If he pointed at Syria, he would have been raising the temperature of the region, indicating that Syria would be next. That option is still open, but given that while things have slowed down since Saddam's capture they have not stopped, and the US is far from being in control of events there, temperature raising is not what anyone wants right now. A week without bombs or deaths would be a start, though far from a finish.
Personally, while I know for sure that he would bristle at being called a "shill," I think he is a good Republican. And has always been in favor of this war. Which means he will find a rationale for it no matter what.
I'd like someone who is still in favor of it to tell me under what conditions they would ever change their mind. Is there anything that would do it? Or was getting rid of Saddam such a blessing that it was worth risking civil war and extreme regional instability to achieve it? Even at the expense of losing focus on Osama and the real terrorists, Al Qaeda, allowing them to regroup and wreck more havoc? Maybe they won't do so, maybe that military guy was right in saying that they should be able to catch Osama with a year of concentrated effort. But if that is so, why wasn't it done before? Why wait until now? Couldn't be that catching him within a year would plausibly mean that he will be caught before November 2004, could it? Nah, they wouldn't time such a thing to happen just before the election, would they?
Is this whole thing a hoax of incredible dimensions?! |
