<p>…</p>
<p>IMO, assuming that they were LEGAL they were ethical. However, I have two reservations. First, he really should have told W that he was recording the conversations. At the very least, that’s a courtesy. Second, I don’t think he should have disclosed or released copies of the tapes, just kept them as notes.</p>
<p>Mind you, I am not a W fan at all. But I feel a bit queasy about the way Wead has treated his friend. I wouldn’t want to have a drink with W (or a “smoke,” for that matter), and I wouldn’t trust Wead for anything.</p>
<p>Here’s what I think about Wead:
- He can record the conversations as long as he doesn’t ever release them, which according to what I read he planned on releasing after he died.
- It’s unethical promotion of his book to release the tapes</p>
<p>The way I see it, Weed betrayed Bush’s confidence. He could have at least given Bush a heads up that he was releasing the tapes. I think Wead should change his last name to Weed, as in “a plant considered undesirable, unattractive, or troublesome, especially one growing where it is not wanted, as in a garden.”</p>
<p>I’m certain that Wead has no ethics - you simply don’t record your “friend” or business associate then play the tapes for your selfish self-promotion. It is a shame that Wead feels the need to betray our President simply to benefit his book promotion efforts. I do think that the tapes put a human face on Bush and that’s a good thing. We are all human and it’s time people start accepting that - his desire to be a good example plus his acceptance of alternative lifestyles is a good thing in my eyes. I don’t think the tapes have had the desired negative effect. Most folks just want our President to succeed and our country to do well.</p>
<p>I agree with MarylandMom. </p>
<p>IMO, there are two things wrong with the Wead situation: the recordings and the release of those recordings. The first, to me, is in that fuzzy area where things are legal but unethical; something that is not per se wrong but is an activity that good, moral people to not engage in. The second… just pathetic. It’s to promote his book. If those tapes were released after his death, perhaps years from now, they would have historical value. However, given that W is in office, they have nothing but tabloid value. </p>
<p>Just a second question (if anyone would like to answer): any personal experiences with people who had trouble with drugs or alcohol and then managed the road back? Personally, as I know people like that, I can admire W for it. Overcoming drug or alcohol problems is no easy feat… and staying sober for years, in this society, is rough. I have seen true changes in people - not maturation, but real changes in character - after becoming sober. It seems inhumane to judge them for their actions beforehand, given the struggle to “turn their lives around.” Just my thought - and I guess that is why I find releasing the tapes unethical.</p>
<p>One loud and clear message from the tapes is the fact that the private George W. is the same person as the public George W. Love him or hate him, his public face is not an act. WYSIWYG</p>
<p>You know, maybe I’m missing something big, but I thought the whole thing was a non-story. Agreed with digmedia too. I am not a fan of the guy, but I thought he came across just fine on the tapes. If anything, I like him a little better. Realizing that, however, makes me wonder: is it by any means possible that the WH really didn’t mind that much about the tapes being released? I mean, maybe they knew that something in them might appeal to blue people like me…maybe they DON’T consider the whole thing a big deception. I know, I know, I’m probably way off base.</p>
<p>why should bush deserve ethical treatment,nothing he’s ever done has been ethical.i just wish this information had been brought to light prior to the election.</p>