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: Dale Baker who wrote (23350)	7/9/2006 8:41:26 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542105

s simply pointing out that Bush may have inadvertently and unintentionally rode roughshod over Congressional oversight? An oopsie? No, not an oopsie. Definitely with forethought, but not the end objective just as killing a bunch of civilians isn't the motive for bombing some terrorist's safe house. The civilians and the balance of power are collateral damage. The charge against the Times is that it set out to to benefit the enemy at the expense of the US and does so by printing that stuff. That's what treason is. The milder claim would be that the Times prints that stuff with cavalier disregard for the fact that the fallout is a benefit to the enemy. Two different motives for the publication although the result in terms of the enemy is the same either way. The charge against the WH is that it set out to, was motivated to, destroy the balance of powers and if it can dispatch a few enemies in the process, all the better. That is the same as charging the Times with having the motive of treason, and if it informs some readers of the news in the process, all the better. The parallel seems obvious to me. Apparently not to everyone.