To: LindyBill who wrote (104055 ) 7/4/2003 3:42:56 PM From: Rascal Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500 What would I do? what's the question? What would I do about what? The invasion and occupation of Iraq was for **"Regime change to facilitate the disarmament and removal of weapons of mass destruction which intelligence proves is an imminent threat to US Security." THis I paraphrase from following carefully the words of this Administration." WMDs are now programs. And we're on the look. Yesterday, I heard:"http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030702-3.html Q On weapons of mass destruction, is it fair to say now, after two months of looking for them, that there is a discrepancy between what the intelligence community and you and your top officials described as the threat from Saddam Hussein, and what was actually there on the ground? THE PRESIDENT: No, Saddam Hussein had a weapons program. Remember, he used them. He used chemical weapons on his own people. Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States, because we removed him. But he was a threat -- such a threat that my predecessor, using the same intelligence, in 1998, ordered a bombing of Iraq. I mean, so, no, he was a threat. <bb>He's not a threat now. And the world is more peaceful by virtue of the fact that he is not in power. See, we've been there, what, how many days? You're counting the days since we've been there? Because I'm not. Eighty, ninety? Frankly, it wasn't all that long ago that we started military operations. And we got rid of him, much faster than a lot of people thought. And so we're bringing some order to the country and we're beginning to learn the truth. But he played his hand, Terry -- he, Saddam Hussein -- when he used chemical weapons. And then he played his hand by not letting people come in and inspect for the weapons. He had them. And it's just a matter of time. It's a matter of time. The man was a threat to America. He's not a threat today. " So if WMDs are now programs and we're on the look for the written reports about them and Saddam is not a threat today (not withstanding any audiotapes delivered) what is the question? Is there a new mission? Has this mission creeped? Is there a new objective? A new strategy and tactics? Has pResident Bush been updated? I can answer the question "What would I do" if you asked me last March. Based on the first stated goal (see ** above), I would have continued on the building of an international coalition, using the diplomatic arms of NATO and the UN. I would have not truncated peaceful inspections supported by the world community for the unilateral coercive inspectios we are running today. I would have had my strategic ducks in a row and not deployed troops starting in the fall of 2002. I would have listened to Shinseki. So what exactly is the question?. What is the situation now? Where are we? Am I to doubt the flashy banner draped on the Aircraft carrier which said "Mission Accomplished" as a backdrop to the pResident declaring major combat over? Yesterday the chief executive said "Bring 'em on." I have a gap in understanding his rhetoric in light of the facts stated above and the continuing maiming and killing of Americans and Iraqis alike. SO I ask: What's the question? What's the mission? The Saddam poster has been updated to include .. "Wanted Dead or Alive. $25,000,000. Reward" A change in leadership will make a big difference in the mess in Iraq. Unfortunately WE have to wait until 2004 to get it. Rascal@ patientpoliteinformedpatriot.com