|
Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Bush Administration to have focused the war on terror on capturing/killing Bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda, which was mostly holed up in Afghanistan, instead of attacking Iraq, creating a new haven for al Qaeda, and turning the country into a new ally for Iran?
Had Bush done so, instead of piling lie, upon blunder, upon lie, then he would have had an easier time rallying U.S. and world public opinion on stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which is a much greater threat than Saddam's non-existent/weak WMD program.
Bush has helped Iran take control of Iraq through surrogates, something they couldn't do as a result of the Iran-Iraq war, and he has made the region and the would less safe as a result.
Now that the President's party has lost control of the House and Senate, largely due to widespread dissatisfaction for their handling of issues in the Middle East, he will be hard pressed to build a consensus for attacking Iran.
Should the Democrats succeed in retaking the White House in 2008, while strengthing their thin hold on Congress, that would be the best hope for the U.S. to try a fresh approach with the Middle East and the world.
It might still end with us confronting Iran, but I believe it would have a better chance for success, with greater domestic and international support (especially if sufficient effort is made to resolve issues diplomatically), than creating some cooked up artificial trigger, which seems to be Bush's only option at this time.
ADG Webmaster
|