You might want to read this after listening to Dubya's speech at Quantico

[flpoljunkie]

This article yesterday from the conservative Chicago Times columnist, Steve Chapman...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-05071...

How the U.S. shortchanged the war

by Steve Chapman

Published July 10, 2005

Saddam Hussein is behind bars. Osama bin Laden is not. What's wrong with this picture?

A lot of people in London and beyond may be asking that question. Lately, it has been possible for those of us on this side of the ocean to almost forget that our greatest challenge is the global threat of Islamic terrorism. That's because we've been preoccupied by the relentless violence and chaos in Iraq, where we are mired in a war we don't know how to win.

The speed of the Taliban's collapse gave the Bush administration the idea that with our military might, we could easily reshape the international landscape to our liking. Instead of keeping its eye on the ball in Afghanistan and other Al Qaeda hotbeds, it let itself be distracted by Saddam Hussein--a minor-league nuisance who posed no significant threat to our safety and well being. For more than a decade following the first Gulf war, the United States and its allies had managed to contain him. But suddenly, that wasn't good enough. President Bush decided to liberate Iraq from his rule--and in doing so, he blundered into a long and costly war that has stretched our military to the breaking point.

<>We've poured more than $200 billion down the drain in Iraq. If even a small part of that money had been spent on homeland security, Americans would undoubtedly be safer today. U.S. soldiers might have been used to hunt down those enemies who want to carry out atrocities here or in Britain, instead of fighting insurgents who merely want us out of Iraq.

The war on Iraq was never vital to our security. The war on terror is. So why do we keep fighting the former at the expense of the latter?

[kentuck]

1. Why, indeed!

Because he wanted to finish the job that his Daddy didn't complete - so long as he didn't suffer...He blundered his way into this current mess, just as the article states...

[Broken Acorn]

2. It's the Oil, Stupid

[OneBlueSky]

3. we know that BushCo had a hard-on for getting Saddam . . .

and ultimately accomplished their goal . . . what we don't know is why they didn't pursue bin Laden . . .

could it be that they knew that OBL had nothing to do with 9/11, and didn't want to take the chance of this being revealed? . . .

or, alternatively, that OBL DID have something to do with 9/11, but was acting as a BushCo operative, something they also wouldn't want revealed? . . .

given what we know about BushCo, 9/11, and OBL, either of these scenarios is possible, imo . . .

[getmeouttahere]

4. I agree completely....

I think we're just too damned afraid of being labeled "crackpots" or "conspiracy theorists" to really delve into these possibilities. They are just way too many inconsistencies, falsehoods, etc. One of the most astonishing for me is how OBL went from being "public enemy #1" to "I don't really care where he is" or words to that effect from BushCo.

[DaveJ]

6. You mean these quotes?

[DaveJ]

5. MIHOP makes sense.

I'm not trying to be insensitive, but not only was 9/11 a way to establish his control, but also a way of attacking those NYC liberals who he seems to despise.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Osama granted Dubya's wish to invade Iraq thru 9/11 tragedy. It's not

the last time Osama has propped up dubya. The video he released right before the November election did John Kerry no favors when Osama reminded the sheeple that they must stay afraid. Too bad the sheeple did not go a step further, and say, "why is Osama still alive to threaten us and why in hell did Dubya pivot to Iraq instead of pursuing bin Laden to justice--remember Dubya's swaggering post 9/11 comments--Osama bin Laden, "wanted dead or alive."

Just a lot of empty PR bulls*it--dreamed up, no doubt, by KKKarl Rove.