Text 10672, 68 rader
Skriven 2009-03-24 22:37:00 av Dave Drum (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av John Fitzgerald
Ärende: Re: Bush in Iraq
========================
-=> JOHN FITZGERALD wrote to DAVE DRUM <=-

 DD>  ...so he was attacked by the US for empty threats.

 JF>   Iraq was attacked by the allies, and for numerous reasons,
 JF>   not just WMD. Saddam openly endorsed and supported terrorists.
 JF>   His support for Hamas alone was reason enough to go in and
 JF>   take him out.  Although Al

 DD>   So, why didn't Bush go ahead and take out Hamas...

 JF>    Israel is doing a fine job of that.  They can stommp on those bugs

Aparently not. Hamas is still around and still firing off rockets into Israel.

It would have had a far lower cost in money and lives for George III to
exterminate Hamas than to invade Iraq.

 JF> anyvtime they want.  Saddam was deemed a threat, by both parties until
 JF> W' stole their show and did what Democrats criticized Bush Senior for
 JF> not doing...going into Iraq and taking out Saddam.

Which democrats? Name some names? Seems to me there were more war-hawk right
wingers and professional jingoists wanting to so some arm-chair sabre rattling.

 DD>   rather than attack a soveriegn nation?

 JF>   Bosnia was a sovereign nation.  Germany was a sovereign nation.

Last time we attacked Germany we actually declared war on them. Something we
did not do with Iraq.

 DD>   Certainly would have been easier. Oh, wait-a-minit ...
 DD>   Hamas had no oil and Halliburton/KBR could not
 DD>   have made obscene profits from attacking them.

 JF>   You once said that was not an issue when I pointed out that
 JF> Feinstein, Soros and others were involved with huge contracts in Iraq

No, I said that Feinstein's participation was not a big deal as she was a
minority party member of the committee ... when you tried to paint her as being
in charge. And Soros was not then and never has been a member of the US
gummint. So, other than your talking points ... what's your point?

 JF> and Afghanistan, so perhaps you should take this argument, along with
 JF> your part-time sense of 'ethics', and run it by someone who doesn't
 JF> know any better.

My ethincs are pretty consistent. Which I think probably bothers you - because
they don't often agree with your every whim.

 JF>   Although Al qaeda had no 'official' connection with Saddam,
 JF>   they were still seen in  that country on several occasions
 JF>   in the years before the invasion...

 DD>   Al-Qadea operatives have been seen
 DD>   in this country, too. So?

 JF>   So what is your point?  Do you feel we should ignore their presence
 JF> here too?  Hmm..  Another one of your paper arguments.

My point is that you we used al-Quaida operatives being seen in Iraq as a
justification for invasion ... why didn't you spank the US for the same reason?
Even YOu should have been able to figure that out.

... Crowded elevator small different to midget - Confuzius
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)