Reply With Quote
Our direct response to 911 was Afghanistan. I don't see that as overreacting. We didn't invade iraq till 2003.
You mean Sadaam.
Our direct response to 911 was Afghanistan. I don't see that as overreacting. We didn't invade iraq till 2003.
and yet we aren't any safer because of the Iraq war...
The attacks occurred in fall of 2001. During all of 2002 the Bush Administration spent it's time telling us that Saddam had 'some of the most dangerous weapons ever developed' 'a fleet of unmanned aerial drones' and was seeking 'nuclear weapons'.
We attacked in the spring of 2003. Don't get it twisted. It took a little over a year and that year was mostly spent drumming up the case for war in Iraq.
Afghanistan, to Bush, was nothing but a politically expedient side-note.
Just poorer and further under the thumb of a government we've encouraged to develop anti-terrorist technologies that may well be used on us at a later date should we choose to revolt or should the government take a few steps towards fascism.
I go to answer a few emails and come back to find others have said better what I was going to answer.
Afghanistan was and is a political side note to Bush Jr's ultimate goal of finishing his daddy's war.
Mission Accomplished, indeed. For him and his family's pride, anyway.
If that why the left is trying to bank-rupt this nation?
I say that if the left gets their way, there will be no USA in a decade from now. At least not one anyone will recognize. Maybe in name, but not it prosperity or heart.
Don't hold your breath. Darrin usually stands pat on his vacuous pla udes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions