Yet ANOTHER reason we went into Iraq (this from Bill O'Reilly)

[Tab]

The presidential visit to India and Pakistan was a success, even if many Americans have no idea what Mr. Bush is doing over there. The president is deeply involved with a very specific long-term strategy to fight terrorism and the trip was part of it. Let's lay things out and see what you think.

Mr. Bush believes the only way to defeat Al Qaeda and other terror groups is to deny them sanctuary, that is limit the places where these people can openly operate. Right now the countries of Iran, Syria, and the out-of-control northern border areas of Pakistan harbor and finance terrorists. These places are, of course, enemies of the USA.

Iraq was invaded to create a friendly country between Iran and Syria, thereby pressuring those nations to do a more sensible foreign policy. Unfortunately, the Iraq conflict has proven to be much more difficult than the Bush administration had anticipated. And so the conflict rages on.

More: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187059,00.html

So, if I get this right, Bill is claiming we invaded Iraq not because of WMDs, not to liberate it, and not because it had terrorists, but simply to put political pressure on the countries that do?

:eyes:

[CovertOP]

1. Olberman, the cure for Falafel man

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
The Holy files of truth.

[TomInTib]

3. Hey, CovertOp! Welcome to the fold... n/t

[NanceGreggs]

5. Welcome aboard the Good Ship DU, Matey!

:hi:

As for O'Reilly, if his mindless spin picks up any more velocity, he's going to bore himself right into the core of the earth ...

[leftchick]

7. Welcome to DU CO!

:toast:

[CovertOP]

11. I love it

out of the mouth's of babe's! I, as Lasthorsman proudly got banned for life in under 48 hours on hannity.com!

[TomInTib]

2. Head. Spinning....

Goodness, who is gonna win the pulitzer on the revelation?

Bill, just take your falafel and go home.
Now.

[catmother]

4. didn't i hear last week that he said "we better get out of there"

:crazy:

[lapfog_1]

6. Actually he is partially correct.

The PNAC doctrine calls for the establishment of forward bases in areas of influence for the empire of the United States.
That means closing army bases here and building army bases in the ME. We started doing that after the first Gulf War... but the Saudi Princes that are partners with the BFEE have quietly started hinting around that we can't have our people in and around the Islamic holy land, not to mention that we have female troops who do things like DRIVE and stuff. So our Saudi hosts have politely asked us to leave... but we can't leave the ME... hence, war with Iraq.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. I believe it was Osama Bin Laden who dictated the removal of the

base in Saudi. We promptly cooperated with his wishes.

[Johonny]

9. What?

So he defines the trip as a success by trying to tie it to the Iraq war, which he says is harder than Bush thought it would be. So if the war hasn't been very successful why is he prejudging the India trip? Could the India arms for mango's deal be more than Bush bargained for too? Oh Bill you moran.

[shain from kane]

10. It's easier to invade a country of 28 million than to go after

one man?
Just from the dollars and cents standpoint, this strategery does not make a whole lot of sense.
In fact, if most of the dollars and cents were not going to our military-industrial complex,
we would not have invaded or maintained a prescence there. It's just not economically feasible, even with some delusional long-term benefit from conversion to democracy, which will never happen. There was an idea in Viet Nam to pacify the villagers, and it's being tried again in Iraq at such a high cost.

[zbdent]

12. Strange, I can't find the word "friendly" in this little soundbyte

from 3/17/2003 . . .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

[Tab]

13. No, it was to CREATE a friendly country

Though frankly Iraq was a lot friendlier to us than Iran ever will be.