Re: Shadow government
Reader comment on: The Van Diepen Demarche
in response to reader comment: SHADOW GOVERNMENT

Submitted by Richard Stark, Dec 6, 2007 07:23

Civil servants owe a duty to be objective in their analysis for the purpose of informing policy makers. Their duty to support the Consitution does not mean they have to write reports that support the policy positions of elected officials. On the contrary, elected officials who are interested in the public good, and not a private agenda, should appreciate well grounded analysis that demonstrates a change in course is required. It is possible, of course, that the latest report on Iran's nuclear ambitions is not necessarily well-founded. I only wish to make the point that our country is better served by an independent civil service than one that is beholden to the potentially misguided policies of any administration. As for the pursuit of a private agendas in the civil service, I completely agree that such behavior is grounds for dismissal, and depending on the situation and consequences, grounds for sanction.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this article

Title	By	Date
Please Name the Third Author of this latest NIE [49 words]	Dick Willis	Dec 6, 2007 08:47
↔ Three authors- all State Department [34 words]	no one	Dec 26, 2007 16:00
yea, right [18 words]	m	Dec 6, 2007 08:15
The hard part is enriching uranium - a U-235 gun-type bomb design is simple [107 words]	oracle2world	Dec 5, 2007 21:29
Sorting out Jameson [75 words]	Jamie Newman	Dec 5, 2007 19:57
Demise of the West [154 words]	Steve	Dec 5, 2007 18:40
↔ The benefit of hindsight.. [676 words]	Jaffer Clarke	Dec 6, 2007 10:51
SHADOW GOVERNMENT [149 words]	Buzz	Dec 5, 2007 17:42
↔ Dittos [93 words]	Dennis Stayer	Dec 5, 2007 23:51
↔ ⇒ Re: Shadow government [150 words]	Richard Stark	Dec 6, 2007 07:23
We have seen this before [39 words]	Carl Hoffman	Dec 5, 2007 17:26
Why not? [43 words]	darth	Dec 5, 2007 17:24
Politics at its best [45 words]	Lou Rodgers	Dec 5, 2007 16:38
↔ what should one believe? [32 words]	Chris	Dec 5, 2007 19:34
It's a continuation of the bureaucratic putsch [52 words]	Ardmoor Oakes	Dec 5, 2007 11:04
↔ A New Boot Hill [79 words]	David D	Dec 5, 2007 16:55
Theory and practice [49 words]	Mike Riezenman	Dec 4, 2007 23:13
lalalalalalala [132 words]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 09:50
↔ Stop Iran [23 words]	chili	Dec 4, 2007 11:01
↔ Logical fallacy [247 words]	J G	Dec 4, 2007 11:30
↔ response to J G [121 words]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 13:17
↔ Regime change first, then maybe nukes [124 words]	Jack Sheet	Dec 4, 2007 16:15
↔ La-la land is chasli's native land [75 words]	John Spencer Yantiss	Dec 4, 2007 18:03
↔ how? [9 words]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 19:15
↔ response [167 words]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 19:35
↔ Sorting out Chasli [283 words]	Jack Jameson	Dec 5, 2007 19:20
↔ response to JJ [561 words]	chasli	Dec 6, 2007 16:25

Comment on The Van Diepen Demarche

Name:	Email Address: Email me if someone replies to my comment
Title of Comments:
Comments: Mark my comment as a response to Re: Shadow government by reader Richard Stark
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable. Click here to see the top 25 recent comments.