My wife and Kids will tell you that 'Ken' will often suffice...They're simply the new kids on the block. We have engaged preemptively on many occasions and probably will in the future. Immediate versus imminent is a semantic argument of little import; for Iraq, perhaps 'real' or 'significant' would be better words.If by immediate you mean imminent, I don't think you'll find much disagreement at any point in the debate's history. The neocon argument for preventative war is only novel in that it addresses threats that are not imminent.Dunno. Don't care, don't pay much attention to them, personally. My universal attitude toward politicians and pundits, all types and breeds.The Bush Administration probably hasn't executed Middle East transformation as ambitiously as neoconservatives might've hoped, but if Kristol and friends aren't principally about primacy and rollback, what are they for?No one is enlarging the scope of the strategy; the issue I raised is what was the trigger FOR the strategy.Enlarging the scope of the strategy aside, we're still going to come back to assessing risks and benefits...Sorry, I have no idea what what you're trying to say there.......You're not going to find anyone try to argue against a God's honest gospel figure detailing the widely separated means with narrow variances, but if that were the case then why is that like the only juicy bit of scandal not being leaked by the President's critics in the national security interagency? It stands to reason that such an analysis either fails to offer clearly ranked options for policymakers or it simply doesn't exist.
Bookmarks