If only uncurious george had listened to pop:
In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. 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 self-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.”
If only his son could read.
If only. The US and the world have paid an awful price thanks to shrub’s learing disability.
1
By rosignol
…and the Iraqis have paid an awful price because of how Bush sr. encouraged the Iraqis to revolt, and then didn’t send forces in to support them when they revolted. The number of people Saddam executed after he put down that revolt make the US’s losses in Iraq to date look trivial. Please don’t tell me about the ‘awful price’ being paid- far worse has happened in that part of the world as a direct result of the US’s actions.
IMO, Bush sr deserves a great deal of respect for how he dealt with the coup in the Soviet Union- the consequences of that going wrong are far worse than anything in Iraq could get- but the way he left the Iraqis swinging in the wind is a major blemish on his record.
September 18, 2004 @ 8:47 pm | Comment
2
By richard
…and the Iraqis have paid an awful price because of how Bush sr.
encouraged the Iraqis to revolt, and then didn’t send forces in to support
them when they revolted.
Absolutely true, and one of the most disgraceful moments in recent US history.
Bush Sr. should absolutely never, ever have encouraged the rebels; it was practically an act of murder. But that doesn’t alter the fact that what he wrote about the lunacy of invading iraq was right-on.
September 18, 2004 @ 8:50 pm | Comment
3
By mameha
Richard!
Still my hero! Mmmm.waah!
When I read what u say, chile, it almost gives a Nancy-gazing-adoringly-at-Ron moment. Vote Kerry, chile.
September 20, 2004 @ 8:48 pm | Comment
4
By richard
Why thank you. Now tell me — who are you???
September 20, 2004 @ 8:55 pm | Comment
5
By mameha
Richard!
That ain’t no way to talk to a lady! But I forgive you…tho you ain’t getting invited for Thanksgiving. And for Christmas, you’ll get a Bible.
Gotta go for my discussion class now, on Memoirs of a Geisha. hint, hint.
But, sugar, fret not: I really luv it – honest – when u cut those Bush shrubbies down to size!! Really. Vote Kerry, chile.
September 20, 2004 @ 9:40 pm | Comment
6
By Richard
I can think of a few more discraful moments in US history than inciting a revolt and not backing them up, like telling the world that Iraq is a threat and invading it because you want to control its oil.
More people died and the blood is directly on Bush’s hands and not on the hands of some sicko Iraqi leader.
September 21, 2004 @ 11:58 pm | Comment
7
By jim
I didnt vote for bush 1 for a second term. Didnt like the signing of the treaty under a tent; no saddam appearance. Wasnt sealed correctly. Bush 1, however, may have been a lot more involved than just one or two carpet bombings. The unraveling of the mideast needed to be done. Bush 2, bold in his leadership on this, is trying to include them; have them invested in the world. He knows he and his dad are direct and personal targets by extremists. I dont know what makes them stick it in their face so boldly. I dont know if I would come out of my house.
Regardless, weather its a personal thing or truely a duel for world stability(or both), Bushes have been leaders in something no other leader has dared taken on w/ so much investment and involvment.
February 23, 2006 @ 6:05 am | Comment