The issue is Iaq instead of Al Queda, revealling a hidden agenda..
Posted here Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 10:20:54 AM 
From today's WSJ, via Slate
The Wall Street Journal's Capital Journal columnist Gerald Seib says the Richard Clarke-fueled debate about the White House's approach to Iraq and AQ is too fuzzy: "The issue isn't whether President Bush was secretly plotting to invade Iraq even before terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001. He almost certainly wasn't, as a look back at the time indicates. The real issue is the Bush turn to war against Iraq some time after Sept. 11. Confusing the two scrambles what should be the most serious debate of this election year." As Seib notes, whatever Bush said in the hallways in the days after 9/11, the White House had actually adopted a go-slow approach to Iraq before attacks (to the frustration of neo-cons). And of course, immediately after Sept. 11 Bush invaded ... Afghanistan. Seib continues:
So Iraq came later. And that's where the real debate ought to begin. Was it a mistake after 9/11 to devote the nation's treasure and blood to Iraq when al-Qaida seemed the bigger threat? Was it honest to link Iraq to the war on terrorism at all? Or were the real reasons for going after Saddam Hussein a belief that he was a thug and a destabilizing force in the region—reasons that should have been debated more openly?
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2097733&;notification_id=19559543&message_id=0
********
|
|
