[kj] bush the elder's crystal ball

Wed, 17 Sep 2003 06:42:36 -0700 (PDT)

--0-2013777774-1063806156=:9193
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Yeah! To that. They're not in control, we are, they're reduced to mindless expediencies such as murdoch. Laugh at your peril.

Jpwhkj@aol.com wrote:Jamie replies:

So Bush the Younger was just indulging in a spot of youthful rebellion against Daddy? Now it all makes sense.

writes:

>"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ???mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Co ld War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying
 power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

If you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much room.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-2013777774-1063806156=:9193
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>Yeah! To that. They're not in control, we are, they're reduced to mindless expediencies such as murdoch. Laugh at your peril.<BR><BR><B><I>Jpwhkj@aol.com</I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jamie replies:<BR><BR>So Bush the Younger was just indulging in a spot of youthful rebellion against Daddy? Now it all makes sense.<BR><BR><BR><FLUWDOT@EARTHLINK.NET>writes:<BR><BR>&gt;"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ???mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Co ld War
 world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."<BR><BR>George H.W. Bush (The ELDER) &nbsp;A World Transformed 1998<BR>«az¸§‚f¢–)à–+-«az¸§‚h¬z¶§zØm¶Ÿÿ~‹«¥¨«–+-ë™¨¥™©ÿ–+-Šwèþ&shy;…êâž</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>If you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much room.<p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com">Yahoo! SiteBuilder</a> - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-2013777774-1063806156=:9193--