Originally posted by DDsnake
Here's what the first President Bush wrote in his memoirs:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. "
it is just too bad his son can't read!
Now that's classic.
So it seems to support Bush's stand you have to be against Bush's stand. Bush against Bush. It is too bad the younger doesn't/can't/won't read.
It's not so much the model year, it's the high mileage or meterage to keep the youth of Canada happy
Bookmarks