Endgame Viable

The local feud between SLANTblog and Skeptical Observer has inspired me to remove the following “big name” feud blogs from my newsreader: Daily Kos, GOP Bloggers, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs, Michelle Malkin, and RedState. Daily Kos has been living in a vacuum-sealed Leiberman/Lamont bubble for months now. The other four pour out non-stop snarkiness, day after day after day after day, and it’s gotten pretty tiresome. RedState and Daily Kos also suffer from insufferable political wonkiness — reading poll results and avoiding donation links every day is not very entertaining.

On the above-mentioned feud, I’m going to stay out of it. Well, except to say that the Skeptical Observer, while admittedly acting like a pompous prick, has a moderately valid point, which is somewhat supported by his source, Spinsanity. He argues that the president never said there was an imminent threat from Iraqi WMD — that he in fact was acting explicitly to prevent the threat before it became imminent. While that certainly sounds like a B.S. semantic argument on the surface, my brief research actually supports it… kinda sorta. You be the judge. In his 2003 SOTU speech, the president said:

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. … If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. … America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies. … If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”

My judgment is that he may not have technically said Iraq was an “imminent” threat, but he certainly implied there was a “future” threat. Which brings it back to a question of semantics.