Deri,
Depends on who's using the term "take out." My high school football
coach often talked about "taking out" the quarterback by doing a
"student body blitz," where the entire defense rushed. I think Bush
has tried the same thing to "take out" Saddam Hussein.
If you accept the premise that taking out the 2005 meeting was
appropriate, it leaves me wondering why appropriate action wasn't
taken by Bush and Rumsfeld, and on down the line, as they seem much
more amenable to this type of action. IMHO, it's hard to imagine that
the listened to others that counseled against the potential political
fallout of an action of this type. Although Cheney might have been
the one advising against it, as he did (and does) hold a lot of
influence, and is more likely to see "the big picture," although I'm
frequently appalled by his interpretation of that picture.
While Bush Jr. was still Governor of Texas back in 1999, he used the
"take out" terminology about Saddam and his supposed WMD's, although
this raises the question of why a candidate would have access to what
was likely classified information; unless he was just going on press
accounts.
Here's the first paragraph of, and a link to, an article of then
Governor Bush talking about "taking out" Saddam
When Bush First Vowed to "Take Out" Saddam...December 1999
by JASON LEOPOLD
Hopefully, by now, most Americans will agree that President Bush's war
mongering against Iraq is purely personal. To prove this point, go
back to December 1999 when Bush was still governor of Texas and wasn't
even (nominated as) the Republican candidate for President yet. Back
then, Bush Jr. had said that if elected President of the United States
he would use military force to "take out" Hussein and Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction. Bush said publicly last year that Saddam Hussein
tried to kill his father, George Bush, Sr., when he was President a
decade ago as if that should be reason enough to attack Iraq. But Bush
still can't prove that Iraq poses a threat to the United States.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold01172003.html
While it wasn't explicitly stated in the article,that you cited, I got
the sense that it was meant that we'd "take out" bin Laden, by
whatever means necessary.
I think that radical elements of Islam are spread widely enough around
the globe that while it'd be nice to be able to "take out" the leaders
of the movement in a "surgical strike," it also poses a grave danger
of galvanizing the remaining followers behind "martyrs for the cause"
And the question remains - If Saddam was such a threat to the region,
why wasn't a "surgical strike" used to "take him out," rather than
refocusing the war effort, which has cost thousands of US and UK
soldiers their lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives?
On 8/3/07, Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>====================================================
> What he actually said was:-
>
> "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an
> al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the
> US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan.
>
> "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and
> President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said.
>
> ============================================================
>
> and I understand "take out" usually refers to some sort of surgical strike
> rather than invasion by ground troops.
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>
--
Kendall
An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's redundant!)
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
