Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ilaine who wrote (118996)	11/9/2003 7:11:34 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) of 281500

No matter how many times and how many ways you spin it, Bush never said that Saddam's WMD were an imminent threat. In fact, he said the opposite (from the 2003 State of the Union Address) I never said he did. What I did say .... Ari Fliescher along with the peaceniks thought he did, and that Bush's false statement that the IAEA claimed that Iraq was 6 months from a nuclear capability suggested something imminent. That's what I did say. As far as your use of the word "opposite" .... to me the opposite of "imminent" is "never". I wouldn't use the word "opposite" ... I think it would be more accurate to say...."The President said we're not going to wait until it's imminent." Of course, China has a nuclear capability and they are not an imminent threat. France has a nuclear capability and they are not an imminent threat.....let's invade them before they become an imminent threat. Then there's North Korea. They're fricking crazy and believed to have a nuclear capability.....and they've suggested that they're ready to use nukes! IMO, North Korea is a lot closer to imminent than Iraq was. jttmab

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next