our involvement then is not what triggered the hatred of the West that culminated in 911. That was there anyway.
Even assuming for the moment the unlikely idea of clean hands back in the Carter/Reagan/Bush eras, that blowback from training camps was a "just a darn mistake"...
What is the consensus on why the administration insists on taking a belligerent position on every situation, even those where being belligerent requires a flip-flop (i.e., Iraq UN inspectors, Korea nuclear demands, etc.) ?
This is no longer a joke, to say this is an adminstration that can't take "yes" for an answer.
Rhetoric aside for a moment, observed actions look designed to create maximum chance for warfare.
I suppose one could say the administration is engaging in "brinksmanship", rather than cynical ploys to increase military fear and domestic political control, but that's the best one do.
Instead we're being fed the usual, "gee, these actions are all out of our hands, we just didn't know what would happen, gosh darn it, and sorry in advance to the next series of American terrorist victims" |
