Replies

I don't remember being "advised" to do this. I remember a lot of panicky people doing it. Anyway, people who did this (mostly back in late 2001 as I recall) were worried about terrorism.

It was part of an advisory on Homeland Defense preparations. And I didn't do it anyway. But I still can't forget how for a few weeks there, every Walmart and hardware store ran out of duct tape and plastic sheeting. And that guy back in Connecticut (or one of those puny liberal states) who actually encased his entire house in a single plastic sheet. About that time, Ridge came out, a little sheepishly, and told people not to panic over the sheeting thing.

Yes, there was a bit of a panic in some quarters.

Presidents can do that, you know. They can JUST ATTACK if a threat really is "imminent". They don't NEED to ask for Congressional resolutions or such niceties when a threat really is "imminent". Thus, the fact that Bush didn't do that is one indication that he didn't think the threat was "imminent". "Imminent threats" don't usually sit there on Pause for six months while you have a heated, public debate over whether to attack them.

Points well taken. And I have consistently defended the full legality of the president in securing the support of the congress in this matter. Our real mistake there, in hindsight, was giving the U.N. a chance to try to muck up the authority we claimed (legitimately) to possess under previous resolutions. Actually, we should have "JUST ATTACKED". It would have been so much more effective a deterrent. I blame Powell. I think our president wanted to do exactly this. He's a pretty direct kind of guy.

[duct-tape etc] It was part of an advisory on Homeland Defense preparations.

Got it. Relevance to the debate we're having about Bush's statements on Iraq.......?

Our real mistake there, in hindsight, was giving the U.N. a chance to try to muck up the authority we claimed (legitimately) to possess under previous resolutions. Actually, we should have "JUST ATTACKED". It would have been so much more effective a deterrent. I blame Powell.

I agree, mostly.

From what I've read it seems a good argument could be made that it was worth the effort to protect Tony Blair politically and thus keep Britain as an ally in the war. But it still seems like a costly move given that going to the UN caused the myopic legalistic focus to be on these "WMD" things.