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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (56316)	3/26/2008 8:26:55 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543554

you bring up an interesting point- but this point is elminated if one looks at the novel and somewhat bizarre idea of "preemption"- if we discard the unhealthy idea of "preempting" things, we are no longer in danger of attacking phantoms. Pretty neat solution, isn't it? I can understand why you'd like to defend Bush's belief in the bluff- that's a hard thing to get around; you have to start saying things like "Well if we believe it was real than it's real"- which sounds an awful lot like the Velveteen Rabbit- nice book, lousy foreign policy.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (56316)	3/26/2008 9:17:51 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543554

>>If rhe report states what I see as clear and compelling evidence that it was reasonable for saddam's bluff to be not discounted as an imaginary threat, then saddam was a real threat.<< Thomas - I hadn't realized that you were the ultimate decision maker, and that if you are convinced, it must therefore absolutely be so. Please pardon me for taking the ISG report to mean what it says. - Allen PS: Just one minor point. You haven't provided any quotes from the report that indicate Saddam was a real threat. You've only quoted the same two sentences about how he wanted to be one. Are those two sentences, then, the whole of the "clear and compelling evidence" you are citing?