On Oct 11, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
Ah. So you're not so much damning a past decision. You're mainly
agreeing that N. Korea can't be reasoned with and so we should
invade them now. Right?
Very funny.
I know that's an extrapolation. But I think the other extrapolation
- to smear Bush - makes less sense because the article was from 4
years ago. Back then, I believe the 'consensus' (even from anti-
Bush folks) was diplomacy/appeasement with N. Korea. So if you want
to smear Bush, you should probably pick something he did that was
vehemently opposed by your desired candidate(s).
Also funny. Back then, the consensus was diplomacy with Iraq, too.
There were actually inspectors from several countries in Iraq, and
there was no interference with the inspectors by the Iraqi
government. Yet we invade them. Contrast that with North Korea, which
had no inspectors, no verification of programs, and who made repeated
hostile remarks toward the US.
It's obvious that Bush knew that the Iraqis couldn't put up much of
a fight, since he knew that there were no WMD. He couldn't be sure
about NK, though, so rather than talk tough, he went the diplomacy
route. It's like the school bully who only picks fights against the
weak and helpless.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
