Net Llama! wrote:
On 04/09/2006 06:32 PM, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
Net Llama! wrote:
ugh, please pass the antacid.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
In for a penny...?
King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was
viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is,
What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is
not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good
In retrospect, 9/11 showed that both Clinton and Bush ignored all the
warning signs that trouble was on the horizon. They didn't leave things
alone as much as pretended that they failed to acknowledge that 'things'
were there.
options. What is the least bad thing to do?
Iran has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does Iraq for that matter.
My favorite (if there is such a thing) part of the above article is
where they pointed out that the Bush administration is currently using
the same tactics and approaches to building a case for attacking Iran as
they used to attack Iraq. I can only hope & pray that they don't use
the same approach for figuring out how to exit Iran.
Bush wants his legacy to be Iran, which is incredibly disturbing. The
last thing the Bush administration needs is yet another war, seeing as
how they haven't finished the first two that they're embroiled in. For
everyone's sake, I'm hoping Bush's legacy is never Iran. I just pity
whomever follows Bush into the White House. They're going to have one
hell of a huge mess on their hands.
You're correct on all points, Lonni.
Michael
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
