In your first paragraph it really is not clear to me.. the first "he"
is Saddam and the others are Bush, right? Maybe I am just tired. I
really did not mean to be insulting. But I submit to you that a
prudent person would have made sure.
Re: responsibility, I commented some while back that while I believe
that Jimmy Carter was a good and genuine man, the fact remains that he
was president during the Iran hostage fiasco. I was thinking along
those lines here. It seems to me that Bush keeps saying that it's not
his fault because A B or C. Well, he is in charge and until he quits
worrying about who was at fault and fixes an issue (Iraq let's say)
then it will continue to be out there and a drain on our resources.
Dana
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:10:38 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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.
> Lets not be like others on this list and move to insulting versus
> answering
> the question or raising a point...
> 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.
> Not sure what responsibility you are referring to. And while I might come
> to agree with you if you explained your point, accepting or not accepting
> responsibility this has nothing to do with the question at hand.
>
> Again, it really all depends on your perspective and which items you
> take
> as
> "fact" and which as "guessing".
>
> It would seem so
>
> Finally, we agree on something. <g>
>
> Have a good night.
> Andy
>
>
> ----- 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]
