At 07:40 PM 2/25/2003 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> He was playing against Clinton, what did you expect?
>
>This is an incredibly cheap shot. Clinton had no support at home or abroad
> for a policy to confrount Iraq.
He never asked nor worked for such support. President George W. Bush has.
>And let us not forget that a president nameId Bush chose not to take him
out when he could have. He said he did not have a mandate from his allies
to do so. If he didn't have a mandate at that time how could Bill have a
mandate. Face it John the man who must accept the lions share of the blame
is George senior.>
Ummm...... When George H. W. Bush was President, he had essentially no way
of knowing about Saddam's actions for the next ten years. President
Clinton, of course, was President while Saddam Hussein was making his
actions and essentially let him get away with it. Under Clinton the
Security Council went from near-consensus on Iraq under Bush to being
terribly divided on the subject of Iraq. And this division was not like
today's apparent divisions, rather this divisions was merely whether
sanciotns/inspections should even exist in Iraq in the first place.
So, in sum:
Bush I - Near consensus in the UNSC on evicting Iraq from Kuwait, decided
to choose a peaceful solution to the WMD problem through sanction and
inspections.
Clinton - UNSC becomes hopeless divided as sanctions/inspections fail, and
the UNSC cannot even agree on continuing them.
Bush II - A unanimous vote in the UNSC to resume inspections or else Iraq
will face "serious consequences." Debate shifts from whether or not to
have inspections, to whether or not Iraq should be disarmed by force.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
