You're a lawyer. An ex-military lawyer? I would expect you to know a lot about the military bureaurocracy as an ex-military lawyer but that doesn't mesh with your lock-step approach to accepting everything put out by the political and political-military spin machine.
On Clinton, I would agree with you that Clinton was responsible for the Iraqi "terrorism" war IF:
1. We had lost containment of Iraq as a result of the Clinton policies,
2. Iraq was a greater threat at the end of his presidency than when he took office,
3. Iraq was a supporter of terrorists that were targeting the U.S.,
4. Iraq wasn't as great an enemy of fundamentalist terrorists as the U.S.,
5. Iraq was terrorist haven, (as opposed to a "terrorist nation,")
6. The ONLY EFFECTIVE way of dealing with Iraq was through a full fledged war and occupation, and
7. The ONLY WAY of dealing with post-war Iraq was for the U.S. to hold onto all control (read as all control of the natural recources and military posts built in Iraq.)
Unfortunately (from your point of view) NONE OF THOSE "IFS" ARE TRUE.
You're views seem to be based upon a nodding head acceptance of the most extreme views expressed by the Bush people. In addition, even after they've abandoned some rationales as no longer being consistent with current information, you still seem to believe just as strongly. I think that no apolitical, objective judge applying the "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof would find in their favor on most of their Iraq claims.
It's instructive that most of the "experts" find themselves at a loss to explain the rationale and justifications employed by the Bush people while many polarized hacks are willing to storm the castle with such flimsy support. Storm on Jlallen. Attack, attack, attack and know that your leaders are on the hill behind you planning their safe retreat and next battle. |
