Bush needs to explain why he destabilized a country which didn't threaten us at all

[bigtree]

before he commits anymore of our nation's resources and defenses to his Iraq folly.

There must be countless individuals and groups who would harm the U.S. or our interests if given the opportunity, but, it is the height of stupidity to arbitrarily choose a sovereign nation like Iraq to invade and occupy - send the population into chaos by removing the controlling regime in authority - and then claim you're afraid to stop your aggression because you're worried the offended citizens will retaliate.

What Bush and Maliki are contemplating as they chart a "path forward," is a last-gasp burst of 'shock and awe' to intimidate the resisting population into recognizing and accepting their increasingly autocratic rule. What will likely be achieved, however, will be a widening of the conflict and a deepening of the resentments from the Iraqi population which Bush's own intelligence agencies tell him he's enhancing and fostering with his continued occupation.

Before Bush commits anymore of our nation's resources and defenses to his Iraq folly, he needs to explain what his original reasoning was in destabilizing a country which didn't threaten us at all - leaving us and the region with a cauldron of animosity toward our nation, our interests, and our allies. Forget the nonsense about 'denying "enemies" a "safe haven" in Iraq if we leave. New Jersey was the "safe haven" for many of those individuals suspected of carrying out the 9-11 attacks, not Iraq.



Battling Bush's Enemies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2996843

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Deja Q]

1. For a moment there I thought you meant America.

But then I noticed "committing resources" - more nation building. Why did he have to attack Iraq when he's helped nation-build countries without having to attack them first (e.g. India, China, or in short any country that is not the United States...)

[Divernan]

2. Saddam slaughtered Iraqis after a failed coup; Bush slaughtered Iraqis

for no solid reason at all. If he'd attacked Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were from, it would have been a defensible move.

[patrice]

9. For Oil and Israel's fresh Water. And to help the Saud's with their Sunnis.

We get blamed for everything that's wrong on the world and that distracts many Slaves from making demands on their Oil Royals.

[theoldman]

3. Twenty years from now someone will write a book and give

you the answer. My guess has always been young Bush tried to avenge what he thought was his fathers mistake. Add to that the prompting from Cheney to get access to the Iraqi oil. Last but not least, Iraq was a threat to Israel and we will never know the behind the scenes negotiations on that.

[Skidmore]

4. Know of any media or elected official willing to stick their neck out

and ask the question?

[bullimiami]

5. once saddam is dead, george beat him. he got him. took all his shit.

took his country away, caught him and killed him.
bush wins and his ego is fed for a minute.

all it cost is maybe 1/2 million + lives and a trillion dollars.

hail george, hail him. it is well worth it.

[patrice]

6. Wars R U.S. - Middle-Class Military Jobs Program, except it Missed

the Middle-Class by quite a bit, enriching the already Rich, instead and leaving the BILL to the Children of Amerika.

[patrice]

7. A Private War based on Private Intelligence, financed on Public Money.

Why do you suppose BushCo doesn't save that ex-CIA employee - S. Hussein from hanging?

[theoldman]

8. Dead men tell no tales.

[Karenina]

10. And the concept of ACCOUNTABILITY

has long since been PURGED from the American consciousness.

[patrice]

11. "Whatever you can get away with" is the most common concept

of "accountability" in average attitudes and behavior.