|Questions and Observations|
The left seem to have a problem understanding the difference between a gathering threat and an imminent one.
Suppose we work in the same office. You know I have a record for felony assault and battery. You pass by my desk and see me VERY agitated, angry, muttering to myself with a lead pipe on my desk. Now this is a GATHERING threat, because there is a chance I may bash you now, later or never. Is this a situation you would feel comfy allowing to continue? This is the situation GWB described in his State of the Union Address.
Now if you see me grab the pipe, point at you and bellow "I'm gonna bash your head in" and start to run at you, this is an IMMINENT threat.
Of course, if you wait for the gathering threat to become imminent, you may have about 10 seconds to avoid being clubbed by my lead pipe once it starts to happen. You better run fast! Is this what the left advocates that Pres. Bush should have done? Wait until it was possibly too late?
But what about the fact that the intel. on the gathering threat/imminent threat was false you say?
Ok, you walk in, see me agitated, angry and with a lead pipe at my desk. You see this and ask your boss, other people in your department, heads of other departments and the bosses of other companies their opinion. Overwheling consensus is that I am in fact deranged, and a possible threat. Do you say to yourself "but there is also the chance that he is playing a practical joke on me, I will sit and inspect him"? Do you try to get your bosses permission, the permission of the other department heads to act? What if 4 out of 5 bosses say you should act, but the mailroom head thinks you should not act? What then? DO you run the risk that instead of acting, you watch and wait and I suddenly jump up and bash you, or my cubicle-mate with my lead pipe? Of course not. Prudence and common sense dictate that you act using the intelligence and information you have.
Posted by: Shark at February 6, 2004 01:36 PM
|Post a comment|