Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148483)	10/21/2004 9:02:56 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Regime change in Iraq was official US policy since 1998. It is true, the Clinton Administration did not invade, but it also did not place bets on long term containment, instead hoping to undermine Saddam enough that indigenous forces would take him out. After 9/11, it is reasonable that Bush should consider taking Saddam out directly. And it was the mobilization and threat of American action that prodded cooperation, such as it was, with inspections. But there is a point where threatening "serious consequences" is all bluster, and one has to back it up. That is a judgment call. In my opinion, Bush got it right.