Smasharoo wrote:
I'd hardly qualify Libya surrendering a nearly non-existant WMD program as a sucess...
Eh. I would. What exactly is "nearly non-existant"? You either have one, or you don't. Considering the only two issues we've really had with Libya is their WMD programs and terrorist support, getting Gadaffi to back off on both would seem to be a huge win. What more do you want? Promises of free oil? Turning Libya into "Disney Middle-East"? I don't see how you can view this as anything other then a huge success.
yossarian wrote:
Ya Iraq tried that too, but we invaded their ***** anyhow. Just another example of the stunning consistency we have come to expect from our White House.
No. They didn't. Which is why they were invaded. Iraq played the "we don't have to tell you or show you anything, even after a half dozen UN resolutions to the contrary" game, and lost.
If you honestly don't believe that Libya's near 180 degree turn around on both the WMD and terrorism issues is related to our invasion of Iraq, then I think you're just sticking your head in the sand. There simply could not be a clearer cause and effect relationship then the invasion of Iraq and the concessions now being offered by nations like Libya. It really is that cut and dried. If Libya didn't feel that it might be next on "the list", it wouldn't be giving up a damn thing. How much clearer does this have to be?
yossarian wrote:
]Seriously, does anyone think Bush realized we should invade Iraq after 9-11? Of course he realized it was suddenly politically viable but...
Of course he did. The only people who imply that there was no desire to invade Iraq and finish what Bush Sr. started are those who hope to gain political coin by pointing out that "Gasp! Look! They had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11". But just because an administration would *like* to do something doesn't mean it gets done. You take the opportunities when you can get them.
Clinton pushed for years for socialized medicine in the US. He failed. However, I'm quite certain that if an epidemic like SARS had broken out in the US during his presidency that he would have used that to push his agenda. He probably would have succeeded as well. It would not change the fact that he desired to do such a thing before the incident that made it politically possible occured.
Heh. But to be fair, I'm sure that had something like that happened, there would be Republicans that would have jumped up and down and pointed out the desire to create a national health plan before the epidemic, and there would have been inclusions of innuendo that the administration somehow allowed it to happen to push their political plans ahead. And you know what? I would have been calling BS on that bit of conspiracy theory as well.
Heck. People still argue that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen so that FDR could get us into the war with Germany. At what point will people accept that administrations always have plans for things that end up backburnered until the right conditions come along to persue them? I'm sure that somewhere in some government documents, there are plans drawn up for a number of actions both military and political, just sitting there waiting for the right conditions to use them. That really doesn't mean anything sinister unless you really read into them.