we have an obligation at the relationship between the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq.
we have a goal of regime chane in Iraq while a goal of victory on the war against terroris. he apparently thinks they're different.
The war on terrorism must be multilateral - it is impossible without the help of many nations.
Our ability to secure that kind of multilater cooperation can be severely damaged by taking unilateral actions against Iraq. If the administration must take unilateral action then George should share that information.
He felt betrayed by the first administrations hastey departure from the battle field - particularly in light of what happened to the shiites and the kurds.
In 1991 there was a resolution that had been passed by the UN. It was easier to build a coalition and get a resolution in 1991 because Iraq had invaded Kuwait.
This year, by contrast, many of our allies are openly opposed. And those who do support us have conditioned their support on the new UN resolution.
The 1991 coalition picked up the significant cost of the war. This time we will have to shoulder the burden of cost on our own. Does he have an original thought here?
He is now asserting that GWB is politically motivated because GWB is trying to make this happen before the elections.
First he says that he, in his infinite wisdom, thinks that the United States should operate within the context and bounds of "international law" and the UN - THEN, in the next breath he says he feels "betrayed" because we didn't go beyond the mandate of the UN and "international law" when liberating Kuwait - and that we did not, unilaterally, go all the way to Baghdad and remove Saddam.
Obviously, he is suffering from cognitive dissonance in his desire to be relevant and in his hatred for the Bush's. He just needs to keep his trap shut as no sane person believes he is at all credible on this and many other subjects.