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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (133073)	8/17/2005 10:30:01 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793817

Some of them will pick up on anything that has the slightest chance of embarrassing Bush. Well, yeah, some would. And some partisans will anticipate that by trying to pre-empt anything that has the slightest chance of embarrassing Bush and by doing so, raises the issue. And then it's a fine cycle we're in. I've made this point before and I will make it again here, briefly. Sometimes that pre-emption causes a problem of its own making. Maybe had the pre-emption not occurred, there would still have been a problem. But maybe not. I didn't see a thing in the news in my usual sources about Cindy until the pre-emptors made it an issue. And the ensuing cycling makes it into the monster that it is. It's like any fight--whose fault is it? The guy who provoked or the guy who reacted?