"[Bush's] inarticulateness has become .. a national securitythreat for the US"
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:20:02 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Russell Turpin
> Are you arguing that Bush got more points by
> prevaricating about his goal? And let's be
> clear that regime change is a goal, not a reason.
> Bush's reasons for wanting that are not so clear.
> And yes, they matter. They are what should have
> been made the focus of his diplomacy leading up
> to the war.
The first goal is disarmament; something that history has proved could
only be achieved with regime change.
Had it been possible without regime change, it would have happened long
The second goal is a continuing counter offensive against the forces
that attacked us on 9/11. Destroying the regime in Iraq is even now
sending shock waves throughout the world and *it is the belief of those
driving this policy* that those shockwaves will wind up being highly
That last of course is contentious. But it relies on principles of real
politics that I'd argue have long been known to be effective.
One of those is simply credibility. Nobody will doubt next time that
when the US (with a President Bush) says "do it or we are coming" that
he means it.
This contrasts famously with Carter seeking to deter Iran by sending US
F-15 fighters to Saudi Arabia but announcing *before they even arrived*
that they were unarmed.
Everybody loves to taunt a paper tiger.
Screwing with a real and enraged one is another thing entirely.
Consider this "blowback" for 9/11. 9/11 will go down as the biggest
strategic mistake since 12/7.