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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (4510)	11/14/2003 7:39:54 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 20773

14Nov03-Jim Lobe-Antiwar Backlash Batters Bush by Jim Lobe November 14, 2003 Popular doubts about President George W. Bush's credibility and his justification for going to war in Iraq are on the rise, according to a new survey conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). The survey of a random sample of more than 1,000 voters, which echoes the results of other recent national polls, found that 55 percent of respondents believed the administration went to war on the basis of incorrect assumptions, particularly the notion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States or its allies. And despite subsequent denials by senior administration officials, an overwhelming 87 percent of the public felt that the administration before the war portrayed Iraq as an imminent threat. While 42 percent believed that the administration did have the evidence to justify such a depiction, a strong majority of 58 percent said that it did not. This disparity, according to PIPA, which conducted the survey between Oct. 31 and Nov. 10, has translated into major questions about the president's personal veracity and credibility. Only 42 percent of those polled said they believed that Bush was "honest and frank," while 56 percent said they had doubts about the things he says. Moreover, 72 percent (up from 63 percent in July) said that when the administration presented evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – one of its two major prewar reasons for attacking Iraq – it was either presenting evidence it knew was false (21 percent) or "stretching the truth" (51 percent), according to the survey. Full Story: antiwar.com

To: epicure who wrote (4510)	11/15/2003 2:40:44 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

That speech brings back memories of Fletcher (I am class of '86). The school always showcased top-notch speakers from all points of view. I remember Newt Gingrich giving a half-decent history lecture there in 1985 (his profession before he became a rampant ideologue). The two professors mentioned are also a study in contrasts. Leila Fawaz gave a terrific Middle East politics seminar from a totally unbiased point of view; I may have mentioned the story once how she let two students wrangle for two hours on the Palestinian issue "to get it out of their system" so we could move onto more interesting analysis. Richard Shultz comes from the school's rightwing security studies program (one of my concentrations there). In fact, one of my classmates from that program is a senior staff guy at PNAC now. The point of this ramble is that the Fletcher School could bring a top-flight speaker with one point of view, have those views challenged in an open forum and have everyone go home maybe more enlightened, or at least having benefited from a real debate instead of a mudslinging name-calling hate-talk-radio-type slugfest.