BS#1: We spent a long time in the UN trying to get a coalition together???? We spent a month or so, wasting most of the time with hand-wringing declarations of how impossible diplomacy was, how evil the UN was, etc.
We didn't have to go to the U.N. at all to get the job done. Why else make the effort if we weren't at least trying to get U.N. cooperation?
BS#2: Saddam knew with some certainty that he would be at war with us for 10 years or more. Somehow that extra month allowed him actually to prepare something? If anything, his military was weakening over the years, not strengthening. One month weaker vs. one month more prepared? Give me a break. He sure didn't seem very prepared. I could have done a better job.
A month is a hell of a long time in something military like this. The delay also shortened our time in cooler weather conditions. I would have bet money we were going in in the late fall of 2002, or early 2003 at the latest. I think I posted such predictions at the time, but I don't remember clearly.
Saddam didn't "seem" prepared? The ease of the military conquest is all in hindsight. Do I have to remind you yet again of the dire predictions made before the war?
Current Events » in reply to re: Rush?
re: Rush?
The whole thread (42 posts)
- A Democratic congressman on Iraq
- The "ebnelsonization" of the HabitableZone
- If you "bum's rush" America into a war, then you can expect to take it on the chin.