Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The suggestion is that you have a bunch of ex-cold warriors who came into office with an eight-year-old agenda (of which terrorism is not a part) and who have been conducting a foreign policy that's not helping us against terrorism. Why the obsession with Iraq? I really don't know. But 9/11 happens, and instead of changing our policies to fit the new events, they shoehorn the prior obsessions into the war on terrorism, and we end up invading Iraq. As the failure to try to take out Zarqawi illustrates, you end up with a foreign policy where fighting terrorism isn't the end, but the pretext for another agenda. The saga of the birth of the Dept. of Homeland Security shows the same thing happening domestically.
Four more years of this? No thanks.
|
I admire the way you phrase things so as to make 9/11 implicitly a part of "the four-year failure".
I LIKE the fact that we've started to clean out Iraq.
And, yes, we'll rue the day the failed Bush protect-us-against-terrorism fiasco allowed all of the subsequent-to-9/11 attacks here. So many lives lost . . .
Threaded Mode