http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20030403/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_us_military_454 First it was liberation. Then it was regime change. Now we we'll apparently only accept regime change of the dead Saddam variety.
Rumsfeld's contradicting himself a bit here. He answers the reporter's question first: That's the same regime change issue that we've heard for a while. But then he says this, which is more far-reaching: This is what insinuates that not even exile is acceptable, which is a shift from the original policy. It would be interesting to see what we'd do if Saddam offered full surrender and the opportunity to establish a new government in exchange for exile -- if we turned it down, I don't think even the Coalition allies would agree with us. But it's irrelevant since Saddam's not going to make that offer.
Our gvt. is running big deficits, right? I've got two money saving ideas. 1. Fire Clarence Thomas, and give Scalia two votes. That'll save Thomas' salary and perks, and the salaries and perks of all of his clerks. 2. Fire Colin Powell, and give Rummy his job too. OK, I'm just goofing around, but I'm uncomfortable with the SecDef so often stepping so far afield from defense issues.
Our policy has changed because the circumstances have changed. Maybe some people including the French would like US/UK forces to leave and give Saddam one last chance to disarm. That will not happen. Saddam had many chances to disarm and he was given deadlines. Providing token cooperation on the eve of war was not part of resolution 1441. Bush gave Saddam a 48 hour window to go into exile. Saddam refused. Refusing to offer Saddam another opportunity to flee once Saddam is almost defeated seems reasonable.
1) Quit using 1441 as an excuse. It makes you look silly since we decided to ignore the UN (thus, and I'll help you connect the dots, using a UN resolution as justification is self-defeating). 2) So rather than say to Saddam, sure, you can go into exile and we'll declare ourselves victorious and begin the rebuilding of Iraq*, we're saying instead that no matter what, we're going to have the Battle of Baghdad (can't wait to see the graphics the news channels come up with for this - the War with Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom ones are so yesterday), from which Rummy and Myers are already preparing us for heavy American casualties. * I realize this is a mere hypothetical, that the chances of a Hussein actually accepting exile as an option at this point are remote.
The evolution to the need for "regime change" is fine, but saying that exile is not enough is harsh by historical terms, is it not? Even Napoleon wasn't executed when he was finally defeated.
1) People like you and the UN look silly for not enforcing resolution 1441. 2) The initial debate was why has the administration changed it's position and the reason is that circumstances have changed. The administration has spent alot of capital to get rid of the regime and at this point I cannot blame them for not wanting to let Saddam off the hook.
Um, OK, yeah, whatever. The only circumstance that changed was that Operation Enduring Cakewalk turned into Operation Oops Looks Like We'll Actually Have to Fight This One Out. So because the administration spent a lot of capital (do you mean money or world standing?) they get a blank check? That's absolutely ludicrous.
I don't have a problem if Bush wants to finish off the war. I also don't have a problem if people feel Saddam should be given another opportunity to go into exile. Both views are resonable. I take issue with those that say Bush's position has shifted from the original policy. The original policy was a pre-war policy.
plain and simple...the guy is not going to go in to exile so it really doesn't matter whether or not that is an option at this point. he ain't leaving, and that is if he isn't already dead...
But trying to argue it as a *really* viable solution makes you look even more in denial than you already are....
His initial intent was to make Bush seem hypocritical. When that failed he changed the parameters of his argument because he couldn't admit he was wrong.
Where did I argue that it was a viable solution? Heck, you even quoted the part where I said the possibility was remote.
Where did I mention Bush? You mentioned Bush. The thread was started based on comments that Rumsfeld said, not Bush. But keep sticking with 1441. Doesn't make you seem silly at all.
I guess about the same as you saying the lefites want another Vietnam for political gain in the other thread, jackass.
(Fixed my post) His initial intent was to make Rumsfeld seem hypocritical. When that failed he changed the parameters of his argument because he couldn't admit he was wrong.
Hey -Debka says Saddam's already in exile. http://www.debka.com/ I don't see the big hu-ha over Rumsfeld's statement. I think he's kind of looney in a coolly logical sort of way, so I not a big whopping fan of Rumsfeld, but who would give the guy exile at this moment. At a minimum, he'd be tried for war crimes (if not this war, some prior one) or crimes under laws of Iraq. To suggest that he's better off dead is to suggest the obvious. Most public officials would dodge the question, but Rumsfeld relishes hypothetical theatrics. It's his forte.
No, my initial intent was to show that Rumsfeld is at a point in his thinking that no matter the circumstance (however unlikely) he is going to have is Battle of Baghdad.