[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:
