On 31 Jul 2006, at 5:15PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
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?
Politicians decide things all the time that have no factual basis.
Left, right, up, down; one thing they all have in common is a
determination not to let facts interfere with their political faith.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are
the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
