Read other letters about this article

• Monday, January 12, 2009 07:49 PM

  wbgonne

  Thanks for listening. (If you did.)

  I did (or, read, as the case may be).

  About FISA (which I think would apply to pretty much any other issue), you say:

  There are 3 possibilities. He was 1) making a purely political calculation, which is possible since Obama seems to me as astute a politician as Bill Clinton; 2) he learned somethings in the course of his briefings that made him change his mind; or 3) a combination of the two. I don't know and I will wait to see how things shake out but, yes, this does trouble me. For now, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  If #1, I wouldn't describe that as the action of an astute politician. I'd say that is the action of a liar. Why must we succumb to this as part of the natural/political order of things? I don't think we should, no matter what's accepted as "political." One of our problems is that so many of us shrug and say, "that's a politician for you."

  If #2, then, again, he should just say so.

  If #3, we wouldn't expect him to say so, given #1.

  But here's Timothy3 on the matter: It is utter baloney/nonsense/horseshit (that last being my preferred) to accept political "triangulation" from these people.

  Look, if they know about triangulation, and we know about triangulation, then why all this triangulation? To whom are they speaking?

  It's as if I say to you, "Hey, I'm going to lie to you,"

  You say, even before I get the words out of my mouth, "I know you're going to lie to me."

  I know that you know this. You know it, too.

  So why this dance macabre (or at least, deception)?

  —Timothy3 Read Timothy3's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel