Bush Needs To Deliver Like Reagan

www.newsday.com ^ | 05/02/03 | James P. Pinkerton

[Truthsearcher]

Yes, but too prematurely stir up anti-american feelings in the middle-east would mean pushing them to ally themselves with the Soviet Union, which is *not* what we wanted at the time.

Yes, a stronger reaction might have deterred some terrorism, but it could have also lead to a lot of other consequences that neither you or I would appreciate. All in all, it was the correct strategy to take the USSR down first. If the USSR is still around we would have have the free rein to go into Iraq as we did. In fact no matter what strong action we could have taken in 1983, we still wouldn't have been able to apply the force necessary to eliminate the terrorist problem completely.

The real problem was the Clinton years, when we could have taken the terrorist problem seriously, and was no longer constrained by the USSR to do what was needed. Especially after the first attack on the WTC, which would have given us plenty of political capital to make some moves in the Middle East. Clinton's complacency and lack of will to deal with the terrorist problem is what led to the later attacks.

[SamAdams76]

Good points.