I think the former is the case. He always had his sights on Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran and presented his agencies the task of finding intel that would back up his agenda.
2007-12-08 06:58:47 · 10 answers · asked by Kelly B 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You tell me Look at this ........http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/07/whitehouse-speech-olc/......what is this his agenda??
2007-12-08 07:35:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and several other countries such as Syria have long been either sanctuaries for, financial backers of, or otherwise supporters of international terrorism. For many decades they have been attacking us, our allies and our interests here and abroad. It was only a matter of time before they would have to be dealt with.
9/11 was a pivotal moment. When that happened America was left with two options. It could continue to do nothing about it, as was our policy up until that moment or we could fight back.
Osama Bin Ladin was convinced that we would do nothing. He based that assumption on the fact that they had always gotten away with it. When Carter did nothing when our embassy personnel were taken hostage, when Reagan did nothing when our Marines were bombed in Lebanon the terrorists were encouraged and upped the ante. After they blew up a 747and all aboard over Scotland, Reagan finally struck back against Libya. That attack took Qaddafi out of the fight and he renounced terrorism.
Things quieted down and then Saddam made his first big mistake by invading Kuwait. The first President Bush kicked them out but stopped short of toppling Saddam. We settled for a cease fire that Saddam routinely for the next decade violated.
There were multiple attacks during the Clinton administration which were ignored or ineffectually dealt with. Clinton forced Israel into a terrible deal with the devil, Yassir Arafat. All of which lead Osama to the belief that we were a paper tiger. That we did not have the stomach for war.
After 9/11 the second President Bush and the Congress realized that we had to strike back and strike back hard. A resolution was drafted resuming hostilities with Iraq and invading Afghanistan.
The answer to your question is difficult to determine. Both choices are partially correct. I am sure America would have preferred having a longer time to investigate and root out terrorist activities and sources of supply and funding. But 9/11 sent everything into overdrive.
In Bin Ladin's own words he did not expect us to react so strongly or decisively. He has stated that the Iraq conflict has been a failure for his side.
Whomever is elected to be our next President, regardless of what they may say they are going to do once elected, they know they dare not show weakness toward this enemy again.
Do not be surprised if there is not a major terrorist offensive early in the next President's term. While the new Commander-in-Chief is still getting their legs under them they are the most vulnerable. Terrorists know this and seek to take the initiative.
.
2007-12-08 07:33:06 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When will you learn it's the Freemasons, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati and space aliens who're to blame.
Did I leave anybody out?
With all you assert, I'm assuming you have access to the volumes of intel that come in every day and the 600 or so analysts who sort thru it and make recommendations. What is YOUR recommendation?
2007-12-08 07:07:38 · answer #3 · answered by Ed Harley 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I used to think that, but now I'm just convinced that Bush Inc. exists in a perpetual LSD trip that simply incorporates reality into the ongoing hallucination.
2007-12-08 07:02:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
How does anyone know what he's had his sights on?
I'm happy he's wrong. Who cares about the politics of it it's good news we no longer have an enemy. And I supported him
2007-12-08 07:05:16 · answer #5 · answered by Gonzo Rationalism 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
oh puhlease...and the idea that the only reason iran stopped the nuclear bomb plan was international pressure and that was chance ...right???? you pelosi ites have no shame ...none whatsoever. the answer to your question is neither as your premise is totally ridiculous.
2007-12-08 07:04:49 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes! Yes! and Yes! Thus we have CIA tapes that are destroyed and are in Iraq on false information.
2007-12-08 07:04:14 · answer #7 · answered by hershel f 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Definitely! You put it very well and with a fresh perspective
2007-12-08 07:04:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, biggest reason why Bush is a disgrace
2007-12-08 07:02:23 · answer #9 · answered by Stewie Griffin 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because that's how dictators operate.
2007-12-08 08:32:35 · answer #10 · answered by hillbillycoot 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋