Decent review of America's recent foreign policy from the Times...

This is a good article. I know Powell is saying what many have said before about there not being any linke between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but I admire him for sticking to the truth despite the spin from some members of the white house.

One thing I find disturbing is the way it seems that Bush has forgotten about Al Qaeda. In the early days of the 'war on terrorism' we heard Bush talk about smoking Bin Laden out of his hole, and that he would get Bin Laden 'dead or alive'. Now all we here about is Saddam and Iraq.

There are those that have said we are capable of handling Al Qaeda and IRaq at the same time. Maybe it's true, but I don't see that happening. All I see is the focus on Iraq. Daily we here new or rehashed reasons why we should attack Iraq. It appears as if the administration lost it's early focus on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. I'd still like to hold Bush to his word to get Bin Laden 'dead or alive'. IMO that should be the administrations focus. It was at one time, but now they seem to have forgotten about it, and certainly don't make speeches about it, or brief the public on how it's going the way they used to. If they are still focussed on getting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, they aren't conveying it to the public very well.

 

I remember news reports of Osama going up to Saudi royalty to ask for an army to repel Saddam from Kuwait awhile back. Could their hatred for the US overcome their hatred for each other? Who knows...

There's the possibility that we're not capable of rooting out Al Qaeda for now (or at least launch a decent offensive). Our intelligence agencies are going through an overhaul and what they need the most is personel. Perhaps we are delaying action and still "combating terrorism" in the American public's eye by inciting war with Iraq. Al Qaeda operates in many cells in several different countries. We can not send troops at their doorsteps and aimlessly wander around for any "suspicious looking people"...

I'm really beginning to be annoyed by "world opinion". First, we do too little. Then, we do too much. Of course the correct answer for them is that we do nothing and then clean up their mess whenever "something happens". I understand the Middle East situation could've been handled better. But that region hasn't been "handled better" for the past 50 years. There's a lot of deception and dirty politics and if there is any genuine accord, a terrorist bent on derailing peace could greatly achieve it in one action. It's my feeling that "world opinion" is grating on my ear like an annoying backseat driver who probably couldn't do much better if given the wheel.

I seriously hope the Cabinet sets out one consistent foreign policy so that the ambiguity ends and a course of action can be pursued.

 

It's really pretty simple...when I win a case, I don't keep arguing it. He won support for the Afghan war cause from a huge group of nations...it's now his task to do the same with Iraq...so that's where the focus is.

We're still in Afghanistan, whether you hear it or not. By the way...we no Al Qaeda is in northern Iraq now...british and american intelligence reports all point to that...and i think i read german intelligence reports indicate the same.

 

While we are still in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is still strong. Even after support for AFghanistan was won and the invasion had begun, the administration kept giving the country progress reports, and updates. All of that has stopped, and the country is lawless, and the govt. unstable. But already Bush and Co. are moving on to a new front in the war.

At least you wait until you've won the case before you stop arguing it. Bush hasn't won the case yet.

There may be Al Qaeda people in Northern Iraq, there are more than likely Al Qaeda people here in the U.S. too. Certainly in the past there have been too. But as of yet, even Bush's own administration is admitting they have no connection between the Iraqi govt. and Al Qaeda.

 

but he has won the case...he convinced a coalition and congress it was a good idea to invade afghanistan...now he's doing the same with iraq...if you're talking about progress reports for how we're doing in afghanistan, that's one thing...but the president is a big picture guy who leaves the details to others...he's moving on talking about Iraq, because i think he feels the iraq situation is one where we stand to lose more...particularly if there is information about WMD we don't have yet.

 

But he hasn't won in Afghanistan, is my point. Let's win that one then move on to Iraq or the next phase.

But the other guys are also making the case for Iraq. None of them are talking about Al Qaeda either. That's why I say they seem to have lost focus.

My problem is again that we know that Al Qaeda is capable of hurting us, and I think we have more to lose from them. The case for going against Iraq only deals with 'future' threat. There is currently an existent threat to us.

But hey in the poll I did vote for going to war with Congressional and UN approval. So if the evidence is there linking them to 9/11 , or we move in an effort to enforce UN resolutions then I'm for it. I believe we should take care of the most immediate threat first. Right now that appears to be Al Qaeda, IMO.

 

1. you make big distinctions between al qaeda and iraq...i say if iraq has the weapon, chances are al qaeda will have the weapon soon enough.

2. talking is just talking...right now the president is talking about iraq for obvious reasons...there isn't a ton of news coming out of afghanistan right now..i'd venture to say that has a lot to do with the fact that most of al qaeda is on the run elsewhere...but again..your concern is that you only here talk from the administration regarding iraq...that's because iraq is what they're trying to sell right now...no need to convince anyone we should be in afghanistan at this point, because we're already there. these guys are policymakers, not newsreporters

 

U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Prepare to Mark Sept. 11

"There are around 8,000 U.S. troops in the country hunting down the remnants of the ousted Taliban regime and the al Qaeda network it sheltered. Al Qaeda is blamed for coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States."

There's the update on Afghanistan for FranchiseBlade...that will have to do since Bush apparently forgot to give you your daily briefing on every single thing the government is up to today.

 

It's not about me getting a daily briefing, it's about the focus of the administration.

 

You guys seemed to have missed a major point of the article-- the bungling of the Israeli /Palestinian issue. The extreme one-sidedness of Bush's support for Sharon and disregard for the Saudi Peace Proposal has lost him support with Europe, traditional mideast allies and the rest of the world that supports a return to pre 1967 borders and a Paestinian State..

That bungling has created more potential terrorists than were destroyed in Afghanistan. As the article says, what happened in the Hindu Kush i(Afghanistan) is small potatoes compared to his miguided Israel uberalles alliance with Sharon.

 

Prior to 9/11 Bush was very vocal about his desire to see a Palestinian state. After 9/11 he became consumed with trying to figure out who needed to pay the price for 3,000 of his countrymen being murdered at their workplace. Even since 9/11 Bush has time and again reiterated his desire to see a Palestinian state. His #1 prioity has been implementing the war on terror. I haven't seen any of the European countries coming forward to assist in the Palestinian issue.

People want to say that the US isn't the arbitor of the world...but then turn around and expect the US to "fix" the Palestinian situation...and they get miffed when we don't. How bizarre.

 

If the best deal that the U.S. could get out of Israel was the 2000 Barak offer (rejected by the Palestinians), it is hard to imagine that Bush could get Sharon to match even that offer.

Flexibility on the Israeli side will likely have to wait until new leadership is in place.