The point you were hoping to make is that Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, but didn't attack any other country known to be friendly to islamic fundamentalism, therefore they are somehow being inconsistent or hiding their real goals. That is the standard liberal line.
The point I was trying to make is the point I have been making all along - we intend to change the entire Muslim world and Iraq is only a small part of the strategy.
Of course it leaves out the fact that you do not have to invade or attack a country to affect change. Probably the best examples now are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both of those countries are feeling the heat and in Iran's case, the population is looking to change the government, and in SA's case, the government is slowly coming to grips with the fact that Wahabism is one of the roots of terrorism.
No, it leaves out nothing. We chose Iraq precisely because of the likely domino effects.
Will anything come of these situations? It's too early to tell. But it does show that actions that the Administration are persuing are beginning to bear fruit. So, to answer your question, we do not have to invade every country that supports or tolerates terrorism.
You really ought to learn to read. I never said we had to invade every country that supports of tolerates terrorism. I said we intend to change the culture which encourages and spawns such things. But we will invade if we have to. Every country on that list, and some that aren't, will be changed one way or another.
My own feeling is that it's unlikely we'll get off easily or cheaply.
No. I was tired of waiting for you to finally say what you were going to say. Crap like that is quite childish.
However, it's nice to see that you've finally backpedalled into supporting Bush.
Thanks. It will take me awhile to go through it.
Especially considering there are no pictures. ;)