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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (4669)	10/26/2005 5:57:13 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 541674

Sucessful Presidents like Clinton were often critisized for looking at polls instead of using gut-instinct. The Rove machine had already been setting up this idea of seeking the consensus thought of the public to be a bad idea ... a sign of weakness. When they began to promote the war they already knew the position that they wanted to take, and Rove et. al. did not allow any significant amount of time for the rest of congress to get advice from those who should run the country - the people. The war was hurried so that the enabling laws could be passed before the million people who hit the steets could be effectively heard from. TP

To: wonk who wrote (4669)	10/27/2005 8:20:16 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 541674

Regardless of one’s political party or philosophical persuasion, the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has – or should have - far greater knowledge and insight regarding threats to this country. Hence, when the President – and it doesn’t matter if it Bush, Clinton or James Buchanan – comes before you and states that a threat is imminent, whether expressed or implied, one must place great weight on the statement. You might not want to, but the very fact that in a public forum the elected head of the Executive Branch says so, one must begin with the presumption that the matter is serious. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Senate have an Intelligence Committee, an Arms Committee, and other related committees to keep an eye on the executive branch? Where was their discussion of the facts and findings in congress? So while I agree with you that the word of the head of executive branch means something, I disagree that it is (or at least supposed to be) the only thing or even the biggest thing. If you go back to the comments of many DNC members at the time, it is clear that many of them disagreed with the decision for war but chose to vote for it hoping (wishing?) to catch Bush & Co. on the mess up while looking every bit patriotic by not opposing the "threat". So I just don't find much patriotism in members of the congress from either party...or at least not enough when their own political life is at risk.