Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I noted the internal contradiction when I wrote that post. Bush's plan has a flaw in it - it assumes the radicals will fight in their own yard and never look over here again. To a degree, Iraq is an effective distraction to keep the crazies busy. Loads of Arabs who'd be training in camps to attack us are instead working for freelancers like Zarqawi in Iraq. Bush is betting that the extremists will always take the easier avenue. Its a short sighted plan, but it does work a quick fix for a little while.
|
I see it differently. It seems to me that people who were going to be flying over here aren't now rushing into Iraq to fight. There are plenty of new recruits in Iraq who no longer have a home or a family (and I'm not saying this to be a bleeding heart, but to understand why we're having such a problem) who are more than willing to do whatever to take out some Americans there.
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But none of this changes the fact that we haven't been attacked in 3 years, for which Bush does deserve credit. And it cannot be disproved that the Iraq distraction did not play a part in keeping such attacks from our shores.
|
So, the missile Clinton shot off after the first attempt on the WTC was equally as effective as Bush's war? I don't buy it. Just because we haven't been hit again doesn't mean Bush gets credit for it. It seems clear that they hit us and have turned to convincing other countries to back away from us. I'm not going to give Bush credit for influencing their strategy -- especially when, as you and Hank said, it is so easy to hit us here in the states. Hell, we've lost over a thousand soldiers in Iraq. For all any of us know, Osama puts this in his win column. They haven't gotten him and he's directly and indirectly responsible for the death of 4,000 people and counting. And everyday, another Osama clone pops up beheading people or blowing somebody up.
TM
