New Book from Bush CT Advisor - Rumsfeld Wanted to Bomb Iraq the Day after 9/11??

[AgPete]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash60.htm

FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.

The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.

Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.

Clarke, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."

Developing...

[Easy Mac]

Read Bush at War, it says Cheney wanted to bomb it the day of the attacks as soon as they happened. Wolfowitz was already beating the war drum before the attacks, but he couldn't find a reason. These were all from the words of the central people involved.

[The Afoci]

I can't wait for the liberals to come to this thread and bash drudge's record on getting things right.

[Buccaneer]

I like how he paints the whole administration based on nutjobs like Rumsfield. The President and others in the administration (besides Cheney and Wolf apparently) said "no", didn't they?

[Easy Mac]

Drudge has a way of drudging up stories from months before that people have forgotten about... he seems to hit about 1 in 10 that are true. For some reason people keep thinking he's good at delivering real news.

[AgPete]

Drudge has a way of drudging up stories from months before that people have forgotten about... he seems to hit about 1 in 10 that are true. For some reason people keep thinking he's good at delivering real news.

If this is what really happened:

and Rumsfeld said,'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.


I really don't feel safe with Rumsfeld advising the man who has his finger on the button. I've read a lot of stuff about Rumsfeld and everytime my opinion of him lowers.

[Easy Mac]

I'm not saying this one's false... he hit lewinsky... he missed on the "kerry infidelity"... he hit this... those are the ones off the top of my head.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I can't wait for the liberals to come to this thread and bash drudge's record on getting things right.
"The Liberals" You make it sound like they are your enemy and not Osama and his boys... Sad, really sad. The time spent fighting each other should be spent burying terrorists. This is from someone you would consider one of "the liberals" Maybe if you stopped worshiping the ground King George walks upon you would see that he's actually a fiscal liberal (spend, spend, spend...)

[Buccaneer]

The time spent fighting each other should be spent burying terrorists.
Not when "The Liberals" wants to appeasement and UN accords; not when "The Liberals" railed against fighting a war in Afghanistan; not when "The Liberals" wants to take a consilatory stand against those regimes supporting terrorists. You call for burying terrorists by you don't like the methods in which we have to do so. We are humans and throughout history, the dream of peace has never occured and never will as long as there is hatred in the world. The best we can do is fight for what we believe in and it seems that means to do what it takes to bury terrorists.

[/quote]he's actually a fiscal liberal (spend, spend, spend...)[/QUOTE]
I got laughed at earlier by "The Liberals" when I called Bush and his administration "liberal republicans". If spend, spend, spend.... is such a bad thing, why vote Democratic or Republican for that matter when you could make a personal conviction to vote libertarian?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

not when "The Liberals" wants to take a consilatory stand against those regimes supporting terrorists.

Yeah, like when Pakistan was selling nuclear weapons technology to anyone with a buck and those dirty liberals wanted to let them off without even a slap on the wrist. ...oh wait, that was the Bush administration...

:p

[Buccaneer]

Such is the case of diplomacy. Read your history, esp the 20th century and you will see constant reminders of this (e.g., alliance with Stalin). Diplomacy throughout world history has always been about the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

[clintl]

I got laughed at earlier by "The Liberals" when I called Bush and his administration "liberal republicans". If spend, spend, spend.... is such a bad thing, why vote Democratic or Republican for that matter when you could make a personal conviction to vote libertarian?

Actually, the difference between liberal and conservative is not so much how much they want to spend, but what they want to spend the money on. The Libertarians are the only ones who are true misers.

[Buccaneer]

Actually, the difference between liberal and conservative is not so much how much they want to spend, but what they want to spend the money on. The Libertarians are the only ones who are true misers.
With the same wasteful results: War on Drugs, War on Terrorism (inconclusive), War on Poverty, War on Something or Other.... My conclusive have been that giving more to the federal govt will result in less benefits and more bureaucracy. An example I come up with is see how much benefit $100 does locally to a needy family compared giving $100 to the feds. It should be about personal responsibility not forced (and very wasteful) govt charity.

[clintl]

The miser comment was a joke, Bucc.

[Buccaneer]

How would you know, clintl? We never had any libertarians in legislative authority to make a stand against Democratic and Republican spending sprees. Those who stood up to make significant cuts were ridiculed by pork/special interest-minded congressman and the media.

But then again, I really don't know what you and I are debating.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Not when "The Liberals" wants to appeasement and UN accords; not when "The Liberals" railed against fighting a war in Afghanistan; not when "The Liberals" wants to take a consilatory stand against those regimes supporting terrorists. You call for burying terrorists by you don't like the methods in which we have to do so. We are humans and throughout history, the dream of peace has never occured and never will as long as there is hatred in the world. The best we can do is fight for what we believe in and it seems that means to do what it takes to bury terrorists.

he's actually a fiscal liberal (spend, spend, spend...)[/QUOTE]
I got laughed at earlier by "The Liberals" when I called Bush and his administration "liberal republicans". If spend, spend, spend.... is such a bad thing, why vote Democratic or Republican for that matter when you could make a personal conviction to vote libertarian?[/QUOTE]


Just to clear something up... I'm not for sitting back and doing nothing like many of those you refer to as "liberals. I'd be harder than the so-called "conservatives." We need to know what we're dealing with. The #1 thing we need is intellegence, followed by swift, decicive action. Forget showing our enemy respect. They don't understand the concept. Let them know that they will die. When they die, the bullets that kill them will have been dipped in pigs blood. When we cremate their remains, they will be wrapped in pigskin. They believe that they cannot go to heaven if pork is touching them. Well, that's just too fucking bad... This from a registered democrat...

[clintl]

Well, I don't think we're debating anything. Until recently, I worked with a guy was a Libertarian congressional candidate a few years ago, and actually helped him a little during the campaign with some editing of a speech. (FWIW, even if I wanted to vote for him, I couldn't have, since I live in a different district.) So I know very well that they would be in favor of much less spending than either Democrats or Republicans if they got elected. I heard him often enough promote the Libertarian message. The joke part was using the word "miser" to describe them, which is what I thought prompted you to make that post.

[WussGawd]

I can't wait for the liberals to come to this thread and bash drudge's record on getting things right.

Old news. Paul O'Neill blew this story open with his book a couple of months ago. Next, Drudge is going to tell us that Truman actually did defeat Dewey.

There, you see, I still bashed Sludge and agreed with the story. Ya happy?

[Buccaneer]

Just to clear something up... I'm not for sitting back and doing nothing like many of those you refer to as "leberals. I'd be harder than the so-called "conservatives." We need to know what we're dealing with. The #1 thing we need is intellegence, followed by swift, decicive action. Forget showing our enemy respect. They don't understand the concept. Let them know that they will die. When they die, the bullets that kill them will have been dipped in pigs blood. When we cremate their remains, they will be wrapped in pigskin. They believe that they cannot go to heaven if pork is touching them. Well, that's just too fucking bad... This from a registered democrat...I now understand, I was just making another generalized soundbite post (and not pointing at you specifically). But in response, as indicated by my diplomacy post, you do have to measure such actions and pick your fight carefully. I believe going after Afghanistan and Iraq were good things but not going after Iran and North Korea and Saudis, even though enough justifications exist. Terrorists (and guerillas) has always been the most difficult enemy throughout history to fight and such history shows that the most effective method is time; that is, keep up the will to fight them and they will wear down - in time.

[Flasch186]

Better intelligence more efficient targeting - less american deaths.

I love that the earlier post throws diplomacy to the wind and thenw hen explaining the pakistan slap on the wrist uses diplomacy as the reason for it. Thats an awesome convenience to be able to use both sides of the coin when desired. FLIP FLOP indeed.

How about addressing the lies? maybe off topic, but just another feather in the cap for lying.....heres one (again) they knew that their budget estimate for the health plan was way under their newest calulations and still presented congress with the old numbers so that congress would pass it. That is borderline criminal IMO and the republicans dont even mention that one. This admin lies so much that everyone doesnt even bat ane ye anymore at it, its just, well par for the course for "King George" and his followers.

[AgPete]

Old news. Paul O'Neill blew this story open with his book a couple of months ago. Next, Drudge is going to tell us that Truman actually did defeat Dewey.

There, you see, I still bashed Sludge and agreed with the story. Ya happy?

Did he? I know he said the Bush administration was focused on Iraq before 9/11 but I never heard any direct comments from Rumsfeld like this man claims.

If this story is true, and ya never know with Drudge, I'd think people would be outraged. I don't want some gung-ho never-been-in-the-service bureaucrat urging the President to bomb the $%#* out of a country he doesn't like just because "they're easy targets." Way to keep a cool head after 9/11 Rumsfeld. :rolleyes: Forget replacing Cheney, Bush should be looking for a new Secretary of Defense in his re-election campaign.

[Easy Mac]

Sept. 12, 2001. 4 P.M. meeting of the NSC, Rumsfeld raises the question of attacking Iraq.

p. 49 of Bush at War. Also see 60-61, 83-84... copyright 2002.

edit: on Sept. 17, Bush says he thinks Sadaam was involved in 9/11, but can't attack without evidence.

[AgPete]

Sept. 12, 2001. 4 P.M. meeting of the NSC, Rumsfeld raises the question of attacking Iraq.

p. 49 of Bush at War. Also see 60-61, 83-84... copyright 2002.

Well, you'd think more people would be outraged. I guess I'm at fault for not educating myself more on the material out there just like most Americans. I stopped reading Bob Woodward ever since the sources in his books were questioned. He's one of those authors that has too many he said-she said sources for me to realistically believe everything he writes but he had this one down, didn't he?

[Easy Mac]

AFAIK, he interviewed all those involved, though you can never be certain on sources if you're not there.

[Dutch]

Also from p.49

"Everyone at the table believed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a menace, a leader bent on acquiring and perhaps using weapons of mass destruction. Any serious, full-scale war against terrorism would have to make Iraq a target--eventually."

From p.60

"Iraq posed nearly as serious a problem for the president and his team as Afghanistan, they held. If Saddam, a wily and unpredictable survivor, decided to launch a terrorist attack or even a limited military strike on U.S. facilities after September 11 and the president had failed to move against him, the recriminiations might never end."

[Easy Mac]

And a boogey man could jump out of the closet and steal the goat from under my bed...

[sabotai]

When I first saw this thread title, I thought someone had bumped a really old thread. This is news? It's not exactly new...

[Dutch]

Another deep fly to left field.....caught at the warning track!

[AgPete]

When I first saw this thread title, I thought someone had bumped a really old thread. This is news? It's not exactly new...

Just one question then, if it's old news, why isn't anyone worried about it? Isn't anyone worried that the man in charge of the most powerful country in the world has a warhawk advisor promoting policies that have no logical basis after the CIA, FBI and Bush's counter-terrorism chief give him the lowdown? I guess not considering the small coverage this gets.

[Dutch]

Oh brother.

[SackAttack]

The #1 thing we need is intellegence, followed by swift, decicive action. Forget showing our enemy respect. They don't understand the concept. Let them know that they will die. When they die, the bullets that kill them will have been dipped in pigs blood. When we cremate their remains, they will be wrapped in pigskin. They believe that they cannot go to heaven if pork is touching them. Well, that's just too fucking bad... This from a registered democrat...

Intelligence? So what you're saying is that instead of fighting merely the terroristic elements, that we ought to instead inflame the entire Muslim world? You think deliberately thumbing our nose at their conventions and their sensibilities is going to win us ANY kind of sympathy over there?

I'm not saying that we ought to be kowtowing to every single tradition, but it seems to me that what you're suggesting would be a little bit like throwing a torch in a room full of powder kegs. It'd be playing directly into the hands of bin Laden and those like him, a call to arms without him having to raise a finger.

No, I don't think so. Hunt them down and send them to their Maker, yes, but leave the religious aspects out of it. Turning a military conflict into a religious conflict is never, ever a good idea against an enemy willing to strap a bomb to his chest for a shot at paradise.

[AgPete]

Oh brother.

So you don't think this is a big deal? How? How can you not question your government when an educated man such as Rumsfeld is promoting a kneejerk reaction to 9/11 against the estimates of EVERY major intelligence source in our government?

[sabotai]

People knew Rumsfeld was a warhawk before 9/11 and most people knew he was pushing for a war in Iraq when 9/11 happened (and before) shortly after 9/11 happened. It's old news. Good to see someone write a book about it, though. Although I will probably never read it.

[Nyarlahotep]

"The Liberals" You make it sound like they are your enemy and not Osama and his boys... Sad, really sad. The time spent fighting each other should be spent burying terrorists. This is from someone you would consider one of "the liberals" Maybe if you stopped worshiping the ground King George walks upon you would see that he's actually a fiscal liberal (spend, spend, spend...)

I actually thought this post was serious until I read the last line and your sig. This is from someone who didn't vote for Bush and doesn't care if he gets re-elected.

[Dutch]

So you don't think this is a big deal? How? How can you not question your government when an educated man such as Rumsfeld is promoting a kneejerk reaction to 9/11 against the estimates of EVERY major intelligence source in our government?

I do not consider conversations by the president's council, covering a wide range of options, to be anything but responsable behaviour by our government. I pray that will always be the case when considering the power they possess.

I question my government all the damned time. You won't see that here, because there is no need with so many ready to give them hell.

But I sincerely love having this team in office right now. Bush, Powell, Rice, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are probably the best, most diverse, most experienced team ever in the White House. Of course, the same can be said about today's major news media editors who can't stand them.

As for Donald Rumsfeld will never win any charm awards, but he's not nearly the devil he's been painted to be.

[Sharpieman]

With all the evidence out there I personally have come to the conclusion that the Iraq war was a partly political war. The most damning evidence isn't the whole, he said, she said stuff. It’s actually in what Bush has said after all this evidence has come out. Bush's main reasons for the war before it happened, were: 1; Saddam had WMD and was a clear threat to America. And 2; there MAY be a link between Saddam and Al Qaida. After the war, it’s clear that Bush isn't talking about either of these points. His new reason is that Saddam was a bad man and somebody needed to get rid of him.
Of course, you can have your opinions about this or whatever, but we must look ahead. It's clear that Bush wants to be out of Iraq before the election, so that he doesn't have that baggage and the Iraqi people have their own country. But with the history of U.S. "nation building" I'm very pessimistic about the future of Iraq.
My whole question though is why Iraq? Why did we attack them? Why not Syria or Lebanon or Iran? Each of those may have and some do have ties to Al Qaida. They have weapons that can hurt Americans. So why Iraq?

[fhasumi]

I think we're forgetting 2 big things:

1) Saddam tried to kill Bush's father

2) Bush is a cowboy


1 + 2 = Iraq War

[Dutch]

With all the evidence out there I personally have come to the conclusion that the Iraq war was a partly political war.

This is actually one of the main reason's the war had to happen when it did. Could you imagine Bush initiating a war this year? During the elections? How awful would that look. You have to take that into consideration. So there were politics involved, for sure.

Bush's main reasons for the war before it happened, were: 1; Saddam had WMD and was a clear threat to America.

That is the dumbed down media version. You have to forget the revisionist "facts" that are being thrown at you by Reuters. Go back and read Bush's speeches to the U.N., Clinton's speeches as far back as 1996/1997. It's all there.

And 2; there MAY be a link between Saddam and Al Qaida.

There was a link between Iraq's uncontrolled autonomous regions and Al Qaeda. The obvious links between Saddam and terrorism. The link between the UN Sanctions and Middle Eastern bitterness. The growing power, wealth, and propaganda that was directly attributed to American forces in Saudi Arabia.

After the war, it’s clear that Bush isn't talking about either of these points. His new reason is that Saddam was a bad man and somebody needed to get rid of him.

Bush has not changed his stance.

Of course, you can have your opinions about this or whatever, but we must look ahead. It's clear that Bush wants to be out of Iraq before the election, so that he doesn't have that baggage and the Iraqi people have their own country. But with the history of U.S. "nation building" I'm very pessimistic about the future of Iraq.

While I believe it is your right to believe bad things will happen in Iraq, I'm beginning to believe many people think it's their duty to ensure Iraq has a terrible future. Because they hate Iraqi's? No, of course not, but anything good that happens in Iraq is bad for the opposition in America. This is proven by the complete lack of positive news coming out of Iraq. And with more good things happenign than bad things, you have to question the ethics and motives of our journalists world-wide.

I don't think they have a political agenda, more than they have a monetary agenda. "An evil-Bush, anti-US, Iraq is failing", storyline simply makes more money than the "Iraqi unemployment best in recent memory, U.S. Army has built 500 schools for children, Iraqi revenue's back to pre-war levels and growing daily, Iraqi contitution replaces dictatorships" storyline that leads to an easy victory for Bush in the polls.

My whole question though is why Iraq? Why did we attack them? Why not Syria or Lebanon or Iran? Each of those may have and some do have ties to Al Qaida. They have weapons that can hurt Americans. So why Iraq?

Again, you are being lead down a narrow tunnel-visioned path that is being dictated by Rueters. If you cannot simply tell the difference between Iraq and Iran on an international scale, after massive diplomacy efforts, UN intervention, you don't want to be able to tell the difference. There was a reason, afterall, why the UN chose to slap santions on Iraq and not Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. But show me where the media "is still talking about that"?

You won't. It's not good for business. ;)

[clintl]

I think we're forgetting 2 big things:

1) Saddam tried to kill Bush's father

2) Bush is a cowboy


1 + 2 = Iraq War


And big thing #3, which Wolfowitz has flat-out admitted:

It would be desirable to have someplace other than Saudi Arabia to station the troops we want to keep in the Middle East. And the Administration decided that if Saddam could be disposed of, Iraq would be a nice place for that.

[Buccaneer]

And big thing #3, which Wolfowitz has flat-out admitted:

It would be desirable to have someplace other than Saudi Arabia to station the troops we want to keep in the Middle East. And the Administration decided that if Saddam could be disposed of, Iraq would be a nice place for that.
And the problem with that is...what? A military presence in the ME is probably better than none at all. If not, I assume then you ride a bike everywhere. We import too much oil from OPEC because we don't have the guts to become more dependent on our own oil. I really wish we could leave the ME altogether but the citizens and economies of the US would not allow it unfortunately.

Flasch: Throughout history, threading through the webs of diplomacy is exactly about flip flopping. Do you ever play a military base strategy game (like Civ2 or EU)? At any given time, you do have re-evaluate who are your friends and enemies as well as determining what your short-term goals are which then determines who your friends and enemies are going to be! There can NEVER be a one-size fits all diplomacy.

Yes, more intelligence is one of the keys. But your good friend Clinton and his administration didn't see it that way and left the intelligence community in disarray, divided, inefficient and with low morale.

[EagleFan]

So you don't think this is a big deal? How? How can you not question your government when an educated man such as Rumsfeld is promoting a kneejerk reaction to 9/11 against the estimates of EVERY major intelligence source in our government?


Are you serious? I guess we have to question every thought that anyone in the country had after 9/11? It's called being human and someimes overreactnig to something so tragic. If he said this on 9/10, that's a different story.

A girl that I used to date, many years ago, was raped and my first reaction was wanting to go out and kill the man that did it. I guess that means that you think I should be held accountable for my immediate reaction (though I never acted on that thought).

[clintl]

And the problem with that is...what? A military presence in the ME is probably better than none at all. If not, I assume then you ride a bike everywhere. We import too much oil from OPEC because we don't have the guts to become more dependent on our own oil. I really wish we could leave the ME altogether but the citizens and economies of the US would not allow it unfortunately..

There's nothing wrong with wanting that; I understand that part of the logic. The thing that's wrong is the Administration thinking that particular desire justifies a military conquest.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I think we're forgetting 2 big things:

1) Saddam tried to kill Bush's father

2) Bush is a cowboy


1 + 2 = Iraq War
All Hat, No Cattle.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Intelligence? So what you're saying is that instead of fighting merely the terroristic elements, that we ought to instead inflame the entire Muslim world? You think deliberately thumbing our nose at their conventions and their sensibilities is going to win us ANY kind of sympathy over there?

I'm not saying that we ought to be kowtowing to every single tradition, but it seems to me that what you're suggesting would be a little bit like throwing a torch in a room full of powder kegs. It'd be playing directly into the hands of bin Laden and those like him, a call to arms without him having to raise a finger.

No, I don't think so. Hunt them down and send them to their Maker, yes, but leave the religious aspects out of it. Turning a military conflict into a religious conflict is never, ever a good idea against an enemy willing to strap a bomb to his chest for a shot at paradise.
Well well well, aren't we feeling politically correct...

I did a little research and apparently there is no proof Gen. Pershing ever dipped bullets in pigs blood and killed terrorists. In the research I found something that I thought was funny on proislam.com In an open letter to Mass. State Senator Guy Glodis they state: "It might be of interest to you to know that as far as Islam goes, God controls the gates of heaven, not maniacal savages who would commit mass murder in such a foul and inhumane way."

It's funny that they seem to take more time to attack those who attack terrorism than they do condeming the terrorists themselves. They claim that they are against attacks. They condem the acts. But they condem us for trying to prevent them. Why aren't there vocal groups like Islam Against Terrorism? Am I not my brother's keeper? There's an old saying that is very true: If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.

[Sharpieman]

This is actually one of the main reason's the war had to happen when it did. Could you imagine Bush initiating a war this year? During the elections? How awful would that look. You have to take that into consideration. So there were politics involved, for sure.



That is the dumbed down media version. You have to forget the revisionist "facts" that are being thrown at you by Reuters. Go back and read Bush's speeches to the U.N., Clinton's speeches as far back as 1996/1997. It's all there.



There was a link between Iraq's uncontrolled autonomous regions and Al Qaeda. The obvious links between Saddam and terrorism. The link between the UN Sanctions and Middle Eastern bitterness. The growing power, wealth, and propaganda that was directly attributed to American forces in Saudi Arabia.



Bush has not changed his stance.



While I believe it is your right to believe bad things will happen in Iraq, I'm beginning to believe many people think it's their duty to ensure Iraq has a terrible future. Because they hate Iraqi's? No, of course not, but anything good that happens in Iraq is bad for the opposition in America. This is proven by the complete lack of positive news coming out of Iraq. And with more good things happenign than bad things, you have to question the ethics and motives of our journalists world-wide.

I don't think they have a political agenda, more than they have a monetary agenda. "An evil-Bush, anti-US, Iraq is failing", storyline simply makes more money than the "Iraqi unemployment best in recent memory, U.S. Army has built 500 schools for children, Iraqi revenue's back to pre-war levels and growing daily, Iraqi contitution replaces dictatorships" storyline that leads to an easy victory for Bush in the polls.



Again, you are being lead down a narrow tunnel-visioned path that is being dictated by Rueters. If you cannot simply tell the difference between Iraq and Iran on an international scale, after massive diplomacy efforts, UN intervention, you don't want to be able to tell the difference. There was a reason, afterall, why the UN chose to slap santions on Iraq and not Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. But show me where the media "is still talking about that"?

You won't. It's not good for business. ;)
First of all, I don't get all my info from Rueters. Second, I know theres a lot of differences between Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. My point is, that Iran and Syria have clear connections to terrorism, more so than Iraq. If Bush gets re-elected, I wouldn't be surprised if he took action against Syria or Iran. But is that really the answer to the problem? Is attacking every country in the Middle East going to solve the terrorist problem? Obviously not. We must look at what Al Qaeda and what most terrorist groups want. The radical faction and conservative Islamic militants want the western influence out of their countries. Meaning they want the U.S out of the Middle East; economicly, politically and literally. If we try to democratize the whole middle east, is that going to solve problems? When we leave the middle east, will democracy stay? No and no. Democracy is not a deep routed tradition in the middle east. Its a foriegn ideal. Don't get my wrong, I don't want Iraq to be a problem. I want the people of Iraq to govern and govern well. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.

[Dutch]

I think the plan is actually to allow efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to strengthen to the point where we are not needed there and then sit back and see if "Freedom of Leadership" actually takes hold. Afghanistan will never be anything but a poor nation, monetarily, but they can still take pride in freely electing their officials. But Iraq will be rich again one day soon, and hopefully with the new freedoms Iraqi's possess (because of Bush) they will bolster their middle class to the point where they will find it in their own best interest to police themselves.

If Iranian's or Syrian's have a problem with that, they will have to take those issues up with their leadership. Neither have an excuse for having so many multitudes of poor and hardly any middle class.

That is the ultimate goal here. The middle east needs to make their own leadership accountable. Right now, most Middle Easterner's actually think that things will be worse a year from now because Saddam Hussein is gone. They truly believe their leaders are not at fault. For anything. That needs to change and it's needs external influence to help them change.l

[JonInMiddleGA]

If Bush gets re-elected, I wouldn't be surprised if he took action against Syria or Iran.
Just what I needed ... yet another reason for me to work hard for his re-election :)

[HornedFrog Purple]

Pax Americana baby!

After reelection, McNamara Jr. will focus on N. Korea! Yeah!

[Flasch186]

SO (i do play those :) ) if flip flopping is necessary and a GOOD Thing for Gov't, and you are pro-current admin, do you find it SILLY to have weakness #1 of Kerry to be that he flip flops? I do. Im sure there is better marketing opportunities out there. I heard one today from his speech, Bush said america was the "Reponsibilty Country" There you go. He could paint his wagons with that slogan and sooner or later the Sheep would jump on board, its rather catchy. I myself find it ironic being were more in debt than ever but thats beside the point.

I think the handling of Iraq is atrocious to no end. I have no doubts that we will hang the country out there like laundry and watch it flap in the wind until eventually it comes down. We shouldve brought in the UN, then turned things over to NATO. I point to Bosnia as a wonderful example, until this week mass killing was non-existent (at least newsworthy-ness wise), and the mass killing was what? 5 or so, much better than the concentration camps (WE SHOULD NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN ANYWHERE THUS I was and am pro war in Iraq BUT ON THAT BASIS) the handling of post war iraq looks like they drew the plan up in the sand "you go there, you go over there, make sure there is running water and..." BOOM, "hey why'd they do that?" "Uh, General? We've got 35 Iraqis guarding the border and theyre scared as crap to shoot at the people coming over the border cuz well, they think their Kalishnikov Rifles wont work." "Damnit, If only Kerry wouldve voted for the ~85 million we couldve given them better guns....I hope that Halliburton money trickles down fast to us. You know they're paying that back right?" "Yeah, Gen, thats what I heard....Im go get back down in the foxhole ok?" "Good Idea." Coulda been handled better, I say.

[Buccaneer]

Flasch, I lean libertarian and am voting as thus.

[Flasch186]

I respect that entirely, I just cannot understand voting for The Current Admin. I wouldnt even necessarily be against a different Republican if they were to run against Bush (I know) but McCain i have the utmost respect for (thus far).