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: E who wrote (113271)	8/29/2003 1:34:59 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

WOW! You find one word out of numerous sentences from the speech you cite that continues to stand in complete contrast to your POV. And that one word was stated more than three months before the term "imminent threat" was falsely attributed to Bush. However within hours of Bush clearly articulating that Iraq was NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT, the false attributions began. Somehow that one word spoken more than 100 days earlier is supposed to make every one of the dozens of clearly conflicting references from President Bush irrelevant. Or should it be the other way around? I'm sure you are certain you have proven your point beyond any doubt. I'm completely astonished at the lengths you are going to cling to a faulty, inflexible POV.

To: E who wrote (113271)	8/29/2003 4:37:24 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

re: what is the definition of "imminent": If a person has firmly decided that arsenic is yummy and ice cream is poison, there is no point in discussing it with them. Just stand aside, with the antidote in hand, and wait patiently. Mostly, people are only willing to learn things the hard way. I never knew an alcoholic who quit, until he had lost his wife or his job or both. The unilateralists will be wanting the antidote, somewhere between the time 1000 and 5000 Americans have died in Iraq. Patience. JS@neckdeepinthebigmuddy.com