Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mia T
The left's complaint was that the Iraq threat was not imminent, the implication being that 'imminent threat' is, in fact, sufficient cause for war.

Not Quite. The left's complaint was that Bush said it was an imminent threat. You better listen to Rush's archive on his website. You totally missed the point.

10 posted on 08/18/2004 10:58:57 AM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: hflynn

I agree with you insofar as that, at some point, some on the left got confused and turned the left's position re 'imminent threat' on its head; but recall the INITIAL ARGUMENT made by the left; recall the rantings of kennedy et al. They argued that the iraq war was a mistake precisely because the iraq threat was not imminent. Read the george soros - animal farm piece, above....

In any case, my main point (and Rush's error) is this: the addition of 'imminent threat' does not, as Rush claimed today, make kerry's position consistent with Bush's. Bush argues that to wait until the threat is imminent IS TO WAIT TOO LONG.

This difference is PRECISELY why the left and kerry are very dangerous. They will NOT act preemptively, which is an untenable, quite insane position post-9/11. This difference will cause every thinking voter to vote for Bush.


11 posted on 08/18/2004 11:38:12 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson