Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Boxed-In In Baghdad

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
dArKeR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-03 05:46 PM
Original message
Boxed-In In Baghdad
For much of the Clinton administration's eight years in office the policy mantra on Iraq held that Saddam Hussein was contained and the Iraqi dictator himself was boxed in. The regime was under U.N. sanctions; international weapons inspectors were there, although not at all times, to keep the pressure on; food and medicine went to the Iraqi people through the U.N.-supervised oil-for-food program. In short, Saddam was still in charge but he wasn't an imminent threat to the region.

That policy was dramatically and forcibly shifted by the Bush administration, which went to war to oust Saddam. Putting aside for the moment the current debate raging over the evidence the Bush administration used to justify its action, the stated purpose was achieved: Saddam is clearly no longer in power or a threat. However, a number of increasingly messy loose ends are still to be clarified.

As the dust settles from combat operations to postwar reconstruction, the Bush administration is finding it harder and harder to make enough progress to convince the Iraqi people that life is better now without Saddam in power. Basic needs such as electric power and clean water are not something you can count on in Iraq these days, and almost daily guerilla operations continue to be mounted against U.S. and British forces who occupy the country.

You forgot to mention the 40,000+ men, women and children who were killed in your name.
You forgot to mention Bush has a mind of 10 year old which all honest reporters know.
You forgot to mention Cheney's energy commission was only going after the oil and the dead Americans or Iraqis didn't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-03 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wolfson says that Saddam
is not a threat. Then who is responsible for all the dead and wounded and maimed U.S. soldiers?

I can't get the Wash Post story about the men who lost their feet out of my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan 16th 2018, 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC