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: Lane3 who wrote (25310)	7/27/2006 8:50:19 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541326

It's a familiar old attitude, if we just have the balls to drop enough bombs, we cannot help but prevail in the struggle for good around the world. And if we don't prevail, blame the wimps and traitors without enough balls to show real resolve. It's a very circular, self-sealing, delusional logic bubble.

To: Lane3 who wrote (25310)	7/27/2006 9:07:56 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541326

You missed the <g> Or were you meaning to add "... from the right"? Rice seems to me an arrogant mouthpiece, nothing more. Chosen presumably with agreement from Cheney and Rumsfeld (black marks already) after Powell, despite his capitulation to pushing war to the UN, showed too many signs of recognising the importance of diplomacy and the limits to the neocon style. She won't say what Bush doesn't want her to, and hence if he has no handle on events, then how can she? Meanwhile, 'reining in' State department is surely a bizarre, demeaning and foolish function for its own nominal head. If it's any consolation, I don't think she's bordering on the Strangelovian egomaniac fringe of warmongering madness, which does give her a step up on many (former) Bush advisors. Overall I haven't noticed many signs of especial competence or smarts in her actions to date; and possibly not unconnected, no independence from Bush. Assuming you meant your line as a <no g>, can you point to good evidence to the contrary of either lack?