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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (228384)	4/24/2007 5:41:46 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This debate does bring up an interesting point : would it be better if the President of the US were not carrying the dual role of Commander-in-Chief of US military ? A similar example can be found in Pakistan, where Musharraf is the President and the Commander in Chief - and widely held perspective is that its a dictatorship there. If the 2 roles were separated, in such a situation, the buck would stop at the Commander-in-Chief's desk.

To: Elroy who wrote (228384)	4/24/2007 8:43:32 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

They were mislead by GB. He may have honestly mislead them, but they were mislead. As a lawyer, I find this construction fascinating. Understanding how anyone can mislead honestly requires mental flexibility I don't have. Misleading requires an intent to deceive, and doing so honestly is inapposite to what you mean. I suspect that admitting that there was a massive intelligence failure is too difficult for you to consider as the truth, which it plainly is IMO.

To: Elroy who wrote (228384)	4/24/2007 1:33:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

this makes you different from the Dems, who are claiming they wuz fooled to avoid responsibility for their 20002 vote, They were mislead by GB. He may have honestly mislead them, but they were mislead. We all were The Dems aren't saying that Bush "honestly mislead" them. They're saying "Bush lied" - which involves a deliberate intent to mislead and deceive. This absolves them of their own responsibility for a war they were afraid to oppose, when it looked like it might be quick and successful - and was following Clinton's own policy to boot. So your analogy doesn't hold water.