On 7/31/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are confusing a factual conclusion with a political conclusion. Whether or not Iraq had WMD stockpiles or programs is a factual conclusion for which the intelligence services are suited. Whether that threat is "immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal" is a political conclusion that is properly the province of the political arena.
Are you saying that Iraq, despite having no WMDs, could have posed an immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal threat to the United States? By doing what, running with scissors? Doesn't a political conclusion need to have a factual basis? Can politicians properly decide that another nation is an immediate threat to us even though they don't have any weapons capable of hurting us? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
