[CLUE-Talk] Another Bush Lie v2.0

[black at galaxy.silvren.com]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Randy Arabie wrote:

> There's nothing more to support that kind of assertion
> against the Bush Administration than any other.  Sure,
> that's always a concern anywhere where a leader of a large
> organization must delegate power and depend on subordinates
> to make decisions.

I agree.

> In fact, Collin Powell's efforts to push the Bush Admin to
> get UN support is evidence that Bush has not surrounded
> himself with "yes" people who just tell him what he wants to
> hear.

Possibly, but I am not convinced of that. It could also be a case of
backpedaling, but this is all speculation.

> Why belong to a political party if you don't have a vested
> interest?
>
> What would be the point of a political party if it had no
> agenda?
>
> Why run for political office if you don't have an agenda?
>
> Would you vote for a candidate that didn't have an agenda?

I agree on everything you said here as well.

> There's no such thing as a source of the "unvarnished
> truth".   Anything that requires interpretation by a human
> is varnished.  There is no such thing as an unbiased human.

More agreement! The reason I originally posted was to disagree with
whoever posted the thread about why we couldn't all just accept that Bush
surrounded himself with a bunch of unbiased, impartial people.

Seems like we've shown why. :)