I, for one, am still puzzled at what we are being asked to support. We can imagine a whole lot of things, but if it involves anything like 100k+ troops, Bush will have to at least explain the plan and his rationale to the American people. This is even with 70%+ of the population supports Saddam's ouster. Until the case is laid out, how can we or the Brit backbenchers pass judgment on it?
Bush Sr. laid out a good partial case for prosecuting the Gulf War, leaving the rest unsaid but understood. The decision in hindsight seems like a good one. Let's see what Bush Jr. has to say.
In addition to violating the terms of the cease fire (which isn't at all sexy), there is this weapons of mass destruction argument. After thinking about it for a couple of months, it's one of those arguments that is much stronger than it appears at first blush--indeed, it is compelling. The world cannot allow weapons of mass destruction programs to go on unfettered, risking a further convergence of terrorism and WOMD. The insurance premiums are too freaking expensive.
Bush Sr. laid out a good partial case for prosecuting the Gulf War, leaving the rest unsaid but understood. The decision in hindsight seems like a good one. Let's see what Bush Jr. has to say.
In addition to violating the terms of the cease fire (which isn't at all sexy), there is this weapons of mass destruction argument. After thinking about it for a couple of months, it's one of those arguments that is much stronger than it appears at first blush--indeed, it is compelling. The world cannot allow weapons of mass destruction programs to go on unfettered, risking a further convergence of terrorism and WOMD. The insurance premiums are too freaking expensive.
Comment