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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (111098)8/13/2003 12:49:50 AM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Jochen, you have cited the group of people who wanted to invade Iraq in 1998. As we know from Pollack's book, an invasion was seriously debated in the Clinton White House at this time as well."

That was at a time when Iraq had not shown any signs about seriously getting rid of their WMDs. By contrast, in late 2002 and early 2003, there was plenty of evidence of Saddam's inclination to comply and zero evidence of the continuing presence of WMDs in Iraq.

The difference in the situations was clear to most of the Clinton people who made the decision not to invade in 1998. In 2002, their decision was still, not to invade. Therefore it isn't immediately obvious why it is logical to attribute the failings of Bush's policy (the decision to invade) to the success of Clinton's policy (the wise decision to leave the place alone).

-- Carl
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News