Do you mean by this that these needed to exist at a minimum? Or that these
did not exist? Or something else?
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:51 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
IMO, 1, 4, and 7 were no-starters.
-Kevin
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:51:35 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dana:
> So if you believe 1,2 & 7 you might do what Bush did with a few other
Yes's
> mixed in. I don't see anything directly about the UN, but it is probably
> covered under 7. One could seriously argue that no further progress was
> possible and I believe that that was Bush's believe as well.
>
> I think that you could make a serious argument supporting 1 & 2. #3 is
> primarily up to you and one might argue that we had the resources during
the
> start of reconstruction and didn't dedicate them. 4 I think is met. 5 is
> more rhetorical than anything, 6 is probably a no over any multi-year
> timeframe.
>
> Now, how would you take into consideration an election in 2 years,
ensuring
> that you couldn't act 1 year later. Can you just image the screams about
an
> starting a war to win an election? And 1 year after (why didn't you tell
us
> about this?).
>
> Bottom line, while we should discuss the quality of information upon which
his
> information was based, I am not so sure that a reasonable person wouldn't
> reach the same conclusion if he/she had GW's call.
>
> Andy
>
> 1. Is the US being seriously threatened?
> 2. Is a vital US interest at stake?
> 3. Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
> 4. Are the objectives clearly defined?
> 5. Will we sustain the commitment?
> 6. Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will
support
> the operation?
> 7. Have we exhausted our other options?
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
