Hi David,
I think I see a minor inconsistency between two of your
recent statements. Your clarification may be useful.
*Especially* if you think I misunderstood your positions.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:02:28 -0700 (PDT) you said:
>Do I really believe my theory about absolute and
>knowing treason under orders from Riyadh? In fact, I
>confess that there is a plausible alternative that
>fits the facts: towering imbecility combined with
>Saudi alacrity at taking advantage of a bunch of
>manaical ideologues. Indeed, were you to ask that I
>BET, I suppose I'd give slightly better odds to the
>alternative.
(And I kind of agree with it, although giving much larger odds
to the incompetence option. I also quibble or observe that
insufficient competence, combined with arrogance, greed, and fear,
can produce similar results to towering imbecility.
I believe that successful, long-term secret conspiracies are
very rare, at least because they require an unusually large degree of
competence and loyal commitment among the conspirators.)
But, later on the same day you said something not fully
compatible with the statement above:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:15:15 -0700 (PDT) you said:
>If you actually listen to my actual statements. the
>only ones I am accusing of treason are the team George
>W Bush has gathered around him. And the facts speak
>for themselves. The only way our readiness and
>reserves could be allowed to evaporate in dangerous
>times is treason.
>
>The only way we would have sent our best units to
>become snared in an attrition land war in Asia,
>following the exact prescription of Vietnam, is
>treason.
>
>The only way we would be doing the exact bidding of a
>hostile foreign power, weakiening this great nation,
>bankrupting it, dividing it, corrupting its elections
>and institutions and recuiting a million new Jihadists
>per month is... is treason.
The use of the word "only" in these paragraphs perhaps
hints that you are toying with abandoning the
"incompetent" option you previously
considered betting on -- perhaps with
some reasons that are good to your eyes.
Or, more probably, it means that you are somewhat
overstating your already very good case:
because we don't want incompetents to lead this nation
any more than traitors.
Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding something; please explain in that case.
Go ahead even if that means that we disagree more than I think.
I have *deeply* disagreed in politics with at least some of my friends
all of my life, I have no personal need to change that now :-)
Ruben
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
