[tw] : RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc.

“RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc.”
From:	Brian Carnell	In Response To:	3821 Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc.
Date Posted:	Friday, April 16, 2004 9:57:04 AM	Replies:	1

Enclosures:	None.

This particular view of the Iraqi war -- that it is being fought to force a realignment in the Middle East and provide a staging area for other possible operations there has been discussed in the past by some of the war bloggers including at Instapundit and other sites. In fact there was a debate many months ago over whether Bush *really* has this in mind or if the administration is simply bumbling into that position. And with Bush it's hard to tell what -- if anything -- he's actually thinking.

Why doesn't the administration talk about this more? They've sort of talked around the edges of it occasionally (Bush's speech about democracy in the ME in general), but if you think there's a firestorm over American policy now, can you imagine what that would be like around the world if the U.S. said that by the war on terror what it really means is destablizing existing ME regimes in order to facilitate a political realignment of the Middle East? Going from nation building to sub-continent re-building?

Even in this country, I'd think coming out saying that we're involved with a likely decades-long war against radical Islam and the autocratic states that foster it would guarantee Bush a trip home in November. Nobody, except the neocons, wants to go there, apparently.

Discussion Thread:

RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Seth Dillingham at 4/16/2004)

On 4/16/04, Brian Carnell said: >Why doesn't the administration talk about this more? Do * you * think
- Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Brian Carnell at 4/16/2004)
  
  Yes, I agree with Stratfor on this, but I doubt it will work. Americans are not prepared for such an
  - Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Bill Kearney at 4/20/2004)
    
    Preventing 9/11 by pursuing Iraq in 1991 is a fantasy of hind-sight that completely ignores the facts.
    - RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Seth Dillingham at 4/20/2004)
      
      On 4/20/04, Bill Kearney said: >Preventing 9/11 by pursuing Iraq in 1991 is a fantasy of hind-sight
      - Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Brian Carnell at 4/20/2004)
        
        I raised the issue of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The U.S. and its allies stopped short of deposing Hussein
        
        Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Jim Roepcke at 4/20/2004)
        
        On Apr 20, 2004, at 9:48 AM, Brian Carnell wrote: > I raised the issue of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
        
        Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Brian Carnell at 4/20/2004)
        
        On Apr 20, 2004, at 9:48 AM, Brian Carnell wrote: I raised the issue of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The
        
        RE: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Seth Dillingham at 4/20/2004)
        
        On 4/20/04, Jim Roepcke said: >Nothing has been better for the jihadists than occupying Iraq. It >plays
        
        Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Jim Roepcke at 4/20/2004)
        
        On Apr 20, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Seth Dillingham wrote: > On 4/20/04, Jim Roepcke said: > >> Nothing has
        
        Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Bill Kearney at 4/21/2004)
        
        > I didn't have the brainpower left to read something like that. This, unfortunately, seems all too
        
        Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Jim Roepcke at 4/21/2004)
        
        On Apr 21, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Bill Kearney wrote: >> I didn't have the brainpower left to read something
        
        RE: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Seth Dillingham at 4/21/2004)
        
        On 4/21/04, Jim Roepcke said: >Failure to educate myself... that's almost funny. Please stop. I've already
        
        Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Bill Kearney at 4/21/2004)
        
        > Short sighted near term political reasons? They were in the Persian > Gulf to liberate Kuwait, not
        
        Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Jim Roepcke at 4/21/2004)
        
        On Apr 21, 2004, at 11:05 AM, Bill Kearney wrote: >> Perhaps the public would have accepted a targeted
      - Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Bill Kearney at 4/21/2004)
        
        > >Preventing 9/11 by pursuing Iraq in 1991 is a fantasy of hind-sight > Who said anything about 1991?
        
        RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Seth Dillingham at 4/21/2004)
        
        Bill, I've been encouraging you to stop posting here for a long time, but you're not getting the hint.
        
        RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Mark Morgan at 4/21/2004)
        
        I read the Stratfor article and I find myself in mostly agreement with their assessment as to why the
        
        RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Seth Dillingham at 4/21/2004)
        
        On 4/21/04, Mark Morgan said: >I haven't read through all their archives so I don't know if they have
        
        Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Jim Roepcke at 4/21/2004)
        
        On Apr 21, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Mark Morgan wrote: > I haven't read through all their archives so I don't
        
        Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Brian Carnell at 4/21/2004)
        
        Mark Morgan wrote: >I haven't read through all their archives so I don't know if they have an answer
        
        Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Brian Carnell at 4/21/2004)
        
        Brian Carnell wrote: >Mark Morgan wrote: > > > >>This is my core issue with the war. Was Iraq chosen
        
        RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Mark Morgan at 4/21/2004)
        
        Brian Carnell wrote: > >It's very odd, btw, to talk to people, like an academic friend of mine, >who
        
        Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Greg Pierce at 4/21/2004)
        
        On Apr 21, 2004, at 1:55 PM, Mark Morgan wrote: > Or worse we do half a job of it and leave a trail
        
        RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Philippe Martin at 4/21/2004)
        
        At 15:12 -0400 21/04/04, Greg Pierce wrote: >the question now is what to do about it... Let the UN in
        
        Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Brian Carnell at 4/21/2004)
        
        Mark Morgan wrote: >When the US decides to do this, though--overthrowing other countries, even for arguably
        
        Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Bill Kearney at 4/23/2004)
        
        > On the other hand, we also sort of assume that it is inevitable that > capitalism and free trade will
        
        Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Brian Carnell at 4/23/2004)
        
        Bill Kearney wrote: >However, is it a 150 year wait? Or is there something that could accelerate it?
        
        Re: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc. (by Bill Kearney at 4/25/2004)
        
        "Brian Carnell" <brian@carnell.com> wrote in message news:Conversant-74082@truerwords.net... > The

Trackbacks:

There are no trackbacks.

Search TruerWords

“RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc.”