I think you're confusing the denial of Bush with the naivete of the NYT or Krugman.
At 15:04 24/06/2003 -0700, you wrote:
<<<<
I don't think it's a matter of naivete. You have to open people's minds to their deception gently. If you accuse someone of being wilfully stupid and willingly deceived, they will be even more defensive and retreat into denial.
>>>>
You're quite right when one is talking of psychological denial. But here we're talking of Bush's denial (that oil is the main reason for the invasion of Iraq). As for the NYT and Krugman's naivete, I'm not so sure they are really being naive even though I charged them with it in my posting. I think it's more likely that they're pretending to be naive in order to heap further coals of fire on Bush's head. Even though neither party has official responsibilities, they are sufficiently intelligent to know that if America's true purpose is openly talked about in the columns NYT then they could partly responsible for a really nasty response by the Moslem countries.
Keith Hudson
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
