Talk:Ben Barnes (Texas politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Even if it weren't an apparent blatant copyvio, this is wording would need to be altered to avoid reference to its lost context (emphasis added):

So influential and important is Barnes to the Democratic Party, as this column reported last January, that Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle has nicknamed this money man and lobbyist “the fifty-first Democratic Senator”.
--Jerzy•t 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ He's just written a memoir called something like Barn-raising and Barn-burning.
_ _ In his interview on NPR, presumably in connection with the book, he says that

  1. According to a Watergate tape, Nixon had hoped for the corruption case to destroy Barnes's influence, was told he was not involved, and ordered that the appearance of involvement be created;
  2. the star witness against those charged in the scandal had no evidence on him;
  3. that witness testified under immunity from prosecution, which immunity was made contingent on a statement damaging to Barnes;
  4. the statement made by the witness was that "i hear that" Barnes was the "smartest" of an apparently vaguely specified group, and accepted ill-gotten gains only in the form cash.

--Jerzy•t 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the TANG Discussion?????[edit]

Ben Barnes is a central figure in the allegations surrounding W's TANG admission [1] yet the article has absolutely no mention at all of this story, how is that? Is it on the list of pages regularly sterilized by the thought police? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.248.81 (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Barnes (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anthony G. Brown which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unwitting ? involvement in the Iran hostage crisis[edit]

Ben Barnes may (or may not have) been unwitting coming into the trip, but after the first, second, or tenth time he heard Gov. Connally telling this or that prince/strongman to tell Iran to hold off on releasing the hostages, he can hardly claim to be an innocent bystander.

I propose the word Unwitting be removed. Jriley555 (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respects, I wholeheartedly disagree. According to Barnes, he was on a trip with his business parter, and on the trip he witnessed his business partner telling those heads of state that Iran should wait until after the elections to release the hostages. There is no evidence that Barnes himself ever got on board with this message. Barnes is no Patty Hearst. He was nothing more than a witness. To say that he was involved in the effort would be misconsruing what he told Peter Baker, and hence a violation of WP:BLP. --A girl in Latvia (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be seriously maintained that Barnes was unwitting about all of this ? You acknowledge that Barnes sat there while Connally delivered this message over and over, never disputing/protesting, never disavowing, never registering a protest or heading home, sitting in even on the debriefing w/ Casey. Unwitting means unknowing. Barnes could only have been unwitting/unknowing at the outset. Emphasizing this in the headline especially distorts his involvement. I don't know how we resolve this, but I do not accept your reversion. I understand how painful it must be for Mr. Barnes to fess up, but he doesn't get to dance around his involvement, either. Calling it unwitting is disingenuous. Jriley555 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as what he told Baker, we don't have to merely ape his characterization. We are entitled to view his admissions in their entirety and reach an assessment at some variance with the self-serving one given, I should think. If this violates the guidelines, I will concede, but that means we are then constrained from calling out obvious inconsistencies. Jriley555 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to dictionary.com unwitting has two definitions. The first definition is "not intentional or deliberate". He certainly was not an intentional participant.
If there are inconsistencies in what he told Baker then, per WP:NOR, those inconsistencies have to be published elsewhere before being pointed out here on Wikipedia. --A girl in Latvia (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly intentional after the first time hearing Connally's ask of the first ME leader and not dissociating himself with the mission. How can you credibly argue otherwise ? There is no requirement that the word unwitting be used in the headline either, I don't buy the guidelines dictate anything concerning that particular word choice in a summary.
Barnes certainly came home knowing the purpose of the visit : "Barnes said he was certain the point of Connally's trip was to get a message to the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election. "I'll go to my grave believing that it was the purpose of the trip," he said. "It wasn't freelancing because Casey was so interested in hearing as soon as we got back to the United States." Casey, he added, wanted to know whether "they were going to hold the hostages."" Jriley555 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the quotes you produce change the fact that he was an unwitting participant. He did not intentionally go on the trip to parttake in the mission to get the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages. He went on the trip with his business partner, and it was his business parter who did all that work.
Just because Barnes did not cut the trip short in protest, does not mean that he became a witting participant during the trip. --A girl in Latvia (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you go on a trip with your friend who wants to 'stop by the bank', and you see him inside with a gun, see him viciously mug the bank guard who happens to be your friend & ally, after which he comes out with money, and tells you to 'drive fast', which you do, and you are later both caught - will you be able to plead innocence on the basis of being an 'unwitting' accomplice ? Or if you dummy up about it for 40 years and just before your old friend dies, make a confession, ARE YOU UNWITTING OR A GUILTY ACCOMPLICE ?
Your contention that his continued participation on this trip, the objective of which he clearly states he understood and must have understood early does NOT implicate him is just being obtuse.
I invite others to weigh in on this, since we two seem to be at logger-heads. Jriley555 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your analogy of the bank robbery is appropriate. In your scenario, the getaway is part of the crime.
In the case of Ben Barnes and the Iran hostage crisis, Barnes' only "involvement" is his silence. He never lied to cover up the crime. He just kept quiet about it for 42 years. --A girl in Latvia (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is complicity. Jriley555 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be, if he would have taken the 5th. He was never asked to testify. --A girl in Latvia (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. You are just making up rationalizations. Barnes had a moral responsibility to blow the whistle on this. Do you require depositions/prosecutions to do the right thing ? Do you live in Latvia ? Here's what a hostage had to say today in the NYT:
“It’s nice that Mr. Barnes is trying to soothe his soul during the last years of his life,” said Barry Rosen, 79, who was press attaché at the embassy in Tehran when it was overrun on Nov. 4, 1979. “But for the hostages who went through hell, he has not helped us at all. He has made it just as bad or worse.”
Mr. Rosen, who lives in New York, said that Mr. Barnes should have come forward 43 years ago, given the decades of speculation about political interference.
“It’s the definition of treason,” he said, “knowing that there was a possibility that the Carter administration might have been able to negotiate us out of Iran earlier.” Jriley555 (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entilted to the opinion that he had "a moral responsibility" to do something else. But it does not change the fact that according to all the information we have he was not an active nor a willing participant to the effort to delay the release of the hostages. --A girl in Latvia (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you & I are at an impasse, I would like to know how we resolve this. Unwitting means unknowing - Barnes was only possibly unwitting at the outset. You interpretation that he was not in fact a knowing/witting co-conspirator at some point very early in the trip, simply does not accord with the facts. Do we just start a reversion war ? I know neither of us want that.
unwitting
ŭn-wĭt′ĭng
adjective
Not knowing; unaware.
Not intended; unintentional.
Not knowing; unconscious; ignorant Jriley555 (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although Barry Rosen's opinion does not change the fact that Barnes' involvement was unwittingly, Rosen's criticism is notable so I added it to the article. --A girl in Latvia (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may jump in here, the title of the section implies that Barnes was, in fact, involved in the Iran hostage crisis but only that he did not know it at the time. Why is the section title not "Alleged involvement in the Iran hostage crisis"? If there is one thing people should have learned about the October Surprise conspiracy theory by now is that there are a lot of other people who have claimed things without any evidence. -Location (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary definition of "unwitting" is "not intentional or deliberate". "Unwitting" does not mean "not knowing".
We don't use the word "alleged" because nobody accussed him of involvement. He implicated himself. A girl in Latvia (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Barnes_(Texas_politician)&oldid=1199537787"