So if you believe 1,2 & 7 you might do what Bush did with a few other Yes's
mixed in. I don't see anything directly about the UN, but it is probably
covered under 7. One could seriously argue that no further progress was
possible and I believe that that was Bush's believe as well.
I think that you could make a serious argument supporting 1 & 2. #3 is
primarily up to you and one might argue that we had the resources during the
start of reconstruction and didn't dedicate them. 4 I think is met. 5 is
more rhetorical than anything, 6 is probably a no over any multi-year
timeframe.
Now, how would you take into consideration an election in 2 years, ensuring
that you couldn't act 1 year later. Can you just image the screams about an
starting a war to win an election? And 1 year after (why didn't you tell us
about this?).
Bottom line, while we should discuss the quality of information upon which his
information was based, I am not so sure that a reasonable person wouldn't
reach the same conclusion if he/she had GW's call.
Andy
1. Is the US being seriously threatened?
2. Is a vital US interest at stake?
3. Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
4. Are the objectives clearly defined?
5. Will we sustain the commitment?
6. Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support
the operation?
7. Have we exhausted our other options?
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
