If his old man got lambasted for not finishing the job when he had
Sadam by the short and curlies...surely someone on the staff is smart
enough to advise him not to get distracted.  It may be that there are
more than one adversary to deal with.  And North Korea may be arguably
a more significant threat.  But that doesn't mean Sadam is not a
threat.  And if we must do this alone...or nearly alone...isn't one at
a time better than all at once?

-jc

On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 06:31  AM, Jim Hicks wrote:

> So why isn't Mr. Bush going to attack N. Korea?
> Just too chicken shit? Chickenhawk = Chickenshit
> jh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Iraq response & Constitution
>
> In a message dated 2/19/2003 6:53:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> I heard at the time that Nam was all about oil cause in
> the gulf of Tonkin are oil reserves as large as the Saudi's.
>
>
>
> That's the only excuse the Peacenik appeasers can come up with. I
> guess if we were to attack an enemy in Antarctica it would be for the
> oil.
>
> Sign me,
> Dirty oil, baby killer supporter
>