Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front |
WOT: It is okay to overestimate a threat, but it is never okay to under one |
2003-06-27 |
Hugh Hewitt is the host of The Hugh Hewitt Show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. He identifies a key concept here: since September 11, "it is okay to overestimate a threat, but it is never okay to underestimate one."THIRTEEN MONTHS AGO, Senator Hillary Clinton rose on the Senate floor to demand answers to questions about what President Bush knew about the September 11 attacks before those attacks occurred. Dick Gephardt (then minority leader in the House) echoed the demand, asking "what the president and what the White House knew about events leading up to 9/11, when they knew it, and most importantly, what was done about it at the time." The Notebook editors at the New Republic couldn't resist a little second guessing of their own--directed at Attorney General John Ashcroft's post-attack request for a higher budget for counterterrorism: "[S]omeone should ask why he didn't mobilize some of those resources beforehand," scolded the magazine in its June 17, 2002 issue. |
Posted by:ColoradoConservative |
#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 |