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: Sully- who wrote (13697)	11/13/2004 8:04:34 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

the report makes it plain that George W. Bush had good reason to go to war in Iraq and end the regime of Saddam Hussein. The report does no such thing. The report said that none of the reasons given for war were true, and only that it was possible that some danger may emerge in the future. Why do you believe such nonsense? I new study is beginning to show the answer. The report shows that Bush supporters seem to simply ignore information they don't like - even if it is confirmed by the Bush Administration itself! They continue to believe in arguments even Bush and Cheney themselves have dropped - the WMD, and the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, respectively. And this may be because they get their information from unreliable sources. writ.news.findlaw.com Steven Kull, the report's author, provides a rather benign explanation for why this is: "The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," Steven opines, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake." This bond between Bush and his supporters, Kull notes, interacts with some "idealized image of the President" that they hold. And the two, together, make "it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies, or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with [those of] his supporters." TP

To: Sully- who wrote (13697)	11/13/2004 8:58:55 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 20773

Clearly there is no point in discussing anything with you since the constant stream of new information does nothing but underscore that the administration made a massive error yet you still believe the original rational for going to war. You should take a cue from Bush and Cheney themselves -- not even they, any more, suggest that Iraq was a serious threat from "weapons of mass destruction". Their whole argument has degraded to "its right and just to free a people". Yet you continue to argue the original arguments despite all evidence to the contrary. I've no doubt that your blinders would cause you to argue to the contrary even if Bush admitted he screwed up! Faced with two colors - black and white - in front of you, no doubt you will insist that both are Red. Unfortunately for the state of the union, there are too many people who support this illegal war and they fall into three broad categories: 1. Blinded by irrational hate. 2. Blinded by irrational fear. 3. Just too uninvolved to dig for the truth and buy whatever is sold to them. You must be in group one or two or both.