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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (340796)	6/19/2007 7:34:28 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577905

None of which changes the fact that Bush, and others in his administration did specifically said the threat wasn't imminent. I was wondering how long it would take you to come back with that...you don't disappoint. So they acted with urgency but the threat was not imminent. Why did we have to invade so urgently? The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. " It's a pile of retrospective dung...by this doctrine, we should have focused on far more dangerous entities then and now. This is stinking rationalization in the face of impending failure. Al