Skip to main content

View Diary: WaPo: State Proposes Firing Whistleblower Peter Van Buren for Exercising 1st Amendment Rights (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Saying that stuff about the people (0+ / 0-)

    whose policies your job is to carry out indicates (a) a profound lack of professionalism, judgment, discretion and fitness for a diplomatic function (or an office temp, for that matter); and (b) a blatant indication that the person will not do his job if that job is to carry out their policy goals.

    The disclosure stuff is kinda meh--no he didn't reveal anything earth-shattering or that would harm national security, but at the same time if you don't respect the process around the disclosure rules as a diplomat, it's very hard to claim you're suitable for the job.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:14:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Okay... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      420 forever, Don midwest

      I'm trying to figure out how to say this without sounding like I'm being incredulous or nasty...(because I appreciate the debate)...but

      It's more important to you to be professional, ect (keep your nose to the grind stone) and carry out administrative policy (being a team player), AND in doing so turn your back on illegal or unethical behavior, and just do your job, BECAUSE the ends will justify the means, hopefully?  Is that what you are saying?  

      You are also saying huge wastes of money and corruption are the norm, so it's not a big issue unless our national security is at risk?  And you have to play by the rules given to you...end of story.  Is that how I'm reading that?    

      Thanks for answering.  

      •  No, I'm saying that if you act like a psychotic (0+ / 0-)

        stalker ranting about Hillary Clinton's vagina, willfully flout State Department disclosure rules, and refer to Barack Obama as a Nazi, you're manifestly unfit to serve this country as a diplomat.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:32:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So...in general (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Don midwest

          You are not concerned with what he did, but how he carried it out at the end like ticked off 12 year old.  

          •  Yes, with the addition that there (0+ / 0-)

            is an inherent conflict of interest when you write a book based on your current job--especially when there's a major theme of self-promotion, both in trying to sell books and in making oneself look good at the expense of colleagues and superiors who can't comment on the subject matter.

            He should have retired, then written this book.  That would have been the honorable thing to do.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:38:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Don midwest, Geekesque

              if you want to be taken seriously, don't jump into the gutter.  

              I still think retaliation towards him is a knee jerk reaction from the guilty.  And we need people who will stick their necks out, but for the good of our country and nothing else.  I also think the insane amount of corruption by the military needs to be addressed in a quick minute.  History shows what can and will happen if we allow it to continue....and none of it is good.  Thanks for the chat, and I really appreciate your honest answers and civility.  

              •  The initial decision to launch an (0+ / 0-)

                inquiry was at least  a bit heavy-handed.

                But, he certainly went into self-destruct mode after that.

                Sometimes a little bad spirals into a great big terrible.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 11:29:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Geekesque... dare I say ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geekesque

          ... classic? Hahahaha!

          Again, a 700-word, one-sided essay which purports to explain the type of detailed and fact-intensive situation that would take a lawyer 2 weeks to comprehend from this diarist.

          If this whack job hired me to be his lawyer, I would have to make sure the Judge gave me at least a month to get up to speed -- with that much time to devote wholly to his case -- and I sure as hell wouldn't take anything he said to me as verbatim truth, but would have to investigate each written statement, action and utterance.  

          P.S.  I also guess the First Amendment protects diarists who have a "book" on the subject and "clients" -- especially if they want to write more books and represent more clients. This stuff is less entertaining and effective, but more a true representation of capitalism than a Pos-T-Vac erectile dysfunction infomercial.  (I'm just kidding, that was a joke! They don't both suck!).  : )

          Republicans, like Zombies, just want to get a head.

          by Tortmaster on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 03:35:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Elections (27)
  • Culture (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site