very noticeable differences between our correpondents ( deferential,unquestioning,implicitly giving our rulers a free pass) while the Europeans and others worldwide are no respecters of authority and are not likely to accept the notion that just because somebody hold the title of President means that they are divine and infallible.

[SheBop]

5. Thank you.

Yes, I certainly agree that our media is pathetic infotainment and seems to have lost all sight of what journalism is supposed to mean.

Ah, for the days of 'Woodward & Bernstein.'

[bryant69]

6. Part of it could be our own pride

I mean we elect the President, don't we (2000 aside, in general we elect the President)? He is more of a representative of us as citizens than the leaders who take power through force or through birth. So it's harder for us to just dismiss him as venal and corrupt; his corruptness is a reflection on us.

Does that make sense? I guess what I'm trying to say is that in some other countries, Governmetn is something that happens over there that isn't really connected to the citizens. Whereas in the US we are all, after a fashion, part of the government and responsible for it's successes and failures.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Veggie Meathead]

7. There are many countries of the world where the chief of the

government is elected but that does not give them any refuge from the questions they are subjected to.All we need to do is see the type of questions faced by Tony Blair in the House of Commons every week and compare it with the total absence of any questioning of Bush either by the Press or in the Congress.

[bryant69]

8. Total absense is going a bit far

Plenty of people are questioning President Bush both in the press and the Congress. Now granted, the Congress won't do very much because they are in the hands of the republicans, but that doesn't mean that individual congressmen (although not enough) aren't criticizing President Bush.

Many reporters are starting to slam into President Bush as well. It'd be nice if they had been more diligent about it when he was leading us to war, but at least they are doing it now.

Bryant

[BillZBubb]

9. "Many reporters are starting to slam into President Bush"

Boy, I must have missed that show! Since Bush* rarely ever talks to reporters, I don't see how that's possible. Also, for all the news following I do, I see NO evidence to support what you say. The press is still on bended knees for the Chimperor.

The "liberal" press is far more critical of Kerry than Bush* and this is after nearly four years of lies and deception at every turn.