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: ChinuSFO who wrote (14411)	3/10/2006 7:54:20 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541986

This blogger is playing with words and not only confusing the entire issue but is also making a deliberate attempt at defending Bush. It took me a while to figure out what you're talking about. At least I think I figured it out. You're talking about the source at the link that Tim provided. I did not click on the link, MRC.org, when I originally read Tim's post because I didn't see any need to. But when I did just now, I saw that the piece was, indeed, an attempt to defend Bush (although I wouldn't call the source a "blog"). So I can see what may have exercised you. Nonetheless, there was none of that in the two paragraphs from the source that Tim posted here so I don't see the relevance of it. The content of those two paragraphs, the observation of the significant difference between topping and breaching, is valid and obtainable from multiple sources or simply by drawing on a dictionary and one's own intellect. I can't abide Bush but I readily recognize the difference between topping and breaching and that it is not valid to say that we have any evidence that Bush was advised of the risk of a breach. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest or incompetent. The bias of a source is irrelevant when what is reported is demonstrably valid. Wonder if this blogger can cite a mistake that Bush has acknowledged he made. I don't know and I don't care. Since you care, you might want to pose that question to the source, not to Tim, who cannot be expected to serve as an apologist for something he didn't post.