I guess I have a few minutes.
1. As it turns out the US was not threatened. One could argue that
Bush perhaps thought it was. To which I would reply, given the reports
dismissed as "just guessing" do you really think he exercised due
diligence in finding out?
2. Is oil a vital US interest or just a chemical it is addicted to?
Let's not even mention Haliburton. Does Israel represent a vital US
interest? Or is it just our long-standing policy to be its ally? These
were Kevin's reasons. What vital US interests do you feel were at
stake?
3. Dubious, considering that we have not so far and the mood in
Congress was never promising.
4. WMD no wait liberating the Iraqi people no wait attacking
terrorists before they attack us.
5. It is to laugh. Or perhaps it is to weep :)
6. Why should they? At best public opinion is very divided.
7. Well, let's see. We ordered the inspectors out of Iraq.....we
didn't bother to wait for the Security Council....
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:51:35 -0500
Subject: RE: The politicization of the Iraq War
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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]
