| Things are only "dangerous" in Iraq for us, because Bush made them that way. It is patently obvious they were not a danger to us before, and whether Bush invaded because he believed bad intelligence and led us to war, or because he did not believe it and led us there anyway, it is clear we were not in danger of any of the "what ifs" presented to the American people- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan posed a danger, and still do, but they weren't on the menu. What we should have done, rather than make Iraq more dangerous, and totally unstable, was to spend money here at home making our ports secure, honing our tracking of money, and figuring out some way to legalize drugs, to reduce the number of people incarcerated, and take the profits out of the drug trade- as well as doing boring things like shoring up world banking so that illicit monies would have a harder time seeping around the world- it can be done, but it takes money, and if you've read any of the articles about tracking money laundering through Africa, you would know our money would have been well spent there, helping to increase their banking security (and it probably wouldn't have cost a single American life). Iraq was stupid, and any candidate will, I suspect, be better than Bush in resolving our self- created debacle- because Bush needs to justify himself, and obviously feels embarrassed over this (as he should) whereas other candidates can simply tell it like it is- Bush screwed up, and now we need to clean up the mess, with as little blowback on the US as possible. I suspect any democrat will be better at that than Bush is. Bush imperiled your security by invading Iraq, it will be up to the democrats to protect you- no need to thank them. |
