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 (137997)	6/25/2004 4:24:10 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Sam; Re: "As you can probably guess, I disagree with this completely. Bush is a political animal, and will say whatever he/Rove thinks is necessary to say to win the election. He isn't going to be presenting any ideas for new invasion when the latest one is going badly and when it should be obvious to anyone without ideological blinkers that the planning for this invasion was abysmal." On the one hand, you claim that Bush is a "political animal". This implies that he does what he does for political reasons. Okay. It's now clear that invading Iraq was a political error. Then why should Bush do it again? Even if he postpones the invasion until after the election he'd still end up destroying the Republican party in the 2006 and 2008 elections. That doesn't sound like the actions of a "political animal". On the other hand the left claims (and you imply) that Bush is blinded by "ideological blinkers". So which is it? You can't have both. Your self contradictory logic reminds me of the claims before the war that Saddam had WMDs. On the one hand, the neocons were saying that after the WTC attack, "everything had changed". On the other, they claimed that "Saddam Hussein hasn't changed". This was an exercise in bad logic even ignoring the widespread evidence that the WMDs had been secretly destroyed, as I stated on this thread at the time. Now there's widespread evidence that the Bush administration has changed, but you're in denial. The same logical error, but this time from the left wing instead of the right. In both cases the claim is made that the guy is going to do something that is profoundly stupid unless we do something to stop him now. Hey, Bush and Saddam are stupid, but they're not profoundly stupid. Before the Iraq war, it was widely expected that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. That wasn't Bush's stupidity, it was a widespread delusion in the US. As with the logical error about Saddam's chemical weapons, the error is driven by a desire to attain some other goal. With Saddam, the argument was made that he had not changed in order to justify a war that was desired in order to change the Middle East. With Bush, the argument is made that he has not changed in order to justify the election of a Democratic president. Just more partisan BS. -- Carl