Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (245007)	4/3/2002 3:29:24 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

RE:That was a very civilized reply. Nice Post..... I guess we'll never see anyone say that about any of your posts .. lol

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (245007)	4/4/2002 12:59:08 PM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

In singling out the Bush administration here, I should simultaneously assert in the strongest possible terms that it is less guilty than any government on earth of using speech and writing to defend the indefensible less surely than a member of Israel's own government like Shimon Peres, or former ministers like Yossi Beilin, the man Yitzhak Rabin once derided as Peres¹s 'poodle.' And within the Bush administration, the least guilty of all for the most part has been the President himself. But this is putting it too mildly. For Bush, after a bit of hesitation following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, achieved a greater degree of moral and intellectual clarity about terrorism than any Western leader before him. Indeed, many of his former detractors were amazed by the acumen and agility he showed in cutting through the poisonous cant on this subject pervading the journalistic and academic communities. Never, for instance, did he permit himself to be bamboozled by the idea so dear to so many denizens of those communities that 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' Taking the opposite position, he declared repeatedly that terrorism was itself evil, under any and all circumstances. From which it followed that there could be no such thing as a good terrorist. Nor, so far as I can recall, did Bush ever adopt the media's unregenerate practice of referring to Palestinian or any other terrorists as 'militants' a term that, in painting murderers as zealous strugglers for a cause they considered righteous (and who was to say they were wrong?), nicely illustrates how language is still used to defend the indefensible. Finally, never did Bush go along with that other trick of language favored by defenders of the indefensible: that the 'root cause' of terrorism is poverty or political oppression; or where Israel and the Palestinians are concerned, the 'occupation.' To Bush (who may not even have realized that 98 percent of the Palestinians were already living under the Palestinian Authority), the root cause of terrorism anywhere and everywhere was, quite simply, the will to do evil. Period; end of discussion jpost.com