From the excerpts I have read from the UN report, the UN is still in the process of investigating the drones to determine if they are a violation of the UN Security Council sanctions. Over lunch I heard the White House press secretary say that these drones could be altered to deliver biological and chemical payloads. This is a concern. In the end, these drones may be found to be legit. Who knows? The UN inspection team still needs time for them to make their determination. I suspect that as configured these drones may only be illegal if they exceed to the 150 km limit. We will see.
fair enough...you're right that it's probably still too early for me to be throwing barbs at blix...i just don't like it so far. by the way, wasn't "barbs at blix" an unsuccessful sitcom spinoff? in the seventies?
Bush Senior screwed up the first time. Who DOESNT think that we should have gone all the way and gotten rid of Saddam when we had the chance? What this just shows is that W isn't doing this because of his Father or because of "Daddy's friends." W is doing it because he thinks it's right. (Whether he is right is another debate.)
An excellent post, KingCheetah. This is one of my biggest concerns (besides getting MadMax to work on my yard!)... that we are indeed in the process of throwing away decades of intricate alliances and relationships because of Bush Jr.'s apparent inability to look beyond what he sees as an immediate problem. Saddam is a problem, no question. Saddam's absence from the scene could lead to a more stable Middle East, but there are fair questions about that. Do we have a more stable Middle East if we go in more or less unilaterally outside the international framework of not only the United Nations, but of our allies and friends in the region and in Europe? The jury is definately out on that one and the Administration has already incurred damage to what KingCheetah called "alliances built over decades". Do we really know what the aftermath of this war is going to be in the region? In Iraq? Answers that are basically soundbites don't give me a great deal of confidence. I wish G. W. Bush had given as much thought to this as his father did before the Gulf War and before he sent 300,000 or so of our people (and the people of our friends who have signed on) there. I don't see him backing down now even if there are numerous reasons to. And I think this could have waited. The only thing that would clear things up would be if Saddam suddenly decided exile was a good idea or if someone there took him out. What's the chance of that?
I hope you don't watch much TV then, or listen to radio..., or read our newspapers, for that matter. ...
Well, if Bush was a true Ivy League type, do you think he would still not look beyond this "crisis"? I think when you are below a certain point of intelligence, you can't see outside the box. And in this case the box is the "crisis". I just hope he understands old alliances shouldn't be dumped over a war without a cause that lasts more than a week.
No one should be worried about hurting alliances. Russia was our enemy just 20 years ago. If the war is quick and we start selling cheap oil to France, Germany, Russia, China etc....watch how fast their tune changes. DD
Oh yeah, well played. I'd recommend giving yourself a pat on the back if you weren't loving yourself too much. The link I provided was not old 'facts', it was in the appendix of Blix's recent report and the same article Cohen subsequently posted. Are you on autopilot here? Or did you already have a response in hand for your latest effusive work? Must be a slow day. You would dismiss it as same old facts because you're as entrenched on your front as you portray others to be. You have already dismissed international effort or the means for diplomacy because you think this war should be avoided at any cost. You're willing to ignore the red flags that continue to pop up with each new inspections report. Bush Sr. acknowledges that our diplomatic front is lacking. It does not mean that he is against war, but if one were set in his ways then it wouldn't be much of a stretch to go off tangent with it. Nor does he say that we shouldn't press on with all our means in order to deal with Iraq. In fact, he advocates it.
France relies on Nuclear power for the majority of their energy. Russia has some of the largest proven reserves on the planet. China has the money to buy oil from any major producer. Why would they buy oil from us? Keeping alliances together should be our number one priority if we want to continue improving the Global economy. Your post sounds like a press secretary struggling to stay on topic.
1) So, I ask again...are you, or ref, or tree, etc. even going to try and refute Bush Sr.'s concerns, or their implications? Remember that he is making many of the same points others have made in here only to be dismissed as 'peacenik..Anti-Bush' etc... 2) Do you not recognize that A) This probably isn't the full extent of Bush Sr.'s qualms with what his son is doing, unless you actually think that he is so politically ignorant that he wouldn't have had extreme problems with his son's actions, and tried to communicate them without success before doing something as serious and almost unprecedented as this. 3) One of the greatest criticisms that has been levelled against GW has been that he is so hell bent for leather on this issue that he has blinders on, and refuses to see/consider anything which doesn't lead to the conclusion that war is the only way...and the danger of that kind of myopia at the highest levels about anything, let alone an issue as serious as this. Do you suppose that Bush Sr. feels his son is open minded and objective on this issue, but decided to go public with his objections just because he was having a slow day at the office? Clearly he, and those around him are very concerned, and do not feel that GW et al are listening, if he had to take this drastic step... 4) We have been told by members in here that the evidence re: Iraq's WMD is clear, and readily available...this despite the fact that this clear readily available information has A) Passed most of the world by...B) Had to be bolster by fabricated evidence and now C) Falied to convince those in the know such as other world leaders/inpection team etc. that things are in any way as the US and our resident hardcore hawks portray them...Now it would seem that Bush Sr. is another of those without the clarity of vision, intelligence, intestinal fortitude or knowledge on the subject to see that this issue is beyond debate... 5) I have never...repeat and underline, never said that I am against war at any cost...One of my primary areas of focus is military history, and I have supported actions in the past, such as the 1st Gulf War, so please don't confuse having an opinion on this issue contrary to yours with being a reflection of an automatic stance irrespective of any information to the contrary...I can easily see how you would make that mistake.
PLease nobody underestimate the machivillean (sp?) plots behind EVERYTHING you read from 'official' statements and quotes. I believe Sr. is rallying support for his son from Germany and other unsupportive nations in a very subversive manner. Kinda brilliant if it works and that's what is going on.
This really is a good point, Bush Sr.'s next statement on the matter will be very interesting. I hadn't really even thought of this because his original statements were for the most part straight forward against unilateral action.
