Level Extreme platform
Subscription
Corporate profile
Products & Services
Support
Legal
Français
WMDs on Frontline tonight
Message
 
To
31/01/2004 17:42:14
John Ryan
Captain-Cooker Appreciation Society
Taumata Whakatangi ..., New Zealand
General information
Forum:
Politics
Category:
Articles
Miscellaneous
Thread ID:
00869552
Message ID:
00872734
Views:
18
>Just curious. Did anybody in the administration ever claim Iraq had WMD? You got really annoyed re this earlier, so I'm sure you think they did say that.

No, just amused that not only did you claim that Bush said something he didn't say, but also claimed I wrote something I didn't. But don't let that stop you.

I'll ask again... where did I ever write that the administration never claimed Iraq had WMD?

>These WMD. Do they represent a threat? Assuming they do, how far in the future is this threat, if a madman has the WMD today? Say he gave some nerve gas in a tiny cannister to a terrorist to carry on a plane. If the madman has the nerve gas today, when do you think the possibility of giving it to a terrorist will begin?
>
>I'm just curious because to many people, the threat of WMD in the hands of a despotic dictator, begins as soon as the WMD exist. You seem to prefer some sort of notional "imminence" such that if the word itself is not spoken, it never happened.

I would just prefer that when you claim someone has said something or written something, you would actually be able to prove it. So far, you can't or won't.

>As it is, if you read the whole first article I posted earlier, it refers to an article posted by the admin in which the very phrase "imminent threat" is used. You need to scroll way down to find it. On the way you'll find a few other comments that you might find salutory as well.

I read a few of the links which pointed to articles that claimed much like the LA Times and NY Times did, that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. Of course, when you read what Bush actually said, you realize he didn't. But if you prefer to believe what someone claims the President said rather than what he actually said, that's your business.

If you would actually provide a direct link to wherever you have found this article, please provide it.

Finally, as I asked Jim, can we all at least agree on a definition for imminent, as supplied by dictionary.com:

Usage: Imminent, Impending, Threatening. Imminent is the strongest: it denotes that something is ready to fall or happen on the instant; as, in imminent danger of one's life. Impending denotes that something hangs suspended over us, and may so remain indefinitely; as, the impending evils of war. Threatening supposes some danger in prospect, but more remote; as, threatening indications for the future.

There is nothing the President said that meets this criteria.
Chris McCandless
Red Sky Software
Previous
Next
Reply
Map
View

Click here to load this message in the networking platform