[lit-ideas] Re: with or without Bush
- From: JulieReneB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:03:33 EDT
I wonder if it's a stretch to think that if Bush had not been in Iraq, we
would not have targeted Iraq. If not, then had we not targeted Iraq, is it a
stretch to consider that resources put to use there might have been otherwise
put to use in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area?
Julie Krueger
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] with or without Bush
Date: 8/2/2004 6:52:05 PM Central Daylight Time From: _Scribe1865@xxxxxxxx
(mailto:Scribe1865@xxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
Stan maintains that if Bush had not been in office, Bin Laden would have
been
captured. As if a change of presidents could alter tactical and strategic
factors that work to Bin Laden's benefit. Taken as a statement of
convictions,
Stan's hyperbole is hunky-dory. Taken as a tactical prediction . . . well .
. .
it's a fine statement of convictions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
