"We're at the beginning of a transition in the Middle East, we're at the beginning of a long process of dealing with what the president called a long time ago a generational challenge to our security brought on by extremism coming principally out of the Middle East," Rice said.
Is it my imagination or did she just suggest yet again that the reason we're in Iraq is 9/11?
2007-09-12 03:15:12 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If only it were so, John H.
2007-09-12 03:21:38 · update #1
For the context impaired:
WASHINGTON - Stabilizing Iraq will be a lengthy process that won't end when violence in that country — and U.S. troop strength — are reduced, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday.
This is the sentence that preceded it.
2007-09-12 03:27:57 · update #2
Funny, I didn't see Iraq in that quote one time.
Maybe if you ask yourself where the terrorists come from (forget Iraq) and look at the overall picture.
Are they Swedish, German, or are they maybe Mid-eastern.
No one is saying Iraq had anything to do with 9/ll (except maybe the truthists). Iraq is a battleground for the War on terror, just like Europe was the main battleground for the war against nazism.
EDIT: Sorry, I still don't see her doing the 9/11-Iraq connection. So what part of stabalizing Iraq will take a while don't you get, and is it not extermists from the middle east that have un-stabalized Iraq?
2007-09-12 03:24:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your imagination. And this adminstration has never said nor suggested that 9/11 is the specific reason we went into Iraq. Can we finally dispell this myth?
9/11 was, however, the trigger for the overall global war against terrorism, but it is not the specific reason we are in Iraq. While Iraq is considered a battlefield in the WoT, the presentation to Congress to obtain authorization had numerous reasons for going into Iraq - and none of them had to do with 9/11, oil or the assassination attempt on Bush Sr.
However, without 9/11, we might not have gone into Iraq. 9/11 changed how we regarded threats on the other side of the world.
2007-09-12 03:36:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I fully agree. It is as confusing as the situation within Iraq is and which keeps changing as Condi perhaps knows well. That is why she does not want to commit and so has come out with a picture of gloom! Extremism does not pop out like a bolt from the blue; it is nurtured and grows out of hatred which develops when frustrations fill the air! The way extremism has been fought in the last six years or so has only aggravated the situation in every possible way one can imagine!
Still confused? Not a surprise if you remain in the glamarous world of confusion because the whole situation remains as confusing and conflicting as before!
2007-09-12 03:38:44 · answer #3 · answered by Sami V 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Certainly, there is extremism in the Middle East (or anywhere else there is a fundamentalist Muslim) that threatens our national security and the future existence of Western civilization, but in typical Bush-speak style, the freckled-faced Condi is confusing the issues. Iraq and 9/11 had nothing to do with each other (hint: 18 of 20 hijackers were Saudis), and there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A good deal of the instability in the region has been caused post-9/11 by the ill-advised imprudent war started by Bush.
2007-09-12 03:22:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I was watching CNN one day and, no joke, the woman had no fewer than five double negatives in one sentence. Don't try to figure out what Condi means by what she says. For her, just stick to watching her actions.
Just to directly answer the question - she's not suggesting that we went there because of the attacks. She's suggesting that we must stay there because we've just started to make progress, just started to give democracy a foothold and, if we pull out now, we can't keep an eye on the all the 12 year olds who are going to grow up to hate us even more than their fathers do. She's suggesting that military intervention can somehow change that.
2007-09-12 03:22:31 · answer #5 · answered by I'm back...and this still sucks. 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. Extremism has been coming from the Mid East for decades,especially with the Ayatollahs.
2007-09-12 03:22:05 · answer #6 · answered by Tin Foil Fez 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the bible is the be attentive to God then it ought to harmonize in the time of and it does. The bible does not practice the doctrine of the trinity or an immortal soul or hell as a place of punishment. whilst a single verse seems to variety from all the different hundreds of thousands of verses interior the bible, the blunders ought to lie with us and not God. as an occasion, the KJV on my own has over 30,000 blunders of translation. the remarkable element is that the reality can nonetheless be cutting-edge in it. the reality may additionally nonetheless be cutting-edge in a congregation on earth right this moment. that's as much as you in looking it. bear in ideas that God mentioned He could purely settle for worship interior the reality. As for all the different so mentioned as Christian church homes obtainable. God mentioned even their prayers have been some thing detestable to Him. superb needs.
2016-11-15 00:55:57 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I think it's literal. Extremism was a relevant issue pre 9/11.
2007-09-12 03:19:19 · answer #8 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That sentence reads the same backward as it does forward.
We're screwed for the next decade.
2007-09-12 03:35:19 · answer #9 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't read anything about 9/11 in that statement?
Is it my imagination or did you just suggest yet again that you will find any reason to confront those whom you oppose?
2007-09-12 03:25:19 · answer #10 · answered by Jason 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋