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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38885)	8/20/2002 11:01:49 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

I never construed it as "doubt" but more as good advice to go slow and make sure we think things through.... How can anyone have a problem with that?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38885)	8/20/2002 11:53:56 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And Howard Raines wishes. Howell, Howell, Howell. Is this yet another snarly right wing campaign to deny the poor man even his name. ;-) As for Oliphant, I completely agree. He's no one's Republican. I loved it when he substituted for Mark ??? on the Lehrer show. Whoops, pseudo Freudian babblers. Looks as if he's on the outs with Maureen Dowd. It is possible to argue that Bush should be more of a participant in this vital discussion than he has been to date, . . . . Just a slight bit of an understatement here but if his target is really Dowd, then understatement is a decent rhetorical device. Well, now I've read it. The above were just spur of the moment comments as I read it. I read it as one of those over blown columns in which he's trying to get as many eyeballs as possible. As far as I can tell, he characterizes everyone the way most folk have--the Bush opponents are not opposed to an attack on Saddam, just the present political--international and national--methodology of going about it. The only serious disagreement I would have, besides the framing issue, is that Kissinger also does something more than a little two step in the directon of saying that the outcomes will be bad if there is no serious international involvement going in. This, in addition, to the notion of long term commitment. Gonna have to watch ol' Tom a bit better. I don't read him regularly. But it looks as if he's looking for more eyeballs. So, I see a kind of irony in that last statement. He's basically saying cool it guys, this debate is very serious. As he misframes his own argument to make it hotter.