Leaving aside the rest of your rant for the moment, this part struck me:
Frankly there is not any point to the debate. Within one month, Saddam Hussein will be history. The only alternative to that would be his agreeing to exile, a move I consider less likely thanks to the spirited indecision of our "allies"(a term to be used loosely) and the "loyal" opposition of our fellow countrymen.
I am truly sick of hearing the political agendas bantered about by every loose cannon with a germ of an idea. There has been nothing new under the sun proffered in a long time. The decisions have already been made and the clock is ticking. The United Nations will come along kicking and screaming or it won't. The time for debate is passed. Save it for the after action report.
Um. Are you perchance recommending that we take the D out of FADG? That acronym would be unfortunate. As to political agendas, my impression is that the right tends to go far afield in defense of the political cause here a lot more often than the other side. Then there's the long running "Bush undecided" thing,
Q But more broadly, is he confident that he has made the case to the American people -- not to France or Russia or China -- but to the American people, that this is something that he needs to do and that it's going to entail risks and casualties and potentially long-term costs?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the -- first of all, you have to keep in mind the President has not made the decision that force will be used. The President has, of course, in his State of the Union, talked directly to the American people about the nature of the threat and why it's important that one way or another Saddam Hussein be disarmed. whitehouse.gov
The "no decision" thing comes up fairly often, this was the most recent I came up with in a quick look. Has a decision been announced? Is it a bad thing to discuss it meanwhile? What happened in your unit when people discussed stuff like that? Or did they just know better when you were in earshot? |
