Again, I'm no political analyst so from time to time I have questions that seem simple enough to me, but aren't adding up with what is going on. Right now I have some questions about things that don't add up to what experience and education I have.
Here are my simple questions:
- If an aide to the President is giving honest, law/Constitution based advice to the Commander in Chief then why would he (the Pres) later need to claim executive privilege to hide that advice? If it was good advice shouldn't that be touted as well-given advice?
- Does speaking to the President with candor also require it to be so secretive that it can't later be disclosed to other representatives of our government? Why?
- Lastly, if someone supposedly never discussed an issue with the President then why can't they speak openly about the fact that they never talked about it?
These are pretty simple questions. It seems to me that if someone has given frank, legal, and honest advice even if others don't agree with it that is their word and that they should stand behind it. If they aren't standing behind it and are too ashamed to say it publicly in the face of the law then maybe they shouldn't have fucking said it to begin with. When I was a teen one of my teachers said, "If you want to be treated like an adult then act like one. An adult doesn't do or say things that they wouldn't mind having on the front page of the paper. You can do whatever you want, say whatever you want. However, to be an adult make sure these are things you are willing to take credit for."
So, what are these "children" hiding?
No comments:
Post a Comment