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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (6673)	9/3/2003 2:21:40 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793639

He starts by noting various lies Bush has offered the public I consider that a major "false premise" in the article. He artfully dances around his accusation of "lies" but admits he cannot prove it. I look upon what happened with the WMDs in the Admin as another "Sihanoukville" by the CIA. [For those not familiar with it, that was a major supply estimate error by the CIA during Vietnam.] He then uses this false premise about "lies" to build his argument that ideology drives them to lie, and they choose what they want from the Intel so they can do what they believe to be correct. Hell, everybody picks what they want from Intel to go the way they want, to some degree. I just posted a classic example of this with the publication of the new book on Clinton's handling of the Cole incident. Nobody on Clinton's top team would admit they believed that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack. Why? They didn't want to face up to fighting him. So they claimed they didn't believe it, and then tried to claim they had the opposite opinion after 911. This book proves otherwise. So I look upon Josh's piece as an unsuccessful attempt to nail Bush Politically. You see it as proof of "lies" for the purpose of furthering "God's Work." That's Politics!

To: JohnM who wrote (6673)	9/3/2003 6:16:28 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793639

It's about ideology. Marshall argues that across an entire series of policy fronts two things are happening--the Bush administration considers ideology the only thing, not one among several, to consider and thus, second, dismisses expert opinion as irrelevant. That has the effect of, increasingly, putting them out of touch with reality. The appropriate charge, then, would be to call them 'ideologues'. Calling them 'liars' completely distorts the meaning of the word. Lying requires deliberate intent to deceive.