🚀 go-pugleaf

Charlie Wilkes (charlie_wilkes@easynews.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:53:35 -0700, "Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com>
: wrote:

...

: >Amazing.......If Saddam indeed possesses such abilities you just made a
: >strong case to take him out and aptly demonstrated how negligent Clinton was
: >to let him off the inspection hook. Your apparent appeasement desire has a
: >strong correlation to WW2 and Chamberlain's rather failed policies.  Soggy
: >
: The analogy is nonsensical.  Saddam is not even rattling sabres, let
: alone grabbing territory as Hitler was; you point out yourself that
: his conventional military capabilities have been reduced.  In effect,
: he has been contained per the intended policy goal of the U.S. and its
: allies.

     Of Bill Clinton's many accomplishments, domestic and foreign,
one of the more remarkable is making Bush I's rickety structure for
containing Saddam hold together and more-or-less work for eight
years.  That it has fallen apart recently is no surprise; the
surprise is that Clinton (with some help from our "allies") was 
able to keep some inspections going, keep the embargo in place, and
keep Saddam from exterminating the Kurds.  
     It is ironic that the collapse of this structure has fallen on
Bush II who must now find something to replace it.

: If you think Clinton is responsible for Saddam being in power today,
: you had better come to terms with the fact that George H.W. Bush
: failed to support a popular revolution that very nearly unseated
: Saddam immediately after the Gulf War.  U.S. air strikes against Iraqi
: armor putting down the revolt would easily have swung the balance.
: Bush Sr. knew it, had a plan in place, and decided not to execute.  He
: has since expressed regret over balking in a letter that was made
: public.  He did not want to put Saudi crown stability at risk by
: supporting a Shiite-led revolution in Iraq.

: Charlie