Article

2003-06-27 Home Front

WOT: It is okay to overestimate a threat, but it is never okay to under one

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-06-27 11:22:15 AM|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I find it interesting that you use two seperate arguements, one that the administration didn't consider Al'Quida to be a significant threat before the terrorist attack and that the Bush administration overestimated Saddam's weapon threat. These are two seperated instances, and on both we see a lack of leadership. You say that the Democrats are suggesting that the president have his hands tied, and therefore you attack the credibility of anyone in that party who agrees on both instances, which is a Ad hominem argument. You then degenerate into a Straw man argument of UAV's in Iraq, If you've ever flown a model airplane, you would experience the extent of Iraq's UAV program.

Here are the facts, for fundemental truth is by definition not fact, but an assertion of fact from authority or group agreement, again a flawed argument.
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Pearl had pre-planned the removal of Saddam prior to the Bush presidency (PNAC 1997) and then took advantage of terrorism (911) in this country as a method of controlling the president's leadership, we all get to go along with them now, instead of what Bush ran on, which was a policy of non-interference with sovereign countries and no nation building (campaign speech 2000).
If that's not being conned, then Condeleza Rice didn't have an Chevron oil tanker named after her.

Posted by Anonymous3957 2004-03-29 12:20:38 AM|| 2004-03-29 12:20:38 AM|| Front Page Top

00:20 Anonymous3957