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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (151533)11/11/2004 3:56:57 PM
From: Michael Watkins  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Look who is playing word games now.

If there were no threat, why engage in containment?

A biting dog kept in a yard is contained, and no threat to its neighbors.

The threat seemed both clear and present, and the means of dealing with it seemed fragile over time.

Even though I disagree with your premise completely, if for arguments sake I accepted it, what you are saying is that Bush - with all the political capital earned by the grisly 9/11 attacks - was impotent? Powerless to stop the erosion of the "means of dealing with the threat"?

That's ludicrous, even so, its a popular talking point, however absurd.



To: Neocon who wrote (151533)11/11/2004 4:20:43 PM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Just as a aside, would "clear and present" bear any relation to "imminent"? Because my understanding is that it has been rather vociferously denied that W ever said or implied anything like "imminent", as in "imminent threat". There's plenty of word games to go around, is my jaundiced impression.