So, Teribus... you liked my tripe as an hors d'oeuvres so much, you want more tripe as a main course? By all means, eat more tripe!

What on earth are you rambling on about?
----Your inability to view the current regime with any appreciable degree of objective assessment
In 1998 Clinton identified regime change in Iraq as being required for the good of the region and in the interests of world peace.
----Yes, but if you noticed, he did not start a war we could not win... and Clinton maintained decent diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, and the UN



Yes Thomas, exactly the same "responsibly informed" individuals were briefing GWB (George Tenet and good old Richard 'Pre-emptive Strike' Clarke) - Your Point?
----Clinton paid attention to his advisors, and chose a middle ground solution... as opposed to Bush's preconcieved notion that Saddam is the biggest threat and warrants immediate attention... instead of utilizing those same massive forces to 'get al Qaeda' with deadly serious intent.

----yes, Teribus...concerned, not obsessed to compusive and wasteful expenditures of time, money, and rescources.


Pre-emptive Clarke.
----disrespectful, Teribus. Clarke has extensive experience, most of which was with Reagan and Bush the first. Pre-emptive strike on al Qaeda, BTW...

The Clinton administration's policy was to contain Al-Qaeda, it was the Bush administration whose policy was to stop Al-Qaeda.
----Yes, I hear that was their 'big plan'... which they shelved in favor of a full scale attack of a 'toothless tiger'...

Clinton & Co never once made any attempt at wresting the initiative from the terrorists.
----Bush & Co. have wrested the initiative from the UN, the American people and the US economy, and may have stimulated anti American sentiment in troubled terrorist producing countries...


Irrespective of the 2000 election result, 9/11 would have happened with whoever was sitting in the White House.
----This assertion is not based in fact. It is an assumption that is popular amoungst the top level advisors and is not provable one way or the other. A lot of things would have been different...

Immediate reaction by the Bush Administration was to identify who was responsible, focus the
world's attention on the problem of international terrorism problem and attack Al-Qaeda in the
only safe haven Al-Qaeda thought they had. Hear any complaints from the "responsibly informed"
at this stage in the proceedings? - No, not a whisper.


Potential rogue states were identified, most prominent was Iraq, did the Bush administration just go in guns blazing - did they hell - they went to the United Nations. And if anyone was guilty of dropping the
ball it was the UN - mind you the UN are rather good at doing that.
----No Teribus. The rogue state you speak of, Iraq, was identified long before 9/11 as a place to go with guns blazing. Going there before al Qeada was dealt with, before Afghanistan could be rebuilt, and on faulty information... when the inspections were in progress and had the full support of the UN... (read 'the rest of the world'), was a poor excuse for war, and the diplomacy of barbarianism.

Full plate ttr? By all means keep servin' up your tripe.
----Chow down, and eat hearty!
ttr