A World Transformed
In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Herbert Walker Bush, our current President's father, wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
This showed up as a partial hoax on the SNOPES.COM site because the text is partially edited and not the exact text of Mr. Bush's book. Click Here for the full text Now even so, I think you will allagree after reading the full text that Dubya shoulda listened to his old man. But consider this:
"Actually, the full context of the quote only strengthens the point. Aside from the glimpse of insight we have into the H.W. Bush administration’s admittedly intimate knowledge of Panama and Latin America in general, solidifying the suspicion of covert operations by U.S. proxy forces in the region (and another issue all together), W. essentially engaged in a sort of “mission creep” himself. Having no entrance strategy and no exit strategy, W. proceeded to move the mission objectives and motives around at will without any clear purpose or evidence to support his unduly warranted invasion and inevitable occupation of Iraq (i.e., WMD’s?, no wait, he’s an evil man gassing his own people?, err, he helped the terrorist carry out 9-11?, err, what else should I say Dick). I don’t see how the quote is weakened in this instance by the elided text, nor am I seeing exactly how this is a hoax. Furthermore, the quote is still true as the presence of an ellipse does not falsify the statement in this instance. But either way, H.W. is a smarter man than his son, and his son is fit to run nothing, least of all a country. "
--Stephen Malina
This is a delightfully erudite assessment of the entire affair. Mr. Malina's education and understanding of the whole of the issue shines in his writing. I wish he wrote for my site! I invite everyone to please comment on this post with your thoughts via the link below.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
This showed up as a partial hoax on the SNOPES.COM site because the text is partially edited and not the exact text of Mr. Bush's book. Click Here for the full text Now even so, I think you will allagree after reading the full text that Dubya shoulda listened to his old man. But consider this:
"Actually, the full context of the quote only strengthens the point. Aside from the glimpse of insight we have into the H.W. Bush administration’s admittedly intimate knowledge of Panama and Latin America in general, solidifying the suspicion of covert operations by U.S. proxy forces in the region (and another issue all together), W. essentially engaged in a sort of “mission creep” himself. Having no entrance strategy and no exit strategy, W. proceeded to move the mission objectives and motives around at will without any clear purpose or evidence to support his unduly warranted invasion and inevitable occupation of Iraq (i.e., WMD’s?, no wait, he’s an evil man gassing his own people?, err, he helped the terrorist carry out 9-11?, err, what else should I say Dick). I don’t see how the quote is weakened in this instance by the elided text, nor am I seeing exactly how this is a hoax. Furthermore, the quote is still true as the presence of an ellipse does not falsify the statement in this instance. But either way, H.W. is a smarter man than his son, and his son is fit to run nothing, least of all a country. "
--Stephen Malina
This is a delightfully erudite assessment of the entire affair. Mr. Malina's education and understanding of the whole of the issue shines in his writing. I wish he wrote for my site! I invite everyone to please comment on this post with your thoughts via the link below.
posted by Rev. Dr. Eric Z. Willman at 3:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home