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: Lane3 who wrote (27500)	2/2/2004 8:41:06 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793677

I think that the Administration does us a disservice by not reviewing the bidding and either reminding us of the "real" reason or making up a new "real" reason or something to get us on the same page. It's there, but it's muddled. They are afraid they can't sell it to the country. I would love to see all Foreign Affairs conducted on a "crystal clear" basis. However, that has never happened in the History of the World.

To: Lane3 who wrote (27500)	2/2/2004 8:13:41 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

"Wstera posted something last night about the "real" reason for the war being not the threat of WMD but the violation of UN sanctions. That was a backtrack." Where did the author of that article or myself assert this was the "real" reason for the war? The fact is that I never made any such assertion. Melanie Phillips never used the word "real" in that context either. And that is precisely what the article exposes so precisely regarding significant matters pertaining to the war. What the author did was review the facts & presented her expressed opinion based on known facts. All I did was include additional factual information that supported the author's opinions so that we could draw our own conclusions from a reality based perspective. And you not only ignored all of that, you asserted it was not accurate. "That was a backtrack." Speaking of backtracking, why not go back with the author & revisit what really happened then & compare it to what is perceived today? IMO, the facts clearly establish that the Bush Adnin did not reverse their position or "backtrack" as you falsely asserted. The author cited Admin officials' & the President's own publicly made comments, plus David Kay's comments, then drew her expressed opinion on historically accurate events. The difference between perception & reality on these matters is shocking IMO. The point that Melanie Phillips makes is that the major difference between her review of historically accurate events prior to the war & what is perceived today is that during the time in between, the liberal media & liberal politicians have framed their revisionist view of reality & repeated it so frequently that it has become accepted as the real version of events by the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd. IMO, she was spot on. How many people still firmly believe that Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat"? How many people firmly believe that the Iraq war was based on intentionally false & misleading information from the Bush Admin? How many people firmly believe that David Kay said no WMD actually existed in Iraq, thus proving that Saddam was no threat and we were led up the garden path to war? How many clearly false perceptions exist about the war because liberal media & the liberal politicians have repeatedly lied & distorted reality to the public? BTW, although your assertion about the "real" reason for the war is wrong only because neither of us used the word "real". It is your false assertion that we said "real" that is so typical of how serious false perceptions are created. I'm not going to split hairs with you on any spin you may wish to raise on this specific matter.