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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (196846)	2/17/2007 5:30:45 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794367

If they hadn't approved Petraeus Bush would just have appointed someone else to do the same thing. Remember, it was Bush who said he was deciding on this- not Petraeus. Remember who "the decider" is. I still don't have any idea what you think this has to do with what I said, even if we agreed on this. I personally prefer people who never supported the war, and who wouldn't approve anything they disagreed with (although I'm not sure how approving Petraeus plays in to the whole thing, because there has to be some commander, and Bush isn't going to appoint someone who disagrees with him, or who agrees with the democrats and the republicans who oppose a surge) but that's not the way politicians generally function- not politicians of the left or the right. Obviously it matters to you how Murtha voted and how Hillary voted. I'm still angry with everyone who voted for the war, so you don't need to tell me there is a mighty stink in Washington- but I don't see what it has to do with treachery, which is what I was talking about. I still don't see any connection. Disagreeing with the methodology or tactics of a politician is one thing, calling them a traitor is something entirely different, and (imo) isn't effective rhetoric if you hope to convince people who don't already agree with you. That was my point and I'm not sure how it connects to your points. Are you trying to make a connection? If you aren't, I really don't see what we're talking about, except that you think politicians should be consistent, and you don't think Hillary and Murtha were consistent, so they don't have any right to oppose the surge? Can't say I agree, but I understand that point. I just don't see why you are posting it to me.