KT,
>No to the first Gulf War, so Saddam gets Kuwait.<
You do realize that if our ambassador didn't pretty much give Saddam permission to take Kuwait when asked he probably would not have invaded to begin with. It may have been an accidental error or misunderstanding (or not), but I've seen the film of that event.
I still don't understand why they didn't rake Bush 1 over the coals for that blunder.
>>The WWII question showed how out of touch he is with historical reality. According to him, we had to fight that one because we were attacked. But, we wouldn't have been attacked if Wilson hadn't brokered a bad armistice at Versailles. Hmmm, I thought we were attacked by Japan. They were on our side in WWI. And how would a different Versailles Treaty have changed the power politics of the Far East? True, it might have been a Pacific war instead of a world war, but we had been heading for a conflict with Japan since the 1920s. <<
I didn't see the interview and to be honest I'm not enough of an expert on the history of the time to even know, but I'd bet my life against a dollar that if you gave Paul a chance to elaborate beyond what was possible in quick interview, he'd tell you why he thinks what he thinks and it would be logical even if you disagree.
>He does have the problem that Baby Jesus is endorsing Huckleberry Hound. At least according to Huckleberry's latest ad. I find Huck a fun guy to watch, too. <
Huck in not my man, but I don't think I've ever seen a politican that manages to come off as such a nice guy even when he's deflecting attacks from his opponents and putting it right back their face. It's an amazing talent.
|
