To: carranza2 who wrote (38034 ) 8/15/2002 9:42:13 PM From: Bilow Respond to of 281500 Hi carranza2; Sorry for being short. It's just that it's amazing to me that it hasn't become obvious to all that we're not going into Iraq. It's obvious that the Democrats aren't going to line up for it, do I need to provide quotes? The question is how many Republican icons and leaders (i.e. Bill Buckley, Dick Armey (Majority Leader), Henry Kissinger) have to come out against it before it becomes obvious that it's not going to happen? Please, name me a single thing that any administration has ever done that was (a) not supported by the opposing party, and (b) was not supported by the diplomatic or military wings of the bureaucrats, (c) was not fully supported by their own political party, and (d) wasn't even fully supported by their own administration. Given the lack of support among the Republicans, what do you really think the support will be like among the Democrats? We all agree, I suppose, that a war would result in (at least short term) advantage to the Republicans, but even the Republicans aren't in favor of it. What's worse, as time goes on, the WTC will slowly fade from the center of consciousness. Support for an attack on Iraq peaked a year ago, it's been declining ever since. Since Saddam isn't attacking us, further support will only erode. But it's already well below the amount required to start a war. The Iraq attack is done. Put a fork in it. Look at it this way. Henry Kissinger just came out saying that an attack on Iraq would be a bad idea. Now the fact is that he doesn't really know, for certain, whether such an attack would be good or not. But still he came out with the statement. That's quite a risk. I interpret his statement as an indication that he's also sure that no attack is going to happen. -- Carl