SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: nolimitz who wrote (487736)11/5/2003 6:44:31 PM
From: Original Mad Dog  Read Replies (1) of 769667
 
No. Of course not. If a non-imminent threat is capable of being converted into an imminent threat without advance warning, then dealing with it before it becomes imminent is certainly within the range of rational options. And that is precisely what Bush said.

I would also suggest that 12 years is hardly "post haste", and that giving Saddam several "last chances" to cure his intentional violations of the agreements under which he was allowed to stay in power was hardly "post haste". In essence, the "post haste" argument is that 13 years would have been preferable to 12. Which would have been followed by "14 better than 13" and so on.

There is room for debate about whether and when the threat should have been dealt with. But Bush did not respond to the "non imminence" argument by claiming "imminence".
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News