[$tinkle]

bummer to put this here on vet's day

excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by bush sr & brent snowcroft back in 1998:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

this has been around for a few months, but no one else pointed it out. For the record, i am a hawk, so this concerns me.

blatantly lifted from memory hole

 

[ummbikes]

Chomsky, Zinn, Moore and Bush all thought the invasion was a bad idea?

It's probably because it was a bad idea.

 

[LordOpie]

well, in defense of Bush Jr. -- holy crap, did I just say that? -- times are different and perhaps the reasoning for the invasion is more sound than it was then.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by LordOpie
well, in defense of Bush Jr. -- holy crap, did I just say that? -- times are different and perhaps the reasoning for the invasion is more sound than it was then.

Of course it is. Osama up and disappeared after the cowboy promised he'd catch 'em. Unfortunately for the younger Bush, Saddam seems to have done the same damn thing.

 

[ohio]

I'm not suprised or upset by what I read. Bush Sr. was a considerably more intelligent and thoughtful man than his offspring.

What upsets me is Time's repression of the article. Of all magazine's in circulation, I feel that it should be at the top in terms of historical accuracy (duh, "Time!") and journalistic integrity. Shame on them.

 

[Silver]

Time and Newsweek, etc are pretty much crap now. I cancelled my newsweek subscription and got the Economist instead. It's refreshing to read some actual news instead of cover after cover about movies and kids with ADD.

Agree with you on Bush Sr. I'd feel much better about the state of the world if Jr. had half the intelligence that his father has.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Originally posted by LordOpie
...times are different and perhaps the reasoning for the invasion is more sound than it was then.

Makes sense, it's definately a sound investment for Haliburton.

 

[Tweek]

<2 cents>
I agree with the posts that Time no longer has credibility. I haven't found it credible in over 10 years. Newsweek, I haven't read it enough lately to make that decision.

And Bush Sr. vs. Jr.? Yes, Sr. is/was a much more intelligent man and leader than his offspring. Look at their previous jobs -- head of the CIA vs. failed businessman.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Agree with you on Bush Sr. I'd feel much better about the state of the world if Jr. had half the intelligence that his father has.

i disagree w/ your thinly veiled assertion. He is 1/2 as smart

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Tweek
<2 cents>
I agree with the posts that Time no longer has credibility. I haven't found it credible in over 10 years. Newsweek, I haven't read it enough lately to make that decision.

Newsweek is just like Time. It's like reading Parents/Entertainment Weekly with a small smattering of current events.

The last straw for me was the cover story on children a few months ago. There was about a 5 page story on ADD, and there were 3 ads for ADD medications sandwiched between those pages.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by Silver
Newsweek is just like Time. It's like reading Parents/Entertainment Weekly with a small smattering of current events.

The last straw for me was the cover story on children a few months ago. There was about a 5 page story on ADD, and there were 3 ads for ADD medications sandwiched between those pages.

I did see that article, but I couldn't get into it after the 1st page.

 

[BurlyShirley]

...and ten years ago cell phones were the size of toaster ovens.

I hear enough from you people bashing any republican you can at any given opportunity, and now that two had an opposing view, its no small wonder to realize you'd grasp on to the side that agrees with you. You people Bash bush#1 nearly as often as #2 around this place, and now you think he's Einstein because he had an opinion about a completely different situation a decade ago?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Tweek
I did see that article, but I couldn't get into it after the 1st page.

HAHAHAAAAAahahaaaaa. Awesome.

You win.








Where's my Gameboy?

-------------------------------------
BS, I never claimed to agree with Bush Sr.'s policies and opinions. However, I would not dispute that he was intelligent and accomplished, and has earned a level of respect.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
...and ten years ago cell phones were the size of toaster ovens.

I hear enough from you people bashing any republican you can at any given opportunity, and now that two had an opposing view, its no small wonder to realize you'd grasp on to the side that agrees with you. You people Bash bush#1 nearly as often as #2 around this place, and now you think he's Einstein because he had an opinion about a completely different situation a decade ago?

Dude, you need to pick up on the sarcasim a little better...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Dude, you need to pick up on the sarcasim a little better...

You need to pick up on the this-thread-doesnt-revolve-around-your-single-post-idea a little better

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
...and ten years ago cell phones were the size of toaster ovens.

I hear enough from you people bashing any republican you can at any given opportunity, and now that two had an opposing view, its no small wonder to realize you'd grasp on to the side that agrees with you. You people Bash bush#1 nearly as often as #2 around this place, and now you think he's Einstein because he had an opinion about a completely different situation a decade ago?

Ah, we can't make you happy, I guess.

I just bash any republican that happens to be racist, greedy, or stupid. It's not my fault that happens to be most of them

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Ah, we can't make you happy, I guess.

I just bash any republican that happens to be racist, greedy, or stupid. It's not my fault that happens to be most of them

so now we're talking about Je$$e Ja¢k$on?
or the democratic side of the senate that wants judicial diversity, but doesn't want to see a hispanic or black female because their views are republican? Seems party affiliation is damning the best career accomplishments.

and this is precisely why there's a 30 yammer-fest on the Hill right now.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
so now we're talking about Je$$e Ja¢k$on?
or the democratic side of the senate that wants judicial diversity, but doesn't want to see a hispanic or black female because their views are republican? Seems party affiliation is damning the best career accomplishments.

and this is precisely why there's a 30 yammer-fest on the Hill right now.

Oh so Bush picked them without any thought to their sex or origin? He figured he could wrap up conservative views in a package that might be more appealing to liberals, unfortunately for him the liberals saw thru the wrapping.

This is what your man Jefferson wanted.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by DRB
Oh so Bush picked them without any thought to their sex or origin? He figured he could wrap up conservative views in a package that might be more appealing to liberals, unfortunately for him the liberals saw thru the wrapping.

This is what your man Jefferson wanted.

and by equating diversity to progress, you think they're not being made to lie in their own bed?

i thought "to the victor goes the spoils". That is, does not the sitting president have the right to submit whomever he deems qualified to an up or down vote? Also, judicial confirmation does not require a super-majority, but it seems that's changing (60 votes for cloture). And the whole argument about Estrada having no judicial experience is flat-out churlish. How's he supposed to get bench-time until appointed? It's not good enough he argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court? Or that he clerked for the High Court (sidenote: 33 are picked each year out of 40,000+ law school grads each year; only 1/3 of the Bench has ever clerked for the Court).

i'm not complaining that he didn't get confirmed. i'm complaining about due process (although that may not be the appropriate phrase, it does hold the spirit of my gravamen).

and yes, i acknowledge the senate has confirmed 168 nominees thus far. About whom i know nothing. Perhaps even a small handful of these are more strident rightwingnuts as the rejectees/filibusterees(?), although i would suspect we would have heard about it by now.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
so now we're talking about Je$$e Ja¢k$on?
or the democratic side of the senate that wants judicial diversity, but doesn't want to see a hispanic or black female because their views are republican? Seems party affiliation is damning the best career accomplishments.

and this is precisely why there's a 30 yammer-fest on the Hill right now.

Actually, I think I've said before that Jesse Jackson is a scumbag who does nothing to help race relations in this country.

But, he's not the senate majority leader like Trent Lott was...

As far as the judges go...

Approval of 168 Bush judges a record

More than Clinton got, it looks like.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Actually, I think I've said before that Jesse Jackson is a scumbag who does nothing to help race relations in this country.

jackson's a strawman - my bad.

Originally posted by Silver
As far as the judges go...

Approval of 168 Bush judges a record

More than Clinton got, it looks like.

acknowledging the "nuclear option" would not bode well (would bite them in the arse next power shift), bush might decide on a recess appointment, just like clinton did in 2000

(from the hill)
Bush has been cool to the recess process in general, but some senators believe he could change his mind where Democratic opposition seems insurmountable.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You need to pick up on the this-thread-doesnt-revolve-around-your-single-post-idea a little better

In all due respect BS your postings are not a mecca for well thought out substantiated critical analysis. But I'll try and make my quips atleast two lines for your reading pleasure.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ummbikes
In all due respect BS your postings are not a mecca for well thought out substantiated critical analysis. But I'll try and make my quips atleast two lines for your reading pleasure.

Go back and read my post fella.

I wasnt saying anything about the length of your witless banter.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Go back and read my post fella.

I wasnt saying anything about the length of your witless banter.

I got what you meant, but you are WRONG! It is all about me.