Frank Newgent
22nd March 2004, 06:15 PM
At least these guys are predictable...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15565-2004Mar22.html
The White House went on the offensive today against President Bush's former top terrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, over criticism of Bush's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, calling Clarke's charges irresponsible...
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870288179#post1870288179
If (according to the Strausseans and other feudal thinkers) truth cannot be popularized and the basic fact of human nature is there will always be a gap between the wise and the common folk which cannot be bridged by the progress of popular education, then some of the most fundamental questions, philosophical or otherwise, can never be discussed openly without destroying the necessary protective atmosphere of authoritative opinion. And if the truth (concerning, say, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction) can't be directly stated, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do so.
Though, of course, newly prominent critics of the Bush administration like Paul H. O'Neill (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history/secretaries/poneill.html) and Richard Clarke (http://www.infosec.jmu.edu/ncisse/Conference99/WebSite/bio/clarke.htm) are obviously harboring grudges, they were out of the loop and just trying to sell books because they're working for Kerry and well, you know, sour grapes. Stuff like that.
What diminutive best captures those who would wonder why the contradictions of reality should diminish the expression of untruths so grounded in firm metaphysical principle?
I suggest Bu(sh)-Woo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15565-2004Mar22.html
The White House went on the offensive today against President Bush's former top terrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, over criticism of Bush's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, calling Clarke's charges irresponsible...
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870288179#post1870288179
If (according to the Strausseans and other feudal thinkers) truth cannot be popularized and the basic fact of human nature is there will always be a gap between the wise and the common folk which cannot be bridged by the progress of popular education, then some of the most fundamental questions, philosophical or otherwise, can never be discussed openly without destroying the necessary protective atmosphere of authoritative opinion. And if the truth (concerning, say, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction) can't be directly stated, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do so.
Though, of course, newly prominent critics of the Bush administration like Paul H. O'Neill (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history/secretaries/poneill.html) and Richard Clarke (http://www.infosec.jmu.edu/ncisse/Conference99/WebSite/bio/clarke.htm) are obviously harboring grudges, they were out of the loop and just trying to sell books because they're working for Kerry and well, you know, sour grapes. Stuff like that.
What diminutive best captures those who would wonder why the contradictions of reality should diminish the expression of untruths so grounded in firm metaphysical principle?
I suggest Bu(sh)-Woo.