From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon Aug 19 2002 - 15:53:28 MDT
On 19 Aug 2002 at 17:30, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:
>
> Reading the Scowcroft/New York Times "arguments" against war, one is
> struck by how laughably weak they are. European international-law
> wishfulness and full-blown Pat Buchanan isolationism are the two
> intellectually honest alternatives to the Bush Doctrine. Scowcroft and
> the Times wish to embrace neither, so they pretend instead to be
> terribly "concerned" with the administration's alleged failure to
> "make the case." Somehow, Vice President Cheney's fine speech in San
> Francisco on August 7, or Condoleezza Rice's superb August 15
> interview with the BBC, to say nothing of Donald Rumsfeld's impressive
> press briefings and President Bush's strong statements--these don't
> count.
>
> [Jake] Apparently this mentally challenged individual thinks that
> "making the case" = "making speeches". The real problem, which this
> author either doesn't get, or tries to avoid, is that they (smirk's
> pals) simply do not have the goods, i.e. facts and evidence. Perhaps
> they are out there to be found, and perhaps they are not. But the
> continuing sad fact is that this administration would rather bully and
> bluster their way into yet another war, with irresponsible rhetoric
> about an "axis of evil", rather than coolly sitting back and gathering
> their evidence first. They may yet find themselves cornered into doing
> the responsible thing (ie shut up until you have the goods), but it
> isn't as effective as it would if they had done this in the first
> place. This administration continues to show appalling incompetence on
> international matters, probably worse than any post W.W.II president
> we have had.
>
Once the mushroom cloud rises and furnishes you with incontrovertible
evidence, it is too late for anything but a massive retaliation that would
vaporize Baghdad. We know this individual has long been attempting
to obtain nukes, and has produced both bioweapons and chemical
weapons, using the latter on both oppressed segments in Iraq itself and
against neighboring countries with which he was at war. If Saddam is
able to build or buy a nuke (and this is likely within 3 years), he has
amply demonstrated the mindset that would be amenable to using it, not
in retaliation, but in a first-strike terror attack. That likelihood simply
cannot be tolerated. Too much is at stake, both for the citizens of major
US cities and for those Iraqi people who would be incinerated in
response were such a terror attack to take place.
>
> -Jake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:54 MDT