It will take considerable political preparations before Bush is in a strong position to attack Syria, which should be next on the list. I haven't seen any signs that he is preparing the way for any such move.
The chief impediment to action is not the Syrian military or the Muslim extremists, but the US media and the Democrats. He managed to get around them with Afghanistan and Iraq, but it took careful maneuvering to do it. Now he may be waiting until after the 2004 election. But who knows?
posted on 10/28/2003 5:27:26 PM PST
I don't think he can wait that long. Something's got to happen, and I think it's got to happen fairly soon. Not only for the sake of the Iraqis, but to maintain confidence in the US.
The Dems are enjoying the fact that the war was so successful they were never called upon to make any decisions about their own positions or do much of anything, until their presidential candidates decided to rewrite their own personal voting histories under the mistaken impression that this would appeal to their base. Well, maybe if their base is a 55 year old single white female librarian in Utica, it might...
But I think Bush has got to stop being intimidated by the Dems. They all shut up and put up when they know they have to, Fat Teddy is about to retire and in any case went way over the line with his "Bush lies" speech, and Bush has just got to do what's right and is going to win this thing.
He talked a lot today about winning the peace, and I thought that was a good thing. But we can't win the peace until we can stop the war.
posted on 10/28/2003 5:35:47 PM PST
Nope, the chief impediment is the fact that our forces are stretched thin. Iraq must be completely secured before the frontlines are extended so drastically, and that will take some time. Maybe sometime in Bush's second term.
Oh, you mean it wasn't clear cut evidence of weapons of mass destruction then?
posted on 10/28/2003 6:58:54 PM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson