The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #57623   Message #913305
Posted By: Bobert
19-Mar-03 - 08:15 AM
Thread Name: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
Gareth:

We see events from two differing perspectives.

It wasn't Saddam who stood before the entire world and laid out a new era in American history by proclaimeing that the US would act pre-empively on other countries and even named them in what appears to be the order that the US will engage them militarily. And I'm not convinced that "pre-emption" has anything to do with this policy. Its more like preventative, like getting a flue shot.

Well, that threat sank deep into the hearts of mankind in general and scared the crap out of just anyone in the world who thinks beyond war as the first foriegn policy option, or at least close to being the first option.

Then Bush tells the world he wants to attack Iraq. He cobbles together a bunch of circumstancial evidence, some of which was opening fabricated, and then sends another chill through the hearts of the peace loving people of the world. Then he has two or three temper tantumrs on national television and the world scurries to try to stop[ him. First Congress tries, but is out PR'd with flag waving folks using 9-11 as their swords. So Congress fails and many folks in Congress now admit to being out PR'd.

Then even Powell tries to calm Bush down and gets him to at least go to the UN, which is out PR'd itself and given the fact that the US and Israel routinely violate resolutions, break treaties and thumb their nose at the UN in general, this was nothing but a bother fir Bush. But he did it thinking it would give some level of legitamacy.

But, make no bones about it, during the entire process of inspections, Bush copntinued to huff and puff and threaten war. He did not give anyone any level of confidence that he was going to allow the inspection process to work as he continued to amass his arsinal around Irag and make statements like, Saddam has to go.

Let me pose this question. If Saddam had to go then why not assasinate him? Oh, because the US officially quit doing that in 1963 with the killing of President Diem of South Vietnam? So instead of surgically removing Saddam, Bush figures that the best way to do that is to kill off tens of thousands of Iraqis and occupy Iraq! That ougtta tell you something aboput the motives of the President, and the folks in his administartion who have had Iraq in their sites for a decade.

And so we come to the story where those of us who don't trust Bush's motives are the ones who are increasing the chances of a bloody war?

Hmmmmmm, Part 837

Beam me up...

Bobert