A Professor Sets A Debate Question

[Annie]

Now this I'd LIKE to SEE:

It's worth reading the whole thing

http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingprofs/2004/07/the_debate_is_j.html

Excerpted Conclusions:

Kerry

So the bottom line here is that when it comes to questions of what level of risk is acceptable, Sen. Kerry wants to tolerate much, much more risk before going to war (only facts, only an imminent threat, and only then after all available avenues have been exhausted or we've been attacked.) September 11th may have changed many things, but it has not created a world in which the level or risk we can tolerate before acting has been lowered. You may not like that position, but it's clear, coherent, and eminently debateable.

Bush

The point, again, is that September 11th changed things. It changed the way we evalute risk, and therefore the way we choose to interpret evidence, when we think it's time to act, and what we think the goal of our actions is. The 9/11 commission fundamentally explains why the President is pretty much unrepetent about the decision to go to war. The evidence was incomplete. It spoke to a great risk. There was no way to get better evidence before a decision had to be made. Therefore I acted. Now, in fact, he still defends the argument that there is now evidence supporting the argument that given Saddam's intent and WMD programs, the deicision was the right one substantively as well as procedurally. But it is the procedural aspect, the way risk was evaluated, where the decision lines up as a perfect mirror image with what Sen. Kerry is advocating.

You may disagree with this position. But it's coherent and clear, and eminently debateable.

Lets, as they say, get it on.

 

[Moi]

That was interesting reading. I'm impressed you found it- I doubt I ever would have!

 

[Annie]

That was interesting reading. I'm impressed you found it- I doubt I ever would have!

Thanks, stumbled on the site awhile ago and bookmarked it!