Also, I like how you honed in on the insignificant part while leaving the tough questions unanswered. Nice job.
You have prefaced you post in a way that if anyone replies then they are a "Bush Zealot". So if I reply I will be labeled that, look at the last three posts. Despite the fact that I have stated many times that I don't care about bush in particular. But what someone says doesn't matter, it is what you conclude about that person that matters. You have proven that over and over.
But I will answer your ridiculous questions and risk being labeled.
No I defend him from silly left wing attacks that people such as your self lob at him. There is a difference.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm far from left wing. I've voted repub in every election, but unless BushCo does what I requir I'll abstain in the upcoming election. I don't like Kerry, but I really don't like the current Admin!
The left are not the only detractors. There are meny conservatives like myself who have been asking the tough question and not getting the desired responses.
I think that because of a number of reasons, war was the only option.
Why:
1. UN resolutions. All of them. I have kids and you can't just make rules without offering consequences as a result of skirting them. There was no real incentive to follow the agreement. The UN was unwilling to enforce their own rules. It was a infinite loop that had to be broken.
2. Constant hostilities to coalition forces. I remember almost a daily thing that planes were being shot at by Iraqi AA weapons. This was enough to go in. I guess everyone forgets the ceasefire agreement that was in place that he broke how many times.
3. Crappy intel. The whole world knew SH had WMD and used them. What no-one knew was where they were. Not to mention if they even existed. It was widely known the hatred SH had for US and the Bush family. GWB really had to choose between relying on SH to be honest, or assuming the worst. The common knowledge amoung intel agencies is that SH had some indirect links to Al Qaeda, how could he have taken a chance.
4. Maybe GWB did not know at the time, I don't know, but the UN was not being an honest party in this whole thing and may have added to the problem. If there had been no war we may never have found out about the inside corruption.
5. Iraq is no longer a possible threat as it has been for a long time. Iraq is now our friend, and that would never happen with SH in power.
Those are my opinions on that matter. That is one question.
... But what someone says doesn't matter, it is what you conclude about that person that matters. You have proven that over and over.
But I will answer your ridiculous questions and risk being labeled.
Where do I draw my conclusions from?
Tax cuts and increased spending--Defenately not conservative.
Invading a sovergn nation using shakey evidence--Not conservative.
Not agressivly persuing OBL--Not conservative (very Clintonian AAMOF).
Expanding government programs to gain the vote of a particular group--Not conservative.
Parts of the Patriot act--Not Conservative
Wanting to ammend the constitution limiting states rights for political gain--Not conservative.
Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state--not conservative.
Spending the most time on vacation than anyother president--No classification but wrong nontheless.
This guy has done many things that are LeftWing but you don't seem to want to see that. Add the Iraq conflicks when all eyes should be on removing TERRORISTS not two-bit dictators and you have yourself one disgrunteled conservative.
And finally its what I conclude that matters. I don't vote simply because some party tells me to vote. I vote for who I CONCLUDE is the right candidate for me. Unfortunetly my candidate was slandered in the 2000 campaign by Bush.
Tax cuts and increased spending--Defenately not conservative.
Invading a sovergn nation using shakey evidence--Not conservative.
Not agressivly persuing OBL--Not conservative (very Clintonian AAMOF).
Expanding government programs to gain the vote of a particular group--Not conservative.
Parts of the Patriot act--Not Conservative
Wanting to ammend the constitution limiting states rights for political gain--Not conservative.
Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state--not conservative.
Spending the most time on vacation than anyother president--No classification but wrong nontheless.
This guy has done many things that are LeftWing but you don't seem to want to see that. Add the Iraq conflicks when all eyes should be on removing TERRORISTS not two-bit dictators and you have yourself one disgrunteled conservative.
And finally its what I conclude that matters. I don't vote simply because some party tells me to vote. I vote for who I CONCLUDE is the right candidate for me. Unfortunetly my candidate was slandered in the 2000 campaign by Bush.
I pretty much agree here except to say that the "Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state" I would argue is extremely conservative sad to say and it is wrong.
I was a Bush supporter twice for Gov. of Texas and once for Pres. of the US. I will NOT vote for Bush again.
I think that because of a number of reasons, war was the only option.
Why:
1. UN resolutions. All of them. I have kids and you can't just make rules without offering consequences as a result of skirting them. There was no real incentive to follow the agreement. The UN was unwilling to enforce their own rules. It was a infinite loop that had to be broken.
2. Constant hostilities to coalition forces. I remember almost a daily thing that planes were being shot at by Iraqi AA weapons. This was enough to go in. I guess everyone forgets the ceasefire agreement that was in place that he broke how many times.
3. Crappy intel. The whole world knew SH had WMD and used them. What no-one knew was where they were. Not to mention if they even existed. It was widely known the hatred SH had for US and the Bush family. GWB really had to choose between relying on SH to be honest, or assuming the worst. The common knowledge amoung intel agencies is that SH had some indirect links to Al Qaeda, how could he have taken a chance.
4. Maybe GWB did not know at the time, I don't know, but the UN was not being an honest party in this whole thing and may have added to the problem. If there had been no war we may never have found out about the inside corruption.
5. Iraq is no longer a possible threat as it has been for a long time. Iraq is now our friend, and that would never happen with SH in power.
Those are my opinions on that matter. That is one question.
1) Soverign nations are not children. It's simplistic to make this equation. Next, we HAD INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME. THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB. THEY FOUND THE EXACT SAME THINGS AS WE DID. BUSHCO WAS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION ANYWAY> WHY COULDN"T WE WAIT UNTIL THE INSPECTIONS WERE COMPLETED?
2) I'll concede SH did fire at warplanes a few times over the years. Again though I was in the military and I don't recall "daily attacks". This is your strongest argument.
3) This is not a strong argument. Go back to page one and read. Shelf lives for the chemical weapons we suspected him of having are not very long (mustard gas is the exception). Nuclear programs are tough to come by. In fact, there are a couple of "Outlaw regeimes" out there who DO have WMD now. And the link between the Secular Iraq, and the muslim fundamental Al Qua'ida was weak to nonexistant to begin with.
4) Corruption is indemic in large beuracies. You don't think there are corrupt people doing business here and now in the US. Need I point out KBR?
5) Iraq was never a possible threat. What do you think SH was insane enough to launch nonexistant ICBM's at us? The guy knew what the consequences of his actions would be. I figured his posturing would stave off a US attack thus protecting his power base (again, read page 1. DMZ and I had a brief exchange over this).
I don't consider myself a bush zealot, so according to you I amy not be qualified to answer your question.
Your posts scream otherwise. And Faust is right. There's a lot of conservatives very unhappy with the current admin. aswell. I'm a registered Rep. and I'm very unhappy.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm far from left wing. I've voted repub in every election, but unless BushCo does what I requir I'll abstain in the upcoming election. I don't like Kerry, but I really don't like the current Admin!
The left are not the only detractors. There are meny conservatives like myself who have been asking the tough question and not getting the desired responses.
Amen on the third party thing---but for fiscal reasons.
I pretty much agree here except to say that the "Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state" I would argue is extremely conservative sad to say and it is wrong.
I was a Bush supporter twice for Gov. of Texas and once for Pres. of the US. I will NOT vote for Bush again.
Fellows
No, social conservatives want to break down the wall. Strict conservatives don't want the wall taken down because government should not interfear with religion. Taking the wall down allows for government meddeling in religious matters. Social conservatives believe we are a christian nation and as such we all should adhere to some christian standard.
No, social conservatives want to break down the wall. Strict conservatives don't want the wall taken down because government should not interfear with religion. Taking the wall down allows for government meddeling in religious matters. Social conservatives believe we are a christian nation and as such we all should adhere to some christian standard.
I think we are basically saying the same thing. Social conservatives (which you must admit Bush panders to) are conservative and wish for the wall between church and state taken down so to speak. This wall being taken down is NOT a liberal platform. It is a conservative platform. Libertarian and liberal platforms are 100% behind keeping the wall in place as I am personally.
I take the more libertarian view with this matter that the wall is needed. Church has no place in Government. I am all for a Pluralistic Secular Government.
I think we are basically saying the same thing. Social conservatives (which you must admit Bush panders to) are conservative and wish for the wall between church and state taken down so to speak. This wall being taken down is NOT a liberal platform. It is a conservative platform. Libertarian and liberal platforms are 100% behind keeping the wall in place as I am personally.
I take the more libertarian view with this matter that the wall is needed. Church has no place in Government. I am all for a Pluralistic Secular Government.
Fellows
Yes, I agree. That was my point because many people automatically associate Bush with being a conservative when in reality he is socially conservative. As a conservative, I don't want the gov'mnt bothering me while I'm at mass. My religion is mine and should not be tampered with by the government.
This is an across the board belief except for social conservatives. They want government fingers in their till for some reason.
This discussion has gone way off track in my opinion because Clark's contention is that BushCo immediatly honed on Irag following 911. They knew OBL was a threat, and had a good idea OBL perpetrated 911, but still SH was the target. "Why are we in Iraq if OBL is the guy that attacked us people?"
Clarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.
Iraq has been a threat and a destabilizing force for a long time, that even ABBers agree had to be dealt with sooner or later.
A lot of our military assets were already in the area, It provided a perfect opportunity to persuade or take him out. Now bring in the reasons that I mentioned in the other answer and you can start to understand why he did it.
"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."
This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.
The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.
Edit: Oh yeah the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were rooted and on the run. That is considered a victory in my book. Bush moved on to the next problem in the area.
Yes, I agree. That was my point because many people automatically associate Bush with being a conservative when in reality he is socially conservative. As a conservative, I don't want the gov'mnt bothering me while I'm at mass. My religion is mine and should not be tampered with by the government.
This is an across the board belief except for social conservatives. They want government fingers in their till for some reason.
I agree completely and this "Religious Right" business in government affairs trying to wag all peoples to their tune is just beyond reasonable. I am a Christian in the truest sense of the term and I do not support the political sin far too many Churches, Ministries and so-called "Christians" are getting involved in with the government.
Clarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.
Iraq has been a threat and a destabilizing force for a long time, that even ABBers agree had to be dealt with sooner or later.
A lot of our military assets were already in the area, It provided a perfect opportunity to persuade or take him out. Now bring in the reasons that I mentioned in the other answer and you can start to understand why he did it.
"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."
This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.
The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.
We did not have a substantial number of forces in the area. We had forces in Afganastan which those forces are still there in large part. We had a base in Bahrain and SA which both had minimal numbers of troops. We had one maybe two subs, one or two fast frigits and one carrier if I recall correctly. Not substantial.
And don't you think its odd that the first "problem" we addresses had little to nothing to do with the "actual problem" associated with OBL?
We did not have a substantial number of forces in the area. We had forces in Afganastan which those forces are still there in large part. We had a base in Bahrain and SA which both had minimal numbers of troops. We had one maybe two subs, one or two fast frigits and one carrier if I recall correctly. Not substantial.
And don't you think its odd that the first "problem" we addresses had little to nothing to do with the "actual problem" associated with OBL?
Um the very first thing that was attended to was Al Qaeda and the taliban. Not Iraq. The second thing was Iraq. That blows the theory that it was top of GWB's list. It was not.
Even if it was, he did what was best for the country and take out the haven of Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. Then he took out Iraq and SH.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't consider myself a bush zealot, so according to you I amy not be qualified to answer your question.
Dude!!! Read what you've posted thus far!!!
Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't consider myself a bush zealot, so according to you I amy not be qualified to answer your question.
Also, I like how you honed in on the insignificant part while leaving the tough questions unanswered. Nice job.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't consider myself a bush zealot, so according to you I amy not be qualified to answer your question.
Right, you just happen to defend just about everything he does.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Right, you just happen to defend just about everything he does.
No I defend him from silly left wing attacks that people such as your self lob at him. There is a difference.
I did hear about FBI ineffectiveness and a country and CT advisor flying blind as a result.
I did hear more about groupthink at CIA that put a damper on Covert ops.
....that they didn't want to fly the predator for idiotic reasons
....that it takes body bags to get Americans to implement changes in national security.
Sad. But then I "have to understand" that the "pure and simple truth" is that this is all Bush's fault.
Originally posted by faust9
Also, I like how you honed in on the insignificant part while leaving the tough questions unanswered. Nice job.
You have prefaced you post in a way that if anyone replies then they are a "Bush Zealot". So if I reply I will be labeled that, look at the last three posts. Despite the fact that I have stated many times that I don't care about bush in particular. But what someone says doesn't matter, it is what you conclude about that person that matters. You have proven that over and over.
But I will answer your ridiculous questions and risk being labeled.
Originally posted by NaplesX
No I defend him from silly left wing attacks that people such as your self lob at him. There is a difference.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm far from left wing. I've voted repub in every election, but unless BushCo does what I requir I'll abstain in the upcoming election. I don't like Kerry, but I really don't like the current Admin!
The left are not the only detractors. There are meny conservatives like myself who have been asking the tough question and not getting the desired responses.
Originally posted by faust9
"Was war the ONLY solution, and if so why?
I think that because of a number of reasons, war was the only option.
Why:
1. UN resolutions. All of them. I have kids and you can't just make rules without offering consequences as a result of skirting them. There was no real incentive to follow the agreement. The UN was unwilling to enforce their own rules. It was a infinite loop that had to be broken.
2. Constant hostilities to coalition forces. I remember almost a daily thing that planes were being shot at by Iraqi AA weapons. This was enough to go in. I guess everyone forgets the ceasefire agreement that was in place that he broke how many times.
3. Crappy intel. The whole world knew SH had WMD and used them. What no-one knew was where they were. Not to mention if they even existed. It was widely known the hatred SH had for US and the Bush family. GWB really had to choose between relying on SH to be honest, or assuming the worst. The common knowledge amoung intel agencies is that SH had some indirect links to Al Qaeda, how could he have taken a chance.
4. Maybe GWB did not know at the time, I don't know, but the UN was not being an honest party in this whole thing and may have added to the problem. If there had been no war we may never have found out about the inside corruption.
5. Iraq is no longer a possible threat as it has been for a long time. Iraq is now our friend, and that would never happen with SH in power.
Those are my opinions on that matter. That is one question.
Originally posted by NaplesX
... But what someone says doesn't matter, it is what you conclude about that person that matters. You have proven that over and over.
But I will answer your ridiculous questions and risk being labeled.
Where do I draw my conclusions from?
Tax cuts and increased spending--Defenately not conservative.
Invading a sovergn nation using shakey evidence--Not conservative.
Not agressivly persuing OBL--Not conservative (very Clintonian AAMOF).
Expanding government programs to gain the vote of a particular group--Not conservative.
Parts of the Patriot act--Not Conservative
Wanting to ammend the constitution limiting states rights for political gain--Not conservative.
Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state--not conservative.
Spending the most time on vacation than anyother president--No classification but wrong nontheless.
This guy has done many things that are LeftWing but you don't seem to want to see that. Add the Iraq conflicks when all eyes should be on removing TERRORISTS not two-bit dictators and you have yourself one disgrunteled conservative.
And finally its what I conclude that matters. I don't vote simply because some party tells me to vote. I vote for who I CONCLUDE is the right candidate for me. Unfortunetly my candidate was slandered in the 2000 campaign by Bush.
Originally posted by faust9
Where do I draw my conclusions from?
Tax cuts and increased spending--Defenately not conservative.
Invading a sovergn nation using shakey evidence--Not conservative.
Not agressivly persuing OBL--Not conservative (very Clintonian AAMOF).
Expanding government programs to gain the vote of a particular group--Not conservative.
Parts of the Patriot act--Not Conservative
Wanting to ammend the constitution limiting states rights for political gain--Not conservative.
Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state--not conservative.
Spending the most time on vacation than anyother president--No classification but wrong nontheless.
This guy has done many things that are LeftWing but you don't seem to want to see that. Add the Iraq conflicks when all eyes should be on removing TERRORISTS not two-bit dictators and you have yourself one disgrunteled conservative.
And finally its what I conclude that matters. I don't vote simply because some party tells me to vote. I vote for who I CONCLUDE is the right candidate for me. Unfortunetly my candidate was slandered in the 2000 campaign by Bush.
I pretty much agree here except to say that the "Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state" I would argue is extremely conservative sad to say and it is wrong.
I was a Bush supporter twice for Gov. of Texas and once for Pres. of the US. I will NOT vote for Bush again.
Fellows
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think that because of a number of reasons, war was the only option.
Why:
1. UN resolutions. All of them. I have kids and you can't just make rules without offering consequences as a result of skirting them. There was no real incentive to follow the agreement. The UN was unwilling to enforce their own rules. It was a infinite loop that had to be broken.
2. Constant hostilities to coalition forces. I remember almost a daily thing that planes were being shot at by Iraqi AA weapons. This was enough to go in. I guess everyone forgets the ceasefire agreement that was in place that he broke how many times.
3. Crappy intel. The whole world knew SH had WMD and used them. What no-one knew was where they were. Not to mention if they even existed. It was widely known the hatred SH had for US and the Bush family. GWB really had to choose between relying on SH to be honest, or assuming the worst. The common knowledge amoung intel agencies is that SH had some indirect links to Al Qaeda, how could he have taken a chance.
4. Maybe GWB did not know at the time, I don't know, but the UN was not being an honest party in this whole thing and may have added to the problem. If there had been no war we may never have found out about the inside corruption.
5. Iraq is no longer a possible threat as it has been for a long time. Iraq is now our friend, and that would never happen with SH in power.
Those are my opinions on that matter. That is one question.
1) Soverign nations are not children. It's simplistic to make this equation. Next, we HAD INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME. THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB. THEY FOUND THE EXACT SAME THINGS AS WE DID. BUSHCO WAS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION ANYWAY> WHY COULDN"T WE WAIT UNTIL THE INSPECTIONS WERE COMPLETED?
2) I'll concede SH did fire at warplanes a few times over the years. Again though I was in the military and I don't recall "daily attacks". This is your strongest argument.
3) This is not a strong argument. Go back to page one and read. Shelf lives for the chemical weapons we suspected him of having are not very long (mustard gas is the exception). Nuclear programs are tough to come by. In fact, there are a couple of "Outlaw regeimes" out there who DO have WMD now. And the link between the Secular Iraq, and the muslim fundamental Al Qua'ida was weak to nonexistant to begin with.
4) Corruption is indemic in large beuracies. You don't think there are corrupt people doing business here and now in the US. Need I point out KBR?
5) Iraq was never a possible threat. What do you think SH was insane enough to launch nonexistant ICBM's at us? The guy knew what the consequences of his actions would be. I figured his posturing would stave off a US attack thus protecting his power base (again, read page 1. DMZ and I had a brief exchange over this).
Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't consider myself a bush zealot, so according to you I amy not be qualified to answer your question.
Your posts scream otherwise. And Faust is right. There's a lot of conservatives very unhappy with the current admin. aswell. I'm a registered Rep. and I'm very unhappy.
Originally posted by faust9
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm far from left wing. I've voted repub in every election, but unless BushCo does what I requir I'll abstain in the upcoming election. I don't like Kerry, but I really don't like the current Admin!
The left are not the only detractors. There are meny conservatives like myself who have been asking the tough question and not getting the desired responses.
Amen on the third party thing---but for fiscal reasons.
Originally posted by Fellowship
I pretty much agree here except to say that the "Trying to breakdown the proverbial wall seperating church and state" I would argue is extremely conservative sad to say and it is wrong.
I was a Bush supporter twice for Gov. of Texas and once for Pres. of the US. I will NOT vote for Bush again.
Fellows
No, social conservatives want to break down the wall. Strict conservatives don't want the wall taken down because government should not interfear with religion. Taking the wall down allows for government meddeling in religious matters. Social conservatives believe we are a christian nation and as such we all should adhere to some christian standard.
Originally posted by faust9
No, social conservatives want to break down the wall. Strict conservatives don't want the wall taken down because government should not interfear with religion. Taking the wall down allows for government meddeling in religious matters. Social conservatives believe we are a christian nation and as such we all should adhere to some christian standard.
I think we are basically saying the same thing. Social conservatives (which you must admit Bush panders to) are conservative and wish for the wall between church and state taken down so to speak. This wall being taken down is NOT a liberal platform. It is a conservative platform. Libertarian and liberal platforms are 100% behind keeping the wall in place as I am personally.
I take the more libertarian view with this matter that the wall is needed. Church has no place in Government. I am all for a Pluralistic Secular Government.
Fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
I think we are basically saying the same thing. Social conservatives (which you must admit Bush panders to) are conservative and wish for the wall between church and state taken down so to speak. This wall being taken down is NOT a liberal platform. It is a conservative platform. Libertarian and liberal platforms are 100% behind keeping the wall in place as I am personally.
I take the more libertarian view with this matter that the wall is needed. Church has no place in Government. I am all for a Pluralistic Secular Government.
Fellows
Yes, I agree. That was my point because many people automatically associate Bush with being a conservative when in reality he is socially conservative. As a conservative, I don't want the gov'mnt bothering me while I'm at mass. My religion is mine and should not be tampered with by the government.
This is an across the board belief except for social conservatives. They want government fingers in their till for some reason.
Originally posted by faust9
This discussion has gone way off track in my opinion because Clark's contention is that BushCo immediatly honed on Irag following 911. They knew OBL was a threat, and had a good idea OBL perpetrated 911, but still SH was the target. "Why are we in Iraq if OBL is the guy that attacked us people?"
Clarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.
Iraq has been a threat and a destabilizing force for a long time, that even ABBers agree had to be dealt with sooner or later.
A lot of our military assets were already in the area, It provided a perfect opportunity to persuade or take him out. Now bring in the reasons that I mentioned in the other answer and you can start to understand why he did it.
"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."
This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.
The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.
Edit: Oh yeah the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were rooted and on the run. That is considered a victory in my book. Bush moved on to the next problem in the area.
Originally posted by faust9
Yes, I agree. That was my point because many people automatically associate Bush with being a conservative when in reality he is socially conservative. As a conservative, I don't want the gov'mnt bothering me while I'm at mass. My religion is mine and should not be tampered with by the government.
This is an across the board belief except for social conservatives. They want government fingers in their till for some reason.
I agree completely and this "Religious Right" business in government affairs trying to wag all peoples to their tune is just beyond reasonable. I am a Christian in the truest sense of the term and I do not support the political sin far too many Churches, Ministries and so-called "Christians" are getting involved in with the government.
Fellows
Originally posted by NaplesX
Clarke is becoming less and less credible as thing come out so let's not dwell on him anymore. If you want to his own words can be used to debunk him, so why drag it out? But anyway.
Iraq has been a threat and a destabilizing force for a long time, that even ABBers agree had to be dealt with sooner or later.
A lot of our military assets were already in the area, It provided a perfect opportunity to persuade or take him out. Now bring in the reasons that I mentioned in the other answer and you can start to understand why he did it.
"When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."
This statement from clarke explains the direction that bush was going, He wanted to just solve the problems.
The Iraq problem is now solved. SH is gone and will not return. All this other stuff will sort itself out.
We did not have a substantial number of forces in the area. We had forces in Afganastan which those forces are still there in large part. We had a base in Bahrain and SA which both had minimal numbers of troops. We had one maybe two subs, one or two fast frigits and one carrier if I recall correctly. Not substantial.
And don't you think its odd that the first "problem" we addresses had little to nothing to do with the "actual problem" associated with OBL?
Originally posted by faust9
We did not have a substantial number of forces in the area. We had forces in Afganastan which those forces are still there in large part. We had a base in Bahrain and SA which both had minimal numbers of troops. We had one maybe two subs, one or two fast frigits and one carrier if I recall correctly. Not substantial.
And don't you think its odd that the first "problem" we addresses had little to nothing to do with the "actual problem" associated with OBL?
Um the very first thing that was attended to was Al Qaeda and the taliban. Not Iraq. The second thing was Iraq. That blows the theory that it was top of GWB's list. It was not.
Even if it was, he did what was best for the country and take out the haven of Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. Then he took out Iraq and SH.