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: Bill who wrote (148430)	10/20/2004 8:44:05 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hmnn... I just accidentally deleted a lengthy post that started off by simply pointing out Edwards turned 18 in the summer of 1971. In short: He turned 18 after public opposition to the Vietnam war was already surging; after Seymour Hirsch brought to public attention the My Lai massacre; after Nixon announced troop scale backs; after the troop complement was cut almost in half; and after the "Pentagon Papers" were brought to light despite a battle by Nixon to prevent them from reaching the light of day. I also mentioned that I don't care about his record or lack of it - I'm a conservative, not an Edwards apologist. Looking at the times of those days provided a nice detour into looking at the record of various administrations as to how lies, deception, failed assumptions, and poor leadership contributed to years of bad policy. Its interesting to note - from original declassified documents - that the administration then used suspect intelligence intentionally to deceive the American public and the world to justify a policy "that the Administration had wanted to implement for some time" (paraphrased from the original). Sounds just like the current situation. In the last year of the Nixon administration I was an unwilling witness to his ultimate downfall - I'd been involved in a fire and spent three months recuperating in bed from serious burns. A kid at the time, I was horrified (beyond the pain of dressing changes) to find out that the only thing on TV then was Watergate, watergate, watergate. Perhaps thats how I got interested in politics in the first place; I know the whole affair had a profound impact on me. If nothing else, the review of the past underscores why true patriots, true conservatives and liberals and libertarians and what-have-you, should always question their government and "leaders". Questioning is the only reason I am involved in this discussion at all. People don't always get the top job - government or business because they are the best or most ethical... PS: You can access a ton of material declassified from LBJ and others. It makes for interesting reading. One thing observed is that the analysis and intelligence estimates presented at the executive level are full of opinion as well as specific facts. Why its so hard for some to accept that it would be easy to orchestrate an opinion that an administration wanted to hear, I will never understand. Perhaps if people took time to read more of the historical records they'd realize that all these actors are the same as all of us - they put their pants on one leg at a time; they have biases, allies, personal debts to pay, favours to deliver, future political / business / military careers to think of -- in the elite air of Washington, especially in the corridors of power, is it any wonder that actions are taken and justified based on false pretense from time to time?