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: Neocon who wrote (125929)	3/11/2004 6:20:52 PM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

*I don't know how many times I have heard employees go on like that about their new bosses.* No doubt about that Mr. Neocon. But cut away the adjectival descriptions by the former Lieutenant Colonel and there still remains a real difference of opinion as to what "policies" should flow from "intelligence." I could be wrong, but it looks to me as though the Lt.Col. is making a case that the resulting policy should be as even handed and balanced as the intelligence it is given. Whereas the OSP (whose chief executive doesn't seem to be identified) would assert that policy is to be formulated based on perceived self-interests and that intelligence is but another tool of achieving those policy goals. Of the two approaches the Lt.Col.'s strikes me as the more conservative and bureaucrat friendly. But neither view is without weaknesses. What concerns me most is that the Lt.Col. could work so long in the nerve center of an institution so badly damaged by the 9/11 attack and yet remain so opposed to the OSP's objectives. I can only assume from this that (a) your namesakes within the Pentagon are as incapable of persuasion as Mr. Harris; or (b) most of the "bureaucrats," and thus most of the population from which they come, won't agree to the neocon "policies" unless and until we suffer far greater injury. 0\|0 [ed., Please note that the above alternatives are offered in full knowledge of the democratic citizenry's capacity to turn on a dime, as well as it's tendency to offer it's nose ring to the first pretty face on the ballot. But we cannot ignore the intelligence reports which confirm a current lack of "dimes" in circulation and a startling lack of pretty faces on the horizon.]