But come on, it's not the New York Times that screwed this thing up. It's not CNN who made Iraq into a mess that could well be beyond hope.
If one actually believes that Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror, can one really say with a straight face that the current administration is the one to fight that war?
Can anyone say outloud that the U.S. attack on Iraq was anything but a mistake? I mean, come on: Hussein had a (at best) degraded weapons program; Hussein was in charge of a rump nation without the resources to commit mischief beyond giving some families in the P.A. money to rebuild their houses; even if he had contact with Islamic terrorists, there's no evidence that the two were ever able to bridge the enormous ideological gap that separated them.
Saddam was a lousy guy, absolutely, but a threat for which the lives of 2500+ (and counting) young Americans should have been sacrificed? Come on...
Can anyone say that the insurgency in Iraq was anything but an expected outcome for anyone who's taken a gander at a page or two of a history of the Middle East?
Can anyone argue that a huge military machine is the most effective weapon against small terror cells?
Absolutely al Qaeda is a degraded force, and that's a good thing, but it's also a larger more dispersed operation, and for that, we need to concentrate our resources here in the homeland, not in another country where we're just keeping a civil war on simmer instead of on boil.
The U.S.had become famous for underestimating the threat posed by ethnic rivalries, and -now- overestimating the effect of its military.
What evidence is there that Iraq is anything but a failed state? What evidence is there that the U.S. should be working on anything but a withdrawal of our forces and a split of the nation into three?
This mess is Bush's legacy - not the NYT or the Democratic party's legacy - and he should be judged on it. Period.Comment Posted By rabid On 27.09.2006 @ 12:17
Pages (1) :