Was Pericles hoping that no-one would notice that that quote from the article by Johann Norberg at http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp102/bp102index.html did not challenge what Klein said about Rumsfeld?

If anyone takes the trouble to read that article, they will find that it contains as much substantive content as what they will find in Pericles' 'contributions' to this forum.

One more time, just for you daggett.

>>Was Pericles hoping that no-one would notice that that quote from the article by Johann Norberg did not challenge what Klein said about Rumsfeld?<<

He didn't need to specifically mention Rumsfeld. He had clearly stated his opinion of Klein's accuracy.

"Klein's analysis is hopelessly flawed at virtually every level... Klein's historical examples also fall apart under scrutiny. For example, Klein alleges that the Tiananmen Square crackdown was intended to crush opposition to pro-market reforms, when in fact it caused liberalization to stall for years."

In any event, the Rumsfeld speech is there for all to examine, and to draw their own conclusions whether his objective was, as I maintain, to prod the bureaucrats into action, or as Klein maintains, to line his own pockets and those of his friends.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

As I thought, Norberg's supposed rebuttal of Klein does not answer what she wrote of Rumsfeld and his supposed revolution in the armed forces.

I also found very little that dealt with any of the substantive facts on all the other topics that Klein covered in "The Shock Doctrine".

As always, daggett, you are entitled to form your own view.

>>As I thought, Norberg's supposed rebuttal of Klein does not answer what she wrote of Rumsfeld and his supposed revolution in the armed forces. I also found very little that dealt with any of the substantive facts on all the other topics that Klein covered in "The Shock Doctrine".<<

Of course, in doing so you would have to consider the fact that he found Klein's work "hopelessly flawed at virtually every level" to have no influence on your assessment.

We all pick and choose what we want to believe, daggett. Ultimately, it is what defines us as human beings, does it not.

Of course, an employee of a right-wing think tank such as the Cato Institute, funded by corporations to create propaganda to serve their interests would write of "The Shock Doctrine", that it is "hopelessly flawed at virtually every level".

The question is what is the evidence he bases that assessment on and when I read the start that document, I found very little.

Yes, we can choose to believe what we want to believe, but if we choose to deny the clear evidence that one group was framed for a horrific crime by others who actually perpetrated that crime, that will eventually become apparent to reasonable people, with their eyes open, in a fair and open debate.