The Castle Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : The Castle

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (2725)	2/12/2004 7:56:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 7936

I appreciate the research but I would have liked to have seen where they made a retraction and/or apology particularly when it has to do with Bush and their cheer leading of his policies. A number of his policies they opposed. Bush and the contributors to the National Review and NRO have a lot of overlap in their views but NR and NRO are not Bush's cheering section. If by "his policies" you mean taking down Saddam I think a majority of the NR contributors support that action so why would they apologize or retract? Also in general publications run corrections about specific misreported facts not about opinion even if their opinions change. No, it isn't. Iraq had no WMDs. Your second sentence provides no support for your first. Assuming that by the beginning of 2003 Iraq had no WMD (which is not an unreasonable assumption at this point), does result in a conclusion that this would have been certain or near certain with another 6 months of inspections. However, for me, I think Bush is endangering this country with his policies and I don't think he is an honorable man. There is nothing more that you can say that would dissuade me from that position. I never thought I would dissuade you from that position nor did I really try to do so. I just don't accept that position as a given that can be used to prove other things about Bush. A lot of your arguments about Bush lying about Iraq, or going down in infamy start with the assumption that Bush is particularly dishonorable and dishonest. These arguments will only possibly be convincing to those who already share your opinion about Bush's honesty and honor. You need to read both the classified and public documents re. Iraq and WMD.....pay close attention to the divergences between the two documents. Any dissuading comments were deleted from the public version so that it looked like a foregone conclusion that Iraq had WMD. You have access to classified documents?? The original documents are often more hedged then the final position of the CIA or other intelligence agency. Typically the president would have no direct input at that level. Then the president would get summaries and opinions. Sometimes he will get some alternate opinions. He decides what to think and makes his case to the public based on that. Not trumpeting the concerns of some analyst or the opinion of some mid level staff member to the public doesn't amount to manipulation, at least not gross manipulation. I might call it gross manipulation if it really was a lie (if Bush thought/knew that Iraq had no WMD) but then there is no need to bother with the term "manipulation" as "lie" would be more direct and specific. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next