From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 12:39:02 MDT
In a message dated 4/14/2003 1:12:19 PM Central Standard Time,
hagbard@ix.netcom.com writes: In my mind, the claim that this administration
has opened a frightening new chapter in US foreign policy is a claim that may
be overstated. 'Pre-emption' is nothing more than lawyer's sleight of hand.
It's a discursive trick used to justify an already agreed-upon course of
action post-hoc. It is a claim to have predicted the future with enough
certainty to justify intervention, and the prediction is not replicable by
anyone else because threat model is classified or based on classfied
intelligence. Justifying a pre-emptive strike without a smoking gun requires
your audience to believe in your voodoo.
Keith,
I believe you are being just a little bit academic. The situation is
anything but academic.
Our President was in a real world situation. He might or might not
(if I listen to the naysayers) have had classified intelligence to justify
his position.
On the other hand there is no question in my mind based on public
information that had accumulated for literally years that Sadaam represented
a threat to this country and that he was financing, training and equiping
people that would attack us if he didn't do so himself.
When the United Nations showed itself incapable of defending the world
against Sadaam then it was right and proper for our country to take him out.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 12:47:42 MDT