|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
|
|

Jun 4th, 2004, 05:21 PM
Yeah
Is that such a shock though, really? I'm pretty sure the world wouldn't have gone for Bush standing in front of the world stating that we're going to remove Saddam because we have a score to settle, we're tired of snactions that don't work, and want to secure our access to oil.
I'm pretty sure no one bought the WMD/terrorist/instill democracy line. Not to say that some of those things might not benefit from the war, but at it's basis I don't think anyone really believed that was the rationale in the first place.
This is an administration that was built for war in Iraq. From the Vice-Pres on down. The high levvel Defense Dept. appointees were all blatant hawks, most of whom were involved in Gulf War I and felt like there was unfinished business. The only person with actual, credible war leadership experience was put at State, away from the war decision making. I think they knew Powell would object to war, but they needed his credibility and ethnicity in the Cabinet so they put him at State where his military opinions would not matter.
Honestly, why would you choose Rummsfeld over Powell to oversee your military? It's completely irrational to place a man who's spent 30 years of his life leading soldiers into combat in a diplomatic position while placing a war mongering techno weenie with no real combat expereince in a position to lead the nations armed forces. Unless you intended to use the soldier as a figure head without having to place any real stock in his professional opinions. Which is precisely what's happened.
|
|
|
|