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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (9241)	4/15/2004 6:40:24 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I suspect when the Bush-Kerry debate(s) happen (will Bush dare to do more than one?) you will see some stark, fascinating contrasts in both style and substance. Bush better find some convincing arguments in the next six months or he is in for a long 90 minutes in October. His "positions" are too full of transparent contradictions to hold up very well, like: Invading Iraq to fight nonexistent terrorists and WMD there....which only created a haven for terrorist activity. Cutting taxes to create jobs - result was high deficits and job destruction.... US can create a free, secure democratic Iraq with US money and troops and the Potemkin village "coalition" - reality belies that daily..... More and more people are waking up to the basic realities. Bush will find himself on the defensive unless and until he can make his issues work. Kerry just has to avoid any major gaffes. Otherwise I would expect a Bush approval rating in the 30's by late summer.

To: rrufff who wrote (9241)	4/15/2004 10:51:57 PM
From: Ron	Respond to of 20773

When secrecy protects a lie By Walter Cronkite The initial refusal of President Bush to let his national-security adviser appear under oath before the Sept. 11 Commission might have been in keeping with a principle followed by other presidents - the principle being, according to Bush, that calling his advisers to testify under oath is a congressional encroachment on the executive branch's turf. (Never mind that this commission is not a congressional body, but one he created and whose members he handpicked.) But standing on that principle has proved to be politically damaging, in part because this administration - the most secretive since Richard Nixon's - already suffers from a deepening credibility problem. It all brings to mind something I've wondered about for some time: Are secrecy and credibility natural enemies? When you stop to think about it, you keep secrets from people when you don't want them to know the truth. Secrets, even when legitimate and necessary, as in genuine national-security cases, are what you might call passive lies. Take the recent flap over Richard Foster, the Medicare official whose boss threatened to fire him if he revealed to Congress that the prescription-drug bill would be a lot more expensive than the administration claimed. The White House tried to pass it all off as the excessive and unauthorized action of Foster's supervisor (who shortly after the threatened firing left the government). Maybe. But the point is that the administration had the newer, higher numbers, and Congress had been misled. This was a clear case of secrecy being used to protect a lie. I can't help but wonder how many other faulty estimates by this administration have actually been misinformation explained as error. The Foster story followed by only a few weeks the case of the U.S. Park Police chief who got the ax for telling a congressional staffer - and The Washington Post - that budget cuts planned for her department would impair its ability to perform its duties. Chief Teresa Chambers since has accepted forced retirement from government service. Isolated incidents? Not really. Looking back at the past three years reveals a pattern of secrecy and of dishonesty in the service of secrecy. Some New Yorkers felt they had been lied to following the horrific collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Proposed warnings by the Environmental Protection Agency - that the air quality near ground zero might pose health hazards - were watered down or deleted by the White House and replaced with the reassuring message that the air was safe to breathe. The EPA's own inspector general said later that the agency did not have sufficient data to claim the air was safe. However, the reassurance was in keeping with the president's defiant back-to-work/business-as-usual theme to demonstrate the nation's strength and resilience. It also was an early example of a Bush administration reflex described by one physicist as "never let science get in the way of policy." In April of 2002, the EPA had prepared a nationwide warning about a brand of asbestos called Zonolite, which contained a form of the substance far more lethally dangerous than ordinary asbestos. However, reportedly at the last minute, the White House stopped the warning. Why? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which broke the story, noted that the Bush administration at the time was pushing legislation limiting the asbestos manufacturer's liability. Whatever the reason, such silence by an agency charged with protecting our health is a silent lie in my book. One sometimes gets the impression that this administration believes that how it runs the government is its business and no one else's. But this is a dangerous condition for any representative democracy to find itself in. Democracies are not well-run nor long-preserved with secrecy and lies.