delihound

it never ceases to amaze me:
In his memoir, "A World Transformed," written six years ago, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

"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 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."

this, Rove, Downing Street, etc...its almost more than i can bare when i still see people defending this "occupation"--and by that i mean this administration

on a strange note, i dreamt i was stuck in a room with a cabin-fever-crazed Tara Reid, who kept taking her cloths off, and i was freaking out (may i point out that i think she one of the WORST things to ever happen to celluoid).

by the way