In a message dated 2/26/2003 8:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > He never asked nor worked for such support. President George W. Bush has. And we know that Clinton did not attempt to get consent to keep pressure on Iraq how? You are privy to the diplomatic efforts of the Clinton Administration? You believe that Clinton could have gotten the UN to continue inspections. The French had a different agenda at that time? They were dealing with Iraq? The Germans would have gone along of course because the entire world and the US understood the terrorist acts to come? > > >And let us not forget that a president nameId Bush chose not to take him > out when he could have. He said he did not have a mandate from his allies > to do so. If he didn't have a mandate at that time how could Bill have a > mandate. Face it John the man who must accept the lions share of the blame > is George senior.> > > Ummm...... When George H. W. Bush was President, he had essentially no way > of knowing about Saddam's actions for the next ten years. Oh I see he had no intelligence that suggested that if Sadaam was not removed he would remain a constant threat and would ruthlessly do anything in his power to gain WMD? That he would do obstruct inspectors whenever possible. Of course not because Sadaam had no tract record for these kings of activities. Why even Dick Cheney must have been surprised when his good friend Sadaam turned out to be so dangerous. How can we blame George for not realizing that Sadaam would survive the war by dint of his own ruthlessness. How can we blame George for not anticipating at the outset that if the war did not remove Sadaam he would be a constant and growing problem? How could George have been expected to understand how Sadaam could even pay for his military plans given that he no means of providing cash. Oh wait did George know that Sadaam was sitting on one the world's largest oil deposits. Heck a guy is allowed to forget such things once in awhile. President > Clinton, of course, was President while Saddam Hussein was making his > actions and essentially let him get away with it. Under Clinton the > Security Council went from near-consensus on Iraq under Bush to being > terribly divided on the subject of Iraq. > So, in sum: > Bush I - Near consensus in the UNSC on evicting Iraq from Kuwait, decided > to choose a peaceful solution to the WMD problem through sanction and > inspections. And of course in the geopolitical environment of the 90s Clinton could have made the rest of the world do what he wanted it to. He should have said to everyone else "We are going to do this and you are with us or against us". But of course that strategy was not used by Clinton because he was a weenie unwilling to use the power of the US to do anything he wanted simply because he could. I mean what can the rest of the world do anyway? Who are they going to buy if not us? No other country could possibly achieve the economic might that is the source of our strength. Every Indian Chinese and Korean scientist will want to come to the US because we are gods chosen. So to summarize: Bush I horribly misjudges Sadaams staying power and ignores his ability to do great mischief abandoning indigenous anti-Sadaam Iragis to his barberism. > > Clinton - UNSC becomes hopeless divided as sanctions/inspections fail, and > the UNSC cannot even agree on continuing them. And this obviously Bill's fault because the entire world understood that the mandate to contain Sadaam was one that was in everyone's interest.> > Bush II - A unanimous vote in the UNSC to resume inspections or else Iraq > will face "serious consequences." Debate shifts from whether or not to > have inspections, to whether or not Iraq should be disarmed > by force. After enormous lobbying by the US. Bush II's high handed bullying causes millions of people at home and abroad to see us as the problem not Sadaam.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
