From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 11:34:19 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> GTS,
> Am I correct that you consider this sequence of events as
> lamentable -- that is to say that Bush Jr. should not retaliate
> against Sadaam Hussein because he tried to kill Bush Sr.?
I hope you realize that I had my tongue planted firmly in cheek when I
posted that message. :) My Mafia war analogy is highly simplistic and fails
to account for other important factors driving this war.
However I do believe there is grain of truth to what I wrote. Bush Jr., if
he is any son at all, would be and should be interested in protecting his
father's legacy (Bush Sr. has often been criticized for ending the first war
too soon) and any good son would be inclined to seek revenge against a man
who tried to kill his father. I don't think it's especially lamentable, but
it does open up serious questions about putting our military in harm's way
to settle a personal score.
> Search my memory as I might I cannot remember the Iraqis
> trying to "whack" Bush Sr. But if that happened I assume it happened
> on Bill Clinton's watch.
I don't remember the exact timing. I vaguely recall that evidence of
Saddam's conspiracy to murder Bush Sr. was discovered and publicized under
Clinton's watch, but I'm quite sure the plot was hatched while Bush Sr. was
in office. (Why whack an ex-president?)
> What I want to know is this: why can a
> foreign government or ruler decide to "whack" an American citizen
> without Bill Clinton reacting vigorously?
Maybe because Bill Clinton is a democrat and no friend of the Bush family?
(Again with tongue in cheek.)
> GTS, no country worthy of its salt allows its
> citizenry to be killed by a foreign power so why was it okay for
> Sadaam to attempt to kill Bush Sr., if that is true? Ron h.
I didn't say it was okay.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 11:40:33 MST