--- Dan your attempt to paraphrase and clarify is appreciated as sincere, but it breaks down with the following:
> 3) He obtains agreement to oust Hussein's army from > Kuwait, but to only do > that. He agrees to not invade Iraq. He thinks he > can inflict enough damage > on Hussein's forces and reputation to cause him to > be overthrown even > operating within those boundaries. This is weird. H had VASTLY more legal authority to act flexibly against Saddam than W ever had. It is incredible neocon weaseling to say "we never had authority to oust Saddam in 91! I will not dissect such drivel. I will scrape it off my boot. > > 4) Desert Storm happens, following that line. > > 5) There are uprisings in Iraq, which find > encouragement and promises of > support from Bush (Does anyone have a definitive, > reliable source on what > was dropped/broadcast?) The support was not as > strong as it needed to be Yeow! Talk about understatement. Schwarzkopf says that the Iraqi generals stared, dumbfounded, when we said "go ahead and fly your helicopter gunships all you want!" > What I am curious about is whether you disagree with > my description of the > chain of events, you think we should never have > promised to not invade > Iraq, SHow me the promise. Moreover, we were already in Iraq. ANd Iraqi generals and soldiers were pleading to be sent against Saddam.... ... exactly as many pleaded THIS time to be allowed to help establish order. Before the entire Iraqi army was dissolved -- instead of purged -- at orders from Riyadh. A decision that makes sense only if you WANT american soldiers to die establishing order themselves. or we should have promised to not invade Iraq > and then invaded Iraq > anyways...or pick option 4 that I can't see. :-) > > I think Bush was wrong to promise the people of Iraq > more than he was > willing to actually deliver. He probably was sincere, till his masters phoned him with the stop order. I have no argument with > you faulting him for > that. But, I don't think he was wrong to agree to > not invade Iraq as the > price of getting a great deal of cooperation. Sorry. It's crap. Nobody in Europe or Asia would have minded rescuing the people of Basra. He never promised anybody to stand by and watch them be murdered. He simply made that decision. Or rather let it be made for him. > Without permission to launch > an attack from Saudi Arabia, the war would have been > more difficult. The saudis were pissing in their pants! Their monster Saddam had gone berserk and they were next. H made NO SUCH PROMISE. And if he did, he had no need to keep it. > And, I remember how many reasonable people thought > the war was going to be > much harder than it was. IIRC, Powell warned that > US casualties could be > 40k injured and dead. The Iraqi army was considered > battle tested, and > about the 5th or 6th best Army in the world. The US > had not faced such a > strong force since Nam, or Korea. I will not argue here. The US military is awesome. Its officer corps is the best ever seen. They are the 3rd most educated clade in american society. And they are our sole hope if W is re-elected. They are heirs of George Marshall and they will not cooperate with his plans. Which is why, in today's paper, we see that Goss, the new CIA Director, has already betrayed his promise to stop being a partisan hack (as if anyone believed him). He brought in 20 veteran neocon gopper staffers to replace professionals in top positions. And one of them has been roaming the halls at the CIA bragging that "over a hundred heads will roll" right after the election. (According to SEVERAL leak-source paths). They have to start mass firings and house cleanings. Watch as the purges begin. They'll find they have to cut deeeeep before they get to rotten apples who will go along with betraying us. Oh... and then there is the blatant squelching of the part of the 9/11 report that talks about Saudi Complicity. CAN NONE OF YOU SEE THAT AS WORRISOME? > I also don't fault him for not invading Iraq...since > he gave the word of > the US, government to government, that we would not > do so. SORRY, THAT IS simply nonsense. We gave our word to the Geneva Convention but have violated it several thousand times this year alone. We gave our word AS A PEOPLE AND A NATION to the Shiites to help them. We owed NOTHING of the sort to the Saudis and Kuwaitis, whose asses we had saved. That is simply sophistry. > In short, I see him as being pragmatic and taking > half a loaf immediately > (Kuwait retaken) while having reasonable > expectations for the last half > loaf (Hussein overthrown). I can see you see it that way. This is less silly than the "pomise" crap. But it is still silly. > One final personal political statement. I voted > against him twice, so I > have no stake in reviewing him positively...I just > want to call the shots > as I see them....even if it goes against the grain > of my political > persuasions. I respect your attampt to raise arguments, Dan. You are openminded and forgive my language. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
