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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (119019)	11/9/2003 12:58:31 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Yes, off the hook for the accusation you made.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (119019)	11/11/2003 1:06:18 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Molly Ivins, An imminent distraction threat dfw.com [ When the "imminent threat" bet thing first came up , I googled the phrase and discovered that a sucker's bet was being offered. Not that that's particularly remarkable in the looking-glass world of neocon "facts and logic", where "words mean things", and no high school debate trick is too cheesy. So I let it pass. Molly Ivins conveniently showed up in the local rag yesterday with a concise take. On the particular topic at hand: Right-wing commentators have ignited yet another pointless debate, this one on the burning topic of whether the administration actually told us we were going to war because Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed an "imminent threat." The right-wing choir is suddenly singing, "He never said imminent, he never said imminent." (They are so very good at all singing off the same page.) Here, fallible human memory (this was less than a year ago) reasserts itself, and you find yourself saying: "They damn well did say Saddam was an imminent threat. I was there. I heard it, again and again." The excellent blogger and journalist Josh Marshall, in a column for The Hill, points out that it may be true that no member of the administration ever used the words threat and imminent in conjunction. True, when asked if Iraq were an imminent threat, various spokesman really did say, "Yes," with varying degrees of emphasis. They said the threat was "mortal," that it was "urgent," that there was "clear evidence of peril." They said that we could not wait -- but they did not say "imminent threat." That sure reassures me that we we're not dealing with delusional leaders. Now why exactly did they tell us we were going to war? I'd throw in the whole column to rouse the rabble, but the new "limited" SI didn't go for it last night, probably not today either. Maybe the Counselor from the ultraviolet end of the spectrum can go whine to Bob about it or something. Maybe it's anti-semitic to poke fun at the neocons. Maybe it's all too silly for words. ]