ALL BUSH SUPPORTERS READ THIS
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 09-02-2004 - 10:03am |
'In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....
There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of
our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land."
If only his son could read.'


Pages
Despite what you seem to think, I have no vested interest in "wanting to believe" there is truly a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Trust me, I am not so in love with George W. Bush (or ANY Republican) that I want to see him re-elected at any cost. If there were any other candidate whom I felt would be effective in fighting the war on terrorism without trying to be "sensitive" about it (Joe Lieberman and John McCain come to mind), I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.
Bev
This from the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward regarding Kerry's (and Kennedy's) stance on the vote to give Bush authority to go to war:
What wás said, is that there are links between SH and international terrorism (he was the self-proclaimed and proud sponsor to e.g. families of suicide bombers in Israël).
I see, so this is why we went to war in Iraq? I seem to recall the president and Powell and the rest telling us that SH had weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist groups that attacked us. All proven untrue BEFORE they made those very speeches telling us these lies, and certainly known to be untrue before the first death there.
There were diverse reasons to go into Iraq, I and others have mentioned them ad nausem, yet you keep perpetuating the lie about being deliberately <<"lied to">>.
"Is there any act of atrocity that you could imagine that is so horrible and catastropic and beyond the pale that would cause you to back that president doing what needed to be done to stop Al Queda with military force?"
But they haven't stopped Al Qaeda. Remember Bali? How can you stop a movement that has no home, no single base, no acknowledged leader?
I'm not saying we should all give up and let terrorism take us over, but making war on other countries is NOT the answer, because terrorism doesn't live in any one place. It takes more than guns to fight an idea.
Pages