SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: carranza2 who wrote (47479)9/27/2002 1:13:04 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (4) of 281500
 
I really do disagree with your point about the Bush arguments. The administration's main thesis as I have understood it all along is that it is unacceptable to have a madman in control of WMDs. Isn't that what Pollack essentially implied in the NYT piece? I presume it is the bottom line in his book, as well.

From the few pages I've read of the Pollack, I don't think that's even close to the essential points Pollack wishes to make.

But back to the contrast between Pollack and the Bush folk. The Bush folk say Saddam is a madman, just believe us, we know, trust us. And, in doing so, turn away folk like me. And, if it were the Clinton administration doing the same thing, would have turned you away.

By contrast, Pollack's op ed piece offers a nice tease that he plans, among other things, to make an argument with evidence that "mirror imaging" doesn't work. I look forward to seeing if I agree.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News