[lit-ideas] Re: Rumsfeld

  • From: Austin Meredith <Kouroo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:33:14 -0400

Should Rumsfeld go?

I'd like to recycle an argument from the first Gulf war. The argument was, 
we needn't attempt to kill or replace Saddam, since any replacement 
supplied by the existing Iraqi apparatus would be equivalently as bad. The 
argument was, we could kill or otherwise cause to be replaced this guy 
Saddam, some half a dozen times, without any replacement Iraqi politician 
being any more consistent with our American true interests.

If we were in some manner to force replacement of the President with the 
Vice-President (impeachment, whatever), obviously we wouldn't be any better 
off and conceivably we would even be worse off -- as the replacement 
President wouldn't be wasting as much time playing computer golf -- and if 
we were in some manner to force the existing US apparatus to replace the 
present Secretary of Defense with somebody else, ...

How about this: Rumsfeld stays, everyone else goes.

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: