Full Version: What did you think of the Bush Speech
I think it reinforces some problems I have with the war and Bush as a president. He wants to project himself as a stand up guy with phrases like "Bring it on!" in regards to guerilla attacks in Iraq, but he won't play the role of a stand up guy in taking responsibility for the intelligence mistake in the SOTU. There he returns to his days of evading Vietnam by getting into the National Guard and finding ways of shirking even that duty.
Here is today's Speech and Pres Conference with Tony Blair at the White House
This quip is too arrogant and abrasive to other countries in the world for my tastes.
I agree that this is the weight behind the reason to go to war, but in my mind it was never enough to go to war at this time.
I don't see that he cultivated ties to terror against the United States. I don't see a chemical attack against his own people in the late 1980s as a reason to go to war with him (again) fifteen years later.
He had the weapons for years and had not used them, I fail to see the urgency. As I said all along if we need a new policy about rogue nations and WMDs in light of 9-11, let's develop one and an accompanying diplomacy meant to use peaceful means until they are exhausted. The exception to this is an imminent threat which I did not see.
This is the very nation building he used to go out of his way to say the United States would get involved in. We are now staking a great deal of United States prestige on the line to implement a democracy as an occupying force. This is a country that is not sufficiently developed to have a thriving middle class and the internal industry that history seems to be the requisite ingredients for a functioning democracy. All other's seem to fail the task. Implementing a democracy as an occupying enemy force is a daunting task. I fail to see any optimism that this attempt at democracy will be any better than Germany's Weimar Republic. Additionally, this 'nation' is based on a tradition of minority rule and it is very apt to Balkanize with freedom with the strong possibility of that bringing on a war with Turkey and or Iraq. I don't think we can win the hearts and minds of the IRaqi people. OUr best bet was to rapidly reconstruct Iraq and show the dramatic power of the American economy in action and let as many people as possible get a taste of that reconstruction money. IMO we can win their wallets.
It is now. They weren't our problem before. And yes the world is watching and we aren't playing on our turf any more.
This is one of the PNAC fears I first saw on this site and had not really considered. Now we are asserting that we are going to bring democracy to the Middle East. We are creating a model. Does anyone here really believe that this lofty goal is possible by using an American occupying army in an Arab country?
Hmm the first question was a hardball question that the president was ready and eager to answer without any hesitation. That doesn't sound staged at all does it?
In short, no I will not take responsibility for going before the American people with a piece of deception at a critical moment along the way to waging war on behalf of the American public. Instead I will say that Hussein was a bad guy no matter how you slice it and imply that it is unAmerican to doubt the logic behind going to war because I can belch platitudes.
Don't buy it. Never have seen the connection and doubt I ever will.
In conclusion I would like to say that we are going to use our position in Iraq to threaten the other non-Democratic terrorist countries of the Middle East.
This speech and interview reinforced the very things that I have always been more than a little uneasy about in the iraqi connection to the war on terror. Agree?
Or if you have been a supporter, is this a convincing and upbeat review of the situation? Am I just a bad American for not going along happily with what has been waged in my name and what lofty project we expect to complete in Iraq and the Middle East?
Here is today's Speech and Pres Conference with Tony Blair at the White House
This quip is too arrogant and abrasive to other countries in the world for my tastes.
QUOTE
The close partnership between the United States and Great Britain has been and remains essential to the peace and security of all nations.
I agree that this is the weight behind the reason to go to war, but in my mind it was never enough to go to war at this time.
QUOTE
In Iraq, the United States, Britain and other nations confronted a violent regime that armed to threaten the peace, that cultivated ties to terror and defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Saddam Hussein produced and possessed chemical and biological weapons and was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. He used chemical weapons in acts of murder against his own people.
I don't see that he cultivated ties to terror against the United States. I don't see a chemical attack against his own people in the late 1980s as a reason to go to war with him (again) fifteen years later.
He had the weapons for years and had not used them, I fail to see the urgency. As I said all along if we need a new policy about rogue nations and WMDs in light of 9-11, let's develop one and an accompanying diplomacy meant to use peaceful means until they are exhausted. The exception to this is an imminent threat which I did not see.
QUOTE
We liberated nearly 25 million people from decades of oppression. And we are now helping the Iraqi people to build a free nation.
This is the very nation building he used to go out of his way to say the United States would get involved in. We are now staking a great deal of United States prestige on the line to implement a democracy as an occupying force. This is a country that is not sufficiently developed to have a thriving middle class and the internal industry that history seems to be the requisite ingredients for a functioning democracy. All other's seem to fail the task. Implementing a democracy as an occupying enemy force is a daunting task. I fail to see any optimism that this attempt at democracy will be any better than Germany's Weimar Republic. Additionally, this 'nation' is based on a tradition of minority rule and it is very apt to Balkanize with freedom with the strong possibility of that bringing on a war with Turkey and or Iraq. I don't think we can win the hearts and minds of the IRaqi people. OUr best bet was to rapidly reconstruct Iraq and show the dramatic power of the American economy in action and let as many people as possible get a taste of that reconstruction money. IMO we can win their wallets.
QUOTE
Defeating these terrorists is an essential commitment on the war on terror. This is a duty we accept. This is a fight we will win. We are being tested in Iraq. Our enemies are looking for signs of hesitation. They're looking for weakness. They will find none. Instead, our forces in Iraq are finding these killers and bringing them to justice.
It is now. They weren't our problem before. And yes the world is watching and we aren't playing on our turf any more.
QUOTE
The creation of a strong and stable Iraqi democracy is not easy, but it's an essential part on the war against terror. A free Iraq will be an example to the entire Middle East, and the advance of liberty in the Middle East will undermine the ideologies of terror and hatred. It will help strengthen the security of America and Britain and many other nations.
This is one of the PNAC fears I first saw on this site and had not really considered. Now we are asserting that we are going to bring democracy to the Middle East. We are creating a model. Does anyone here really believe that this lofty goal is possible by using an American occupying army in an Arab country?
QUOTE
THE PRESIDENT: We'll take a couple of questions. Tom.
Q Mr. President, others in your administration have said your words on Iraq and Africa did not belong in your State of the Union address. Will you take personal responsibility for those words? And to both of you, how is it that two major world leaders such as yourselves have had such a hard time persuading other major powers to help stabilize Iraq?
Q Mr. President, others in your administration have said your words on Iraq and Africa did not belong in your State of the Union address. Will you take personal responsibility for those words? And to both of you, how is it that two major world leaders such as yourselves have had such a hard time persuading other major powers to help stabilize Iraq?
Hmm the first question was a hardball question that the president was ready and eager to answer without any hesitation. That doesn't sound staged at all does it?
QUOTE
First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations.
I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence -- not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country -- made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.
I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence -- not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country -- made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.
In short, no I will not take responsibility for going before the American people with a piece of deception at a critical moment along the way to waging war on behalf of the American public. Instead I will say that Hussein was a bad guy no matter how you slice it and imply that it is unAmerican to doubt the logic behind going to war because I can belch platitudes.
QUOTE
The removal of Saddam Hussein is an integral part of winning the war against terror.
Don't buy it. Never have seen the connection and doubt I ever will.
QUOTE
A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we'll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we'll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us. And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made.
In conclusion I would like to say that we are going to use our position in Iraq to threaten the other non-Democratic terrorist countries of the Middle East.
This speech and interview reinforced the very things that I have always been more than a little uneasy about in the iraqi connection to the war on terror. Agree?
Or if you have been a supporter, is this a convincing and upbeat review of the situation? Am I just a bad American for not going along happily with what has been waged in my name and what lofty project we expect to complete in Iraq and the Middle East?
I didn't catch the speech (other than a couple of excerpts I heard on NPR), but I would think that it was just like every other speech I've heard him make. I would say that your analysis is a very accurate portrayal of the meaning behind speech.
Of course you're a bad American. All liberals are bad Americans, not to mention dirty communists and terrorists.
Edited to include 2 omitted words.
Of course you're a bad American. All liberals are bad Americans, not to mention dirty communists and terrorists.
Edited to include 2 omitted words.
Thank you for posting the speech, Eeyore.
I don't really see anything of substance. It certainly did not constitute an admission of anything. Dubya's just going to brazen it out.
I think he just trotted out the Prime Minister because the dude was visiting and many Americans like Tony Blair anyway. Then it's upstairs to
plan more "strategery."
Nothing seems to have changed. Karl Rove appears to believe that Bush is going to survive the Senate hearings, that if they ignore it, it will go away.
Time will tell.
(Edited to add:
This is one reason I prefer Tony Blair to George W. As usual, the Prime Minister was more forthcoming with information than the President. It looks like the Americans and the British are going to have help with the continuing occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. That, at least, is good news for our troops.)
I don't really see anything of substance. It certainly did not constitute an admission of anything. Dubya's just going to brazen it out.
I think he just trotted out the Prime Minister because the dude was visiting and many Americans like Tony Blair anyway. Then it's upstairs to
plan more "strategery."
Nothing seems to have changed. Karl Rove appears to believe that Bush is going to survive the Senate hearings, that if they ignore it, it will go away.
Time will tell.
(Edited to add:
QUOTE
As for other countries, actually, other countries are coming in. We have with us now round about nine other countries who will be contributing or are contributing literally thousands of troops. I think I'm right in saying the Poles in their sector have somewhere in the region of 20 different countries offering support. And I have no doubt at all we will have international support in this. Indeed, to be fair, even to those countries that opposed the action, I think they recognize the huge importance of reconstructing Iraq.
This is one reason I prefer Tony Blair to George W. As usual, the Prime Minister was more forthcoming with information than the President. It looks like the Americans and the British are going to have help with the continuing occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. That, at least, is good news for our troops.)
Bush and Co. have really put the pressure on Tony Blair, with placing ALL the blame on British Intelligence. This is in the least unthoughtful but more so rude, considering Britain was the only major backer to the US in this war.
I often wonder what Blair thinks when he closes his eyes in the evening, really having the screws put to him by a leader so much less savvy as 'blame it on anyone but me Bush'. He must wonder what he got himself into.
Bush does not logically think about who goes down when he speaks. His flagrant comment on an "intelligence aproved speech' led to Tenet having to take the fall. ( and we have not seen the eventual outcome of that debacle, Tenet is politically savvy and well liked in the community) Now Blair is also having to trudge his way through the mud , hes taking major blows in his own country for supporting the US in the war, AND he has to come to the US to justify forged documents. Bush may have a conservative following that will forgive him lies and deciet, the Brits are not so forgiving, having had 80% against the war before it started.
(was it posted here? Bush said he didnt see the SOTU before he gave it, but the Whitehouse.gov site it has/had Several Photos of Bush Working on the Speech! another blatant lie so ridiculously easily proved, his advisors must throw up their hands in disbelief. Just shut the guy up and we might have a career in politics tomarrow.
Thatcher and Reagan were cohesive, on the same page and could save each other from damage. Blair cannot count on Bush not to spew some incredible, irrational commentary that can take Blair down in its burn. Blair is like a straightman, to Bushes Texinsanity. He must just pray that it will all come to some good in the end, because Bush could mark the end of Blairs carreer as Prime with any or several idiotic statements, for which he is a genius.
All of them are backpeddling faster than they can swim, in major damage control. Thats how I see the speeches today.
If some advisors could keep Bush from ad-libbing when he speaks, they might get through this without self destructing, but Ari Fleichers 'the discussion is now closed' is laughable. This is not over, its not a small affair of 16 words. With no WMD and this, its not going to be an easy haul.
I often wonder what Blair thinks when he closes his eyes in the evening, really having the screws put to him by a leader so much less savvy as 'blame it on anyone but me Bush'. He must wonder what he got himself into.
Bush does not logically think about who goes down when he speaks. His flagrant comment on an "intelligence aproved speech' led to Tenet having to take the fall. ( and we have not seen the eventual outcome of that debacle, Tenet is politically savvy and well liked in the community) Now Blair is also having to trudge his way through the mud , hes taking major blows in his own country for supporting the US in the war, AND he has to come to the US to justify forged documents. Bush may have a conservative following that will forgive him lies and deciet, the Brits are not so forgiving, having had 80% against the war before it started.
(was it posted here? Bush said he didnt see the SOTU before he gave it, but the Whitehouse.gov site it has/had Several Photos of Bush Working on the Speech! another blatant lie so ridiculously easily proved, his advisors must throw up their hands in disbelief. Just shut the guy up and we might have a career in politics tomarrow.
Thatcher and Reagan were cohesive, on the same page and could save each other from damage. Blair cannot count on Bush not to spew some incredible, irrational commentary that can take Blair down in its burn. Blair is like a straightman, to Bushes Texinsanity. He must just pray that it will all come to some good in the end, because Bush could mark the end of Blairs carreer as Prime with any or several idiotic statements, for which he is a genius.
All of them are backpeddling faster than they can swim, in major damage control. Thats how I see the speeches today.
If some advisors could keep Bush from ad-libbing when he speaks, they might get through this without self destructing, but Ari Fleichers 'the discussion is now closed' is laughable. This is not over, its not a small affair of 16 words. With no WMD and this, its not going to be an easy haul.
QUOTE
A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we'll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we'll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us. And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made.
Well, the first line is complete fantasy. We've found nothing but violence in the 'immediate neighborhood' of Iraq but then that's what we went in with so it's not surprising.
And if a free Iraq has incredibly NEGATIVE influence on states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us you can bet he will put the responsibility for THAT on someone else: Saddamdidit, Tenetdidit, Clintondidit....ummmm...will Powelldidit be next?
QUOTE(Danya @ Jul 18 2003, 02:36 AM)
QUOTE
A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we'll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we'll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us. And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made.
Well, the first line is complete fantasy. We've found nothing but violence in the 'immediate neighborhood' of Iraq but then that's what we went in with so it's not surprising.
And if a free Iraq has incredibly NEGATIVE influence on states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us you can bet he will put the responsibility for THAT on someone else: Saddamdidit, Tenetdidit, Clintondidit....ummmm...will Powelldidit be next?
You don't seem to be follwing events in the Middle East very closely. Changes in Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. All for the better. An Iran that is just bursting to shed its shackles. More potential for an Israeli-Palestinian accord than thought possible a year ago. A budding new Iraq that will eventually be governed by its own citizens.
And best of all, a climate in the world today that sends a clear message that terrorism will no longer be accepted.
Not bad for a couple years work.
[/QUOTE]
You don't seem to be follwing events in the Middle East very closely. Changes in Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. All for the better. An Iran that is just bursting to shed its shackles. More potential for an Israeli-Palestinian accord than thought possible a year ago. A budding new Iraq that will eventually be governed by its own citizens.
And best of all, a climate in the world today that sends a clear message that terrorism will no longer be accepted.
Not bad for a couple years work.
[/QUOTE]
That's funny, Saudi Arabia wouldn't let us use their soil for a ground assult, they've been obstanant towards our war on terror (seeing that the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia). Lets not forget that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and that extreemists flock their along with the moderates and decent Muslims too.
Iran has been slowly moving small amounts troops over the Iraqi border lately.
And I think you left out the biggest threat facing us: NORTH KOREA!
So, the presidents half baked war in Iraq is escalading, there's "classical gorrilla style warfare" described by one of the top generals. Troops are being killed everyday in Bagdad, we're going to send 100,000 more over, there's no sign of when we're leaving and you say that things are going well?!
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, they're STILL fighting!!! And our attention has been off of that for so long that it's becomming an afterthought! More resources went to a war that the world didn't agree with us on and we *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** on them when they were behind our actions in Afghanistan. Bush can't finish one thing before he starts another, is attention span is that of a 5 year old and America's reputation is paying the price.
You don't seem to be follwing events in the Middle East very closely. Changes in Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. All for the better. An Iran that is just bursting to shed its shackles. More potential for an Israeli-Palestinian accord than thought possible a year ago. A budding new Iraq that will eventually be governed by its own citizens.
And best of all, a climate in the world today that sends a clear message that terrorism will no longer be accepted.
Not bad for a couple years work.
[/QUOTE]
That's funny, Saudi Arabia wouldn't let us use their soil for a ground assult, they've been obstanant towards our war on terror (seeing that the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia). Lets not forget that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and that extreemists flock their along with the moderates and decent Muslims too.
Iran has been slowly moving small amounts troops over the Iraqi border lately.
And I think you left out the biggest threat facing us: NORTH KOREA!
So, the presidents half baked war in Iraq is escalading, there's "classical gorrilla style warfare" described by one of the top generals. Troops are being killed everyday in Bagdad, we're going to send 100,000 more over, there's no sign of when we're leaving and you say that things are going well?!
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, they're STILL fighting!!! And our attention has been off of that for so long that it's becomming an afterthought! More resources went to a war that the world didn't agree with us on and we *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** on them when they were behind our actions in Afghanistan. Bush can't finish one thing before he starts another, is attention span is that of a 5 year old and America's reputation is paying the price.
Is there anything to the Bush-bashing analysis that couldn't have been said the day before yesterday?
Any new angle that relates any of these detractions (towards the speech) to what was contained in the speech?
I could have written your responses to the Bush/Blair meeting two weeks ago and I would have been accurate.
Eeyore:
In short, no I will not take responsibility for going before the American people with a piece of deception at a critical moment along the way to waging war on behalf of the American public. Instead I will say that Hussein was a bad guy no matter how you slice it and imply that it is unAmerican to doubt the logic behind going to war because I can belch platitudes.
What part of "I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision..." makes you conclude he will NOT take responsibility? Because he didn't reference a specific incident? He took responsibility for the results of that statement, which to me is the most important aspect. The words means nothing. The results that came from saying those words are what is significant (please correct me if I am wrong).
The problem with this whole scenario is that the Bush administration is giving us TOO MUCH information. He was TOO specific with the rational. Some of the specific items may be called into question, but the analysis of the entire scenario does not hinge on ANY one specific piece of intelligence. It was a pattern of deceit, lies, and cover-ups that made us suspect Saddam's motives and his connections to our "imminent" enemies.
By giving us too much information, it gives his opponents and nay-sayers the opportunity to nit-pick one specific statement and say "See, this is unsubstantiated. Therefore it must be false. Therefore Bush must have lied to us about it. Therefore he lied about everything." Bush should have kept his stated reasons more vague, like Clinton did.
Where was the outcry when Clinton launched missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan, claiming it was a WMD center? There was none, because Clinton did not make the mistake of revealing the intelligence that was behind his decision.
As an aside, anyone else find it funny that in "Saddam's" (if it was him) latest recording, he urges a "holy war". This same guy that some argue was SO secular that he would never associate with religion-motivated fanatics is calling on Allah to expel the invaders. I think Saddam is a pragmatist, that will use whatever method or motivation is keep attacking the US (granted, he now has a serious reason to have a grudge against us, even if Gulf War I didn't give him one before).
Edit: fixed broken quote
Any new angle that relates any of these detractions (towards the speech) to what was contained in the speech?
I could have written your responses to the Bush/Blair meeting two weeks ago and I would have been accurate.
Eeyore:
QUOTE
QUOTE
First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations.
I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence -- not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country -- made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.
I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence -- not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country -- made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.
In short, no I will not take responsibility for going before the American people with a piece of deception at a critical moment along the way to waging war on behalf of the American public. Instead I will say that Hussein was a bad guy no matter how you slice it and imply that it is unAmerican to doubt the logic behind going to war because I can belch platitudes.
What part of "I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision..." makes you conclude he will NOT take responsibility? Because he didn't reference a specific incident? He took responsibility for the results of that statement, which to me is the most important aspect. The words means nothing. The results that came from saying those words are what is significant (please correct me if I am wrong).
The problem with this whole scenario is that the Bush administration is giving us TOO MUCH information. He was TOO specific with the rational. Some of the specific items may be called into question, but the analysis of the entire scenario does not hinge on ANY one specific piece of intelligence. It was a pattern of deceit, lies, and cover-ups that made us suspect Saddam's motives and his connections to our "imminent" enemies.
By giving us too much information, it gives his opponents and nay-sayers the opportunity to nit-pick one specific statement and say "See, this is unsubstantiated. Therefore it must be false. Therefore Bush must have lied to us about it. Therefore he lied about everything." Bush should have kept his stated reasons more vague, like Clinton did.
Where was the outcry when Clinton launched missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan, claiming it was a WMD center? There was none, because Clinton did not make the mistake of revealing the intelligence that was behind his decision.
As an aside, anyone else find it funny that in "Saddam's" (if it was him) latest recording, he urges a "holy war". This same guy that some argue was SO secular that he would never associate with religion-motivated fanatics is calling on Allah to expel the invaders. I think Saddam is a pragmatist, that will use whatever method or motivation is keep attacking the US (granted, he now has a serious reason to have a grudge against us, even if Gulf War I didn't give him one before).
Edit: fixed broken quote
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 18 2003, 09:55 AM)
Where was the outcry when Clinton launched missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan, claiming it was a WMD center? There was none, because Clinton did not make the mistake of revealing the intelligence that was behind his decision.
You are kidding right? How is it then that Clinton didn't lay low and claim that we had intelligence that could not be revealed that proved this "aspirin" factory was in fact making chemical agents of terrorism.
No outcry to Clinton bombing the Sudan? Come on.
QUOTE
The problem with this whole scenario is that the Bush administration is giving us TOO MUCH information.
I don't see this at all as a problem of too much information. "We are going to war but I can only tell you a little bit of the reason why?" No the problem was one of not enough information. To say that the problems with going to war are limited to the sixteen words about Niger belittles the case against going to war in Iraq. Additional issues, 1. Iraq not a demonstrated imminent threat.
2. Connection to Al-Qaeda alleged but not convincing
3. Long possession of WMDs had not led to the US being attacked.
QUOTE
What part of "I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision..." makes you conclude he will NOT take responsibility?
Easy, the part where he dodged the issue of his responsibility for allowing this bad intelligence to be mentioned in his SOTU. It is an easy thing to admit you are wrong and that an aspect of your speech was sloppy.
QUOTE
As an aside, anyone else find it funny that in "Saddam's" (if it was him) latest recording, he urges a "holy war". This same guy that some argue was SO secular that he would never associate with religion-motivated fanatics is calling on Allah to expel the invaders.
Great. Sure, Hussein never would have used his people's religious convictions to rally against an enemy before, right? He was a secular political leader, not anti-Islamic. It looks to me like this is proof that we are helping create a dangerous bridge between the secular movement in the Middle East and Islamic extremists.
Growing crisis in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...udi_africa.html
Taliban resurgance in Afghanistan:
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?...m?id_article=54
http://sunshinegirl.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WarOnTe...2/56585-ap.html
Syria:
Agree with you there, the Iraq war has led to a reemergance of reforming elements.
Iran: Not sure how the Iraq war has encouraged the battle there.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...udi_africa.html
Taliban resurgance in Afghanistan:
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?...m?id_article=54
http://sunshinegirl.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WarOnTe...2/56585-ap.html
Syria:
Agree with you there, the Iraq war has led to a reemergance of reforming elements.
Iran: Not sure how the Iraq war has encouraged the battle there.
How on earth can anyone look at the Iraqi 'neighborhood' ,which is another vague statement, and see any improvement for the US or it's forces? I need some of those rose colored glasses some of the rest of you must be wearing.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.