On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:59:36PM -0500, judd@wadsworth.org wrote: > > First, those were not the choices, since the suspicions weren/t > true, regardless of what the US did. The choice made was to invade and > find out that they weren't true, which was very costly, in many ways. > > Also, there were more choices, such as: > > Allowing the inspectors to continue, as most of the world wanted to > do. Possibly augmenting them with CIA or FBI agents (IRAQ said that > they would allow this). > What? The inspections had been going on again off again for 12 *years*. Saddam's offer to let the inspectors back in was a ploy for more time. He had no intention of allowing them to return under conditions that would have satisfied the UN resolution. Saddam wanted lots of lead time for inspections and wanted to prevent the inspectors from visiting certain sites. Gee, I wonder why? Because he still wanted people to believe he had WMD--whether or not he did. > Accepting Chile's "Five Week Plan", which would have probably > garnered more international support, and possibly convinced Iraq that > we would in fact invade. > Really? I think that the invasion did a much better job of convincing them that we would in fact invade. > Accepting Hussein's offer to leave the country with his two sons > (delivered through back channels to Richard Perle in late 2002). > Sure, let him thumb his nose at the world for over a decade and then get off scot free. If he had agreed to simply turn himself in, that would have been different. But I don't think that was the intent of his offer. > And let's not forget that the Bush administration was cherry > picking data, distorting, and outright lying to portray Iraq as a threat > to the US. > Umm, you mean the same data that was cherry picked by the Clinton Administration? The particulars have already been given, so I won't repeat them. However, please go look at what the *Democrats* were saying in 1998. Basically every leading Democrat was talking about how we needed to go in there and get Saddam. > > And to be fair, let's not forget that the right does plenty of > revision, also. > OK. Please cite one example. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature