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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (26946)	9/4/2003 5:40:22 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

It's not as emphatic, certainly, but it's similar. It implies that the report was deliberately stressed beyond what it should have been, so even if not actively misleading it was exaggerated. Both meanings translate to 'Blair has lost much of his political and nearly all of his personal credibility by this'. One interesting point, which I tried to make myself... if the war had been painted initially as an intervention purely to remove an unpleasant dictator, AND if the plans were both more complete for the aftermath and less exploitative of the Iraqis/generous to Bush's donors, then I and many others ight have been far more supportive... but those who NOW argue this are far too late. Plus I see no urgency to intervene with overwhelming humanitarian force in the Congo, nor Liberia, nor - most blatantly - Burma, where the junta is surely on a par with Saddam...? Odd, that.