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: MrLucky who wrote (5414)	11/16/2005 8:24:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 542891

They had the same intelligence he had Anyone with Bush's level of intelligence doesn't have much. TP

To: MrLucky who wrote (5414)	11/17/2005 1:08:56 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542891

I agree that integrity collapsed all around. Hindsight is 20/20 but if we were Monday morning quarterbacking, I wouldn't just accept "Well, everyone thought the same thing so it must have been OK." It's like the old joke from mothers to their kids, "Would you jump off the roof if Jimmy told you to, huh?" We are supposed to learn to think for ourselves. In policy issues, that means questioning the validity of your information and gaming all the possible outcomes of your proposed policy choice. What if we invade and end up in a quagmire....what if Iraq cannot be remade into a stable new entity without Saddam...what is the character and track record of the people feeding us the WMD info....what would we lose if we wait six months or a year and get our allies on board before we step up to an invasion....what else can we do to verify the fragments we have about WMD and terrorist links..... Those questions were glossed over or shut out by the administration, and not asked by the opposition. The few who did were drowned out and spit on as terrorist-lovers and weaklings. There was no room in the debate for all sides because there wasn't a debate, just a jingoistic crusade that took us headlong into the current situation. The Democrats are conveniently omitting what they said before, and Bush is conveniently refusing to acknowledge he ever made any errors. Both sets of party leadership are bankrupt in the credibility department. The question now is - could a moderate stand up and point out the errors on all sides, advocate a more deliberate process going forward and not get drowned out by the "WE MUST WIN! WE MUST WIN!" crowd on the one side and the "IMPEACH ALL THE FASCISTS!" activists on the other? Do voters want someone who will stop and think and ask questions first before we do this again? That's what I am waiting to see. If enough incumbents lose in 2006 and the new faces are not more rabid ideologues, we may be onto something.