Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
here is what I mean:
1. You said Rumsfeld's line re: most immediate threat of any terrorist state could be read as merely being comparitive among all terrorist states.
2. In order for Iraq to be the most immediate threat but not to be an immediate (or imminent, whatever) threat, it would have to be the case that none of the threats against the US from terrorist states are immediate/imminent. Otherwise "most immediate" would also mean "immediate", thus negating Rumsfeld's ability to argue otherwise.
It seems to me that post-9/11 most of the US (including the Bush admin) has believed that there are terrorist states that pose an immediate/imminent threat. But if you have some knowledge that the Bush admin doesn't think this is the case, please elaborate.
|
Your logic is correct, but I'm not aware that the Bush administration has declared any terrorist state an immediate threat. If they have, I lose.
