Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] War timeline

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Vern Green wrote:

> > http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
>
> OK well I read through it.
>
> It is all about an indictment about the Bush administration as expected. 
> While I cannot speak to the truth of all of these matters, there is 
> nothing here that on the surface says that it is false.
>
> There are mentions of speculation, namely in regards to civilians that 
> were supposedly at the controls of the submarine that struck the 
> Japanese boat. There has been no evidence that this was the case, but to 
> make a point, they included it here.
>
> Of course, they fail to even mention any of the attacks Clinton 
> performed against Iraq, nor do they provide any of the quotes about 
> Saddam and his drive to acquire weapons during his administration. Any 
> real and fair timeline of the events leading up to the war in Iraq 
> cannot dismiss those items.
>
> Those items are the essence of what I expected to see when I first saw 
> this timeline. It has a singular purpose and that is to try and degrade 
> the Bush administration. It is well researched and likely many of the 
> statements here are true, even if they are taken out of context as I am 
> sure some are.


I don't see why a history of questionable conduct by the Bush 
administration should include anything about what Clinton did with Saddam. 
That just wouldn't fit at all.  Also, Clinton was very successful in his 
dealings with Iraq -- brief strikes that kept Saddam under control and 
cost very few lives -- so I don't see how leaving off Clinton would be 
unfair to Bush.

The war continues to be an unmitigated disaster.  I just saw an interview 
on PBS Newshour with the author of a new book about al Quaeda called "The 
Looming Tower":

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec06/looming_09-05.html

The author said:

  I can tell you this. In November or December of 2001, when, you know,
  America and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan, and fought the battle
  of Tora Bora, although we didn't capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahri or
  some of the other top lieutenants, Al-Qaida was essentially dead.

  It was not only that most of the members had been killed or captured. It
  was repudiated throughout the world. And it -- you know, the internal
  documents show that they were in great despair. Unfortunately, Iraq has
  given -- the -- the war in Iraq has given them new life. And I -- I fear
  the progeny of Al-Qaida are going to be with us for a long time.

But instead of treating him as a notable expert whose research and 
conclusions should be taken seriously, why not use the new conservative 
approach and suggest that he must be a "liberal" whose ideas should be 
rejected out of hand?  That will make you feel better.  That's the 
Bush-Cheney approach.  Of course you don't need any evidence that he is "a 
liberal" -- he just said something that suggests the Bush-Cheney war isn't 
working out!  That's all the evidence you need!

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion