SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Alighieri who wrote (165022)3/20/2003 1:39:23 PM
From: hmaly   of 1575179
 
Al Re..There are documents which have been posted on this thread predating 9/11 showing that the people who really control this policy had decided long ago to attack Iraq.

By people who really control this policy, you mean what. Yes there are visionaries who stated long ago that Saddam would have to be dealt with. Clinton, as well as the democratic leaders recognized in 98, that regime change was the best option. Bill didn't have the will to aginst the wishes of France then, and likely GW wouldn't have either until 9/11. Yes, Gw wanted regime change from the start. Who in the US doesn't? However he acceded to Powells desire to go through the UN, and conceded that WMD disarmnament would be enough. It is too bad for you, that Saddam refused every effort to disarm, as then, if Gw went ahead, you could have been proven correct. Now you have no proof.

The president is but a front.

Really. Sounds a lot like your GW is stupid charges. Well, if the war goes well, the man acting as a front is going to kick ass again. At any rate, my bet is Gw is looking a lot better than your boy Daschle is.

You have to be asleep to not know that the UN sharade was little more than that.

Obviously, the UN was a charade, but why are you blaming GW or Powell for France, or the limitation the UN has. In the end, you can't prove that Gw had no intention of honoring 1441, if Saddam had complied to the terms of 1441; but we do know France had no intention of complying with the serious consequences part of 1441, as France stated they would never vote for serious consequences no matter what.

As Powell worked to get UN consensus, the hawks undermined his efforts.

What kind of excuse is that? The hawks had no authority to go to the UN, and what they said outside of the UN didn't make any difference to the negotiations going on in the UN. Only Powell and the UN ambassadors, had any authority to speak for GW at the UN, so why would anything Rumsfeld or Wofowitz said have made a difference. Powell himself, changed positions, once France stabbed him in the back. France undermined Powells position, not the hawks.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext