[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Apr 13 2009, 11:13 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

I do not automatically assume my leaders know best or are doing what is in my best interest.

Nor do I. I do know, however, that they have access to more information than I do.


Given your distrust of both the media and politicians, I'm curious as to the source of apparently firm conviction that a notion like "The surge worked" is nonsense.

Depends on the definition of success - if the goal was the illusion of stability in Iraq then the surge worked. But a conglomerate of sources all point out (and not denied by Patraeus) that the payment and arming of the militants rather than the surge created an environment that appears (but isn't really) more stable. The information is not difficult to locate if you are willing to look.

There is not doubt that Obama has much more information about state secrets and wiretapping than I do, but that does not prevent me from saying he is 100% wrong in promoting the Bush/Cheney doctrine and actually trying to broaden executive powers in this regard.

There is no justification for this power grab - none, nada, never.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 14 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

But a conglomerate of sources all point out (and not denied by Patraeus) that the payment and arming of the militants rather than the surge created an environment that appears (but isn't really) more stable. The information is not difficult to locate if you are willing to look.

But how do you, personally, determine what sources are credible, given your well-emphasized distrust of both politicians and the media?

[brianshark]

Interesting predicament Obama has found himself in. I imagine he just bowed a little because it's the natural thing to do in that situation and he wasn't thinking too much about protocol, etc.

Unfortunately, despite nobody on this thread seeming to care about a bow, your country obviously does (enough to even have a protocol about this, and enough for the half that aren't in power to dream up another smear campaign). I imagine Obama and his advisors had to decide between what they have to put up with now and the stick they would have got if they admitted to knowingly disregarding long established American protocol.

The whole denial thing, while it seems childish to intelligent thinkers like us BBO forumers, is probably going to be worth a lot less hassle in the long run so I wouldn't criticise them too much for their response.

[Lobowolf]

brianshark, on Apr 15 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

Interesting predicament Obama has found himself in. I imagine he just bowed a little because it's the natural thing to do in that situation and he wasn't thinking too much about protocol, etc.

Unfortunately, despite nobody on this thread seeming to care about a bow, your country obviously does (enough to even have a protocol about this, and enough for the half that aren't in power to dream up another smear campaign). I imagine Obama and his advisors had to decide between what they have to put up with now and the stick they would have got if they admitted to knowingly disregarding long established American protocol.

The whole denial thing, while it seems childish to intelligent thinkers like us BBO forumers, is probably going to be worth a lot less hassle in the long run so I wouldn't criticise them too much for their response.

I wouldn't even say he "knowingly disregarded" anything. Much more likely that it was just an instinctive, polite reaction.

Disagree about the lesser hassle. Americans generally don't care all that much about screw-ups (especially minor ones), but care more about cover-ups (not that it's a "cover-up" per se, but I put it in the same sort of category).

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Apr 14 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 14 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

But a conglomerate of sources all point out (and not denied by Patraeus) that the payment and arming of the militants rather than the surge created an environment that appears (but isn't really) more stable.  The information is not difficult to locate if you are willing to look.

But how do you, personally, determine what sources are credible, given your well-emphasized distrust of both politicians and the media?

I believe if you look closely you will find your paraphrase about my beliefs to be incorrect. I have never said I do not trust politicians; nor have I ever stated I mistrust the media.

What I have said is that politicians are unduly influenced by the money that helps them finance their elections and re-elections, and the mainstream media is overtly biased.

That leaves a wide world of views to evaluate when defining a belief.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 15 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Apr 14 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 14 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

But a conglomerate of sources all point out (and not denied by Patraeus) that the payment and arming of the militants rather than the surge created an environment that appears (but isn't really) more stable.  The information is not difficult to locate if you are willing to look.

But how do you, personally, determine what sources are credible, given your well-emphasized distrust of both politicians and the media?

I believe if you look closely you will find your paraphrase about my beliefs to be incorrect. I have never said I do not trust politicians; nor have I ever stated I mistrust the media.

What I have said is that politicians are unduly influenced by the money that helps them finance their elections and re-elections, and the mainstream media is overtly biased.

That leaves a wide world of views to evaluate when defining a belief.

Apologies if I've mischaracterized your position.