Because there is more going on than just the middle east...there are issues we know nothing about and Bush is trying to stop an all out war over there that we would be involved in.
Because there is more going on than just the middle east...there are issues we know nothing about and Bush is trying to stop an all out war over there that we would be involved in.This is a different variey of argument for Bush, unlike the usual "Grand Plan" argument, this argumenet falls into the "Too complex, possible Apocalypse" argument.
Now, why is double-speak necessary? Why is it necessary when embraced by Bush but reprehensible when practiced by, say, Bill Clinton? There was no double-speak in Bush's speech to Congress nine days after September 11th. There wasn't any double-speak in his State of the Union. On both occasions, the president spoke unequivocally about our moral responsibilities and about this being a war between good and evil.
Why suspend the president's Churchillian announcements of September 20th and 29th of January, even temporarily? Mr. Blankley contends that the president's backsliding is temporary and is needed to help quiet our European and Arab critics as we try to build support for an attack against Iraq. The irony is that the same Colin Powell pushing this Bush 43 position, urged Bush 41 to leave Iraq before wiping out Saddam Hussein and his regime! Nothing has changed, and so we learn nothing.
Tony Blankley's Washington Times column "Playing to an Audience of Fools." Now, I know how things in D.C. work, so I believe this column is the White House answer/explanation to critics of its Israeli policy. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Say's Rush Limbaugh