View Single Post
  #57   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Eisboch Eisboch is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,091
Default TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already
covered that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that
fact aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to comply
with the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was chased
out of Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was to
lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many believe
it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from his
personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a
war footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden,
having to first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and,
receiving the same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear and
biological WMDs that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded that
Saddam comply with the UN resolutions. This demand was made despite the
UN's weakness in doing anything to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam
was given plenty of opportunity to comply, but became more resistant,
buying time (to do what?). Even the chief UN weapons inspector, Kay,
believed WMDs existed at this time and was venting his frustration at
Saddam's stalling activities. (Kay later joined the anti-Bush conspiracy
gang when events cast a shadow on his own believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch



And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???



Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would dry up
our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have national
security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch