Yes, it would apply to all sides of any issue.
Let me offer an example of what I’m getting at:
Lets say I turned on the T.V. and the surgeon general was telling me that this product called “Hot-Rox” was:
“dangerous, ineffective and that the FDA needs to send its agents down to the Biotest headquarters to seize and destroy it!!! And while their at it, they should occupy the place so none of the “Luoma-Patterson” regime gets back in control. Why those two have been posioning their own athletes, dont you know!!!”
If I didn’t know better, I would thing:
“Gee, he’s the surgeon general. If he says this stuff is baaaad for me, and that the FDA needs to spend tons of money to bust down Biotest’s doors and occupy the place he’s probably right. Go get em, FDA!!! Support the FDA!!!”
Without knowing anything about Hot-Rox, I might begin to question the good Dr’s assertion when I find out that he had been employed by a pharmaceutical company poised to make a ton of money off their own weight loss drug.
I would REALLY begin to ask some serious questions if I found out he proposed the invasion of Biotest when Hot-Rox started eating into his company’s profits.
I wouldn’t necessarily assume he was biased and just making the claim for his own profit, but I would really, really wander . . .
Regarding the War in Iraq: its quite possible the legislators oppossing it are the ones lying. However they are overwhelmingly in the minority. (none of the democrat pres candidates who have a realistic chance of winning propose we withdraw)
Since were sending 130,000 troops and 87 billion dollars, I’m much more concerned about the creidibility of those claiming we should be there than the handfull who didn’t want us there at all and want us out now.
Agains, my idea applies to both sides, but given who currently controls the presidency, and both house of congresses, there the ones I"m concerend about right now. If the demos win things back, I’ll be skeptical of anything they tell me too.