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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (35607)1/19/2004 12:05:20 AM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (4) of 89467
 
A conversation with you reminds me of when my kids were teenagers. My sentence was

But, a year ago, the Admin was claiming that Saddam then possessed large quantities of WMDs, and that as a result he was an imminent threat to his neighbors, and us.

Had I known that the word "imminent" was such a sore spot for you, I would have used the word "existing". The point I was making would have been the same. I did note that your first reference included the sentence

To be sure, administration sources often suggested imminence.

But if the word imminent or imminence bothers you that much, let's ban it from the discussion. If you'll recall there were questions a year ago about why now? And the response was that Saddam already had the weapons so, at any time, he could attack his neighbors or give some to terrorists. Therefore, we couldn't afford to wait. You can use any word you like to apply to that argument, but it won't make the argument any less fallacious, because the weapons just weren't there.

lurqer
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