Monday, March 29

Because In Bush's World, An Unarmed Saddam Was More Of A Threat Than bin Laden

Hope y'all don't mind if we throw a little more gasoline onto the fire...but someone better explain this.

Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions

In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.
Looks like it's time to trot out the ol' 2000 Project for the New American Century report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," co-authored by Paul Wolfowitz. Say it with me...

The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered.
Well, you guys sure farted up THAT peace by torching the weakest of the three countries - AND THE WRONG BAD GUY. Thanks a pantload, Paul.