Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (46005)	9/21/2002 10:52:34 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The case the Bush folk make for preemptive attack on our part is that we are in immediate danger. No, they are not, John. They are setting up a case that Saddam has the ability to do these things, and the proven BG of doing them, and that we do not want to leave him in a position to do them at his choosing. You are the one who is setting up the "immediate danger" criteria. You know our government is not going to catch him in a totally "smoking gun" situation. By the time this happens, it will be too late. By using this criteria, you will never have to admit that we should move on Saddam. You want to leave us in a "Retaliation" mode. You want them to have to "hit first." We are not willing to settle for that.

To: JohnM who wrote (46005)	9/22/2002 11:15:21 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The case the Bush folk make for preemptive attack on our part is that we are in immediate danger. Hi John - I have looked through recent speeches by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice, and the phrase "immediate danger" doesn't come up. I think you are mistaking an argument by opponents to the effect that Bush must show "immediate danger" in order to act. In other words, you're setting up a straw man.