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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (2441)	12/11/2003 8:41:13 PM
From: mph	Respond to of 90947

thanks for those links. I now understand why the term "imminent threat" was even raised about dealing with Iraq. It was obviously due to well-established international law which justified preemptive strikes to thwart an "imminent threat." The September 2002 report directly addressed this and suggested that, in the post 9/11 world, the concept of justified preemptive strikes should be expanded to include dealing with rogue nations who posed a real threat, even if not imminent. The State of the Union message was consistent with that stated POV. The Democrats' initial opinions, as articulated by Ted Kennedy, were that preemptive strikes against Iraq should not be authorized UNLESS the threat was imminent. Ultimately, enough Democrats changed their minds about the supposed requirement of imminency such that the authorization vote passed. Afterwards, when they tried to make political hay out of the Iraq situation, they accused the Administration of making the case for imminency, under the more traditional legal precept, despite their own acknowledgement of the lack of evidence of imminency. I know it sounds like doubletalk. Maybe that's cause it is.<g>