way too much doubt to a man who is lying to you :)
Hindsight. Everyone thought that he had them back then. A prudent person
would have to think he had them based on the evidence and his actions at the
time. From what I've read, he may have even thought he had them. I certainly
wouldn't want to have to tell him that we didn't have any.
Too many he's in this paragraph. But I think I would be answering it
when I say that Bush fails to understand that while authority can be
delegated responsibility cannot. Even now he does not accept
responsibility. In a president, that's terrifying.
the vital interest was the interest of law. The UN passed a law, then refused
to enforce it.
You mean it didn't feel it was necessary to comply with the schedule
of the Bush election team?
:)
There were no indications at the time that resources would not be available.
besides common sense?
Enforce UN resolution. Clear, direct, unequivocal.
oh, is that the justification du jour? Ya don't read the newspapers,
and there he goes again :)
Hindsight. And preventable. This was the result of bad decisions.
And whose responsibility is that? If Carter was responsible for the
Iranian hostage fiasco, Bush is responsible for this one.
Yes we had. There we no expectations that Saddam would increase compliance
according to the resolution and there was no expectations that France, Germany
or Russia, singling or together would ever remove their veto. And while we
wanted, we paid for how many troops waiting to enforce UN actions at our
expense. How quickly would Saddams even meager compliance end once those
troops were withdrawn? I didn't see anyone else saying, Hay, lets wait. Here
is 30-40 million to help defray expenses.
And why did we have troops there almost a year ahead of time? Because
there never was any plan but to invade Iraq. Ever. See Plan of Attack
by Bob Woodward.
And gee, I don't see anyone else stepping up to help defray expenses
this way either
Again, it really all depends on your perspective and which items you take as
"fact" and which as "guessing".
It would seem so
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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]
