Iraq was the single, most blundering appeasement of terrorist violence, ever

[bigtree]

. . . by our government, ever . . .


Bush and his republican apologists can twist the facts every which way they want, but their diversion from the hunt for bin-Laden and his accomplices in Afghanistan to invade and occupy Iraq has to have been the single, most blundering appeasement of terrorist violence by our government ever; certainly the largest since Reagan and Bush were caught in Iran trading arms for hostages.

Consider the argument that Bush and his republicans are making after five years of letting bin-Laden run free; after five years of shifting justifications for diverting to Iraq, and flip-flops regarding the importance of capturing or killing the rebel leader and his band of thugs. They are now reduced to arguing that the best place to wage their 'war on terror' is in Iraq, because, as Bush put it, Iraq is the "center" of his terror war. Why? "Because bin-Laden says so."

"We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously." Bush said in September.

Did Bush and his republicans ever consider that al-Qaeda might be saying that Iraq represents something important to them to keep the bulk of our nation's defenses bogged down there while they enjoy their freedom from prosecution in Afghanistan/ Pakistan?

What makes more sense? That al-Qaeda would rather we had Iraq's 145,000 U.S. troops deployed along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, or, would they rather have the piddly 20,000 troops we have there now defending the mayor of Kabul, Karsai? Would al-Qaeda rather have an over-deployed force in Iraq which is stretched thin and under siege, or, would the terrorists prefer, as Bush and his republicans would have us believe, that we leave Iraq and focus our resources on catching them?


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[babylonsister]

1. I don't even think they were trying to appease terrorist violence.

Two theories: They wanted to get a foot in the door and this was an easy target despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with OBL. Oil, war, contracts, money spent had lots to do with it.
A lesser theory is dimson and co. wanted to avenge daddy.
Their major problem was no one had a clue about the aftermath, that it would be so prolonged and bloody, and to this day they don't have a clue, other than to not admit they made a horrendous, bloody, irrevocable mistake. And we all know they don't claim mistakes.

[bigtree]

2. but, there we are

right where bin-Laden wants us

[babylonsister]

3. He punked us, he did. Who are the sheeple now? nt

[lvx35]

4. It really seems to be what they did whether they were trying to or not. nt

[babylonsister]

5. They haven't appeased terrorist violence, I'm thinking. nt

[lvx35]

6. I'll bet OBL is pretty happy, to be honest.

A secular state was overturned and now will be taken over by religious hardliners. Seems like it plays right into OBLs hands to me.

[babylonsister]

7. No joke. The * regime has enabled them. How great is that. nt

[bigtree]

8. the entire posture, response is an appeasment

who knows what this administration's true motives are?