Re: I'm short-term optimistic ....



RichL wrote:
Les Cargill <lcargill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

All Al Gore would have had to do to be better than Bush is not to
have made the decision to invade Iraq.
I don't agree. Dude, we
wanted *blood*. *WE*. I watched most of that from Canada, and
that was weird. I never really doubted we were going in. You
want to know what's up in the world? Watch the BBC and CBC.

I don't question that we wanted blood after 9/11, but would the American
public, left to its own devices, have come up with Iraq as the place to
get it? Would Gore?



We can never actually know. But!

Regime change was the policy of the United Stated from 1998 onward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

FTA: 'Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." '

I expect we would. Can we know for sure? No. Regime change was a
Neocon idea that had already been given form and substance
in political space.

Would Gore have done a better job in vetting the evidence? It is hard
to say. After all (and I am not blaming the UN here - it is an
intentionally limited organization) the UN process broke down.
Whether or not Rwanda was intentionally exposed at that time for
propaganda purposes is beyond my ken, but the parallels were
obvious.

Eventually, pressure would have mounted.

--
Les Cargill
.