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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (125918)	3/11/2004 4:05:41 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have known military guys who were liberal. I have known Republicans who were liberal. What she writes has the ring of water- cooler gossip, not serious revelation........

To: Sam who wrote (125918)	3/11/2004 7:25:40 PM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 281500

*Now she writes about her experiences with them.* Hello Sam! Neocon is otherwise occupied so I thought I'd pick on you for awhile. <vbg> Another concern I have regarding the Lt.Col.'s reported experiences is her writing style. It's certainly a very serviceable style for debate, persuasion and/or argument, but it does raise the question of whether or not all the "picture painting" is endemic in the intelligence bureaucracy. True she may well be a writer capable of applying differing styles for different audiences. But if so, what does it mean that she chose to use the conclusory, adjective laced, anecdotal prose in this new forum? Does it not deserve a clear, concise application of the facts? Can we not be trusted to reach our own conclusions? Could it be that the neocon's perceive the even handed and balanced "intelligence reports" of the bureaucracy as being designed to force an even handed and balanced policy, even if that policy does not serve their perception of our interests? In the end I don't see anything in her accounts which I could use to determine who is more correct and who is more wrong on the proper use of "intelligence." 0\|0