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 (39966)	8/26/2002 12:34:21 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you mean, no regional state agrees that these are Bush's intentions, or the regional states do agree that these are Bush's intentions, but no regional state agrees with the intentions? Ah, and a good morning to you, Nadine. I hope the weekend went well. Perhaps I scrambled that text but I would have thought the meaning was clear from the larger context. In any case, it's the very last, "no regional state agrees with the intention." In any case, I think you are conflating "agreement" with "publicly stated agreement", not at all the same thing. I don't think so. The only thing I have access to is the "publicly stated" stuff. I assume that's all you have. I've seen a great deal of speculation about private-public divergence but none that was believable. Maybe reasonable from certain points of view, but reasonable and believable are different creatures. Moreover, the terrain I'm working in that post is the lack of publicly stated support. If it continues to be absent before the Bush folk go in, then I'm afraid my scenario looks very likely.