>>Let me ask you again: do you believe that Bush's concern for the Iraqi people under Saddam played a substantive part in the decision to invade?
No, not particularly. However, this does not condemn Bush or the US because it doesn't single him (or us) out for unusual behavior. For a nation to respond as we did, there has to be a perceived threat. Even a significant advantage would not be a good motive for such an invasion; although significant advantage is a motive for diplomatic stalling and interference, it's not enough of a motive for invasion.
>>Or perhaps more pertinent: do you believe that Bush, even before 9/11, had it in mind to invade Iraq?
Oh sure. But not just Bush, Gore too, plus Bush's team and Gore's team. Clinton DID sign a resolution for regime change in Iraq, and so that issue had to be on everybody's mind. We couldn't just maintain the no-fly zone forever, so whoever was running for office had to consider the issue, probably along these lines:
1. Can I invade Iraq and take out Saddam? How could I get the public to back me on this? Is it worth the risk? 2. Can I avoid invading Iraq and taking out Saddam? Can I live with the outcome of inaction? The public will always back inaction, but will my inaction damage my legacy? 3. Can I, in the interest of my party and my legacy, simply pass this growing problem on to my successor?
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
