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: Sully- who wrote (19263)	12/10/2003 1:31:05 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794334

So other than spin & distortion, what was their point? I read it differently. I think Friedman is slowly coming around to the view that Bush might, I say, he just might, believe the stuff he's been saying, and that as this might betoken a large shift in American foreign policy which ought to be paid attention to, Friedman is trying to bring his readers along, most of whom still regard Bush as a simpleton with no input into his own Presidency.

To: Sully- who wrote (19263)	12/10/2003 6:40:52 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794334

So other than spin & distortion, what was their point? "Thomas L. Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times" Nevermind. At the time of that particular Bush speech, Bill and I were engaged in a discussion of the rationale for the war. That speech was a dramatic change of direction. We also discussed how it may have come about and what it might mean. I posted this Friedman's column to Bill because it paralleled our earlier discussion and I thought he might find it interesting that Friedman has gotten around to the topic we discussed. You have taken the column simply as an example of the ubiquitous spin from the Times. Have you read Friedman's books on the ME? Do you not know that he guy is a certifiable expert on the subject? Do you not know that he has been stationed there forever, away from the "corruption" of the Times' brie culture. That you can write off this knowledgeable, articulate, and wise man and everything he says on this subject with a NYT "nevermind" demonstrates, er, something less benign than a hobbyhorse.