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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (60686)	2/2/2004 11:01:30 AM
From: abstract	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

As I read all these articles I see different issues being addressed. I think the Kay comments you reproduced reflect the underlying justification for going to war. I think the NYT article did not address why we went to war as much as it addressed the intelligence failure and then segued that into the the question of how much we should rely on faulty intelligence (an exact parallel to the question you raised about trusting the NYT if the accuracy of their reports has been disproved.) I think the Kay, Bush & historic Clinton comments you reproduced all reflect the thinking of a lot of centrist to right thinking people in the United States. This country is not divided into SOLELY two groups, left and right, liberal and conservative, black and white. Besides those who would have gone to war for all the reasons you, Kay, Bush and Clinton site there are those who were only persuaded about the IMMINENT need to initiate war because of the immediate danger of WMD. Others were opposed for any reason. And still others agreed with the evidence and not the means. This is a country of hyperbole. That Jessica girl didn't deserve or want to be a hero, but we made her one. And George Bush doesn't deserve to be taken down more than a notch for 1) having, 2) believing and 3) initiating (according to maybe only 10-20%) war based on faulty intelligence. I think the Kay, Bush, Clinton centrist/right opinions accurately present the facts. I think the NYTimes addresses another issue and is slanted, but not as much as you think it is slanted. I see many factions with opinions about Iraq and do not see just right and wrong, war or no war (I still would have preferred an assassination of Saddam) but lots of gray middle ground about how this could have been done better. Self-examination is okay - that's what we as a country do, albeit hyperbolically. Look what we did to Clinton. Let us not equate Bush and Clinton, but how well do you think Bush is going to fare given this country? Not how does he DESERVE, but how WILL he fare? Maybe we can agree that the hyperbole is excessive.