Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wordsmythe I'm not sure what your point is because the greater point of this article somes from this quote: "What he seems to be saying to me now is the president failed to discipline the process the way he should have and that the president is ultimately responsible for this whole mess," Wilkerson said.
Your choice of quote has very little to do with anything.
This war on terrorists would be a lot easier on us if we would have some international support like we had right after 9/11 and the idiots in charge crapped all over it.
Your own quote makes my point:
"9/11 was an attack on the US by Islamicist fanatics, orchestrated by Egyptian strategists, staffed with Jihadists recruited from around the Arab world, and paid for largely by Saudi religious zealots. So why didn't they launch the attack with elements of the Egyptian and Saudi air forces? Because within six hours there would have been no more Egyptian and Saudi air forces, and within six weeks, no Egyptian and Saudi governments, either. Our deterrence against conventional attack, or even nuclear attack from a nation-state, is so credible and muscular that such a thing has become literally unthinkable. "
None of that has ANYTHING To do with Iraq and this ill conceived war.
I don't really blame you for trying to confuse the issue. It's a typical tactic when the right wingers want to try to scare people into line and keep them from thinking for themselves. |
wordy, see if you can find a map of the area and whip your crayola on it.
If we succeed in stabilizing Iraq, we will have fully neutralized the biggest threat to the area, a place called IRAN. That bunch of nutcase Ayatolas running Iran into the ground will be completely surrounded by nations who will have a serious interest in keeping a boot on their necks.