| |
Idee Fixe
Ed, Bush did indeed refer to his oath of office and did indeed repeatedly refer to Saddam's abrogation of the armistice. That reason alone was sufficient to remove Saddam and was adduced by Bush to do so. The fact that Bush also adduced a bunch of other reasons just weakened his argument and muddled the thought behind his later actions.
The fact that Congress would not have impeached him and did not impeach GHWB or WJC when it should have doesn't mean that Bush was not duty bound to remove Saddam.
Your repeated touting of the Democratic line is an idee fixe. In any case, not standing up to an enemy in a state of war with us is in effect an imminent threat. Recall Osama's week horse/strong horse analogy. By showing that we will back up our words (treaties) with actions Bush did the right thing. He did it poorly and without apparent planning, but the decision to take Saddam out was an incontrovertible no-brainer.
Until I hear those who concur with your opinion saying that we should have repealed the armistice and let Saddam off the hook after 11 years of flouting his treaty obligations I will take that opinion as the uninformed (and Democratic/pacifist) partisan BS that it is.
(And I did miss you too, in a Platonic sort of way) >smiley<
Ted
|
|
