If you think the three-week war against Iraq, and the ensuing occupation, were nasty, just try to imagine an invasion and occupation of Iran.

Hint: It would be much, MUCH uglier.

Low-hanging fruit, babe. Low-hanging fruit.

There is a reason that the US hasn't liberated North Korea. Can you all guess why? ;)

...with no evidence against Iraq

Say what? Try reading the 9/11 Commission report and the report just released by the UK which was conducted by Lord Butler. There is definitely evidence, what the Commission has stated, however, is that there was no evidence of Iraq having a direct link with al Qaeda's attack on 9/11.

The fact is, Saddam was an outspoken supporter of terror, had kind words for al Qaeda after 9/11, and was reported by Russia as being actively engaged in preparations for conducting terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11. Saddam Hussein was most certainly a good target.

Iran is another good target. Hopefully they'll be next.

David

Re: Iran

Bomb their WMD facilities? Yes. Invade? No!

Low-hanging fruit.

That's about as silly as anything I've seen in the last four years.

Iran is another good target. Hopefully they'll be next.

Clearly, some people learn from experience, some just continue to Stepford along.

Hal:

Okay. Let's pretend you are engaging in a Global War On Terror.

Whom do you attack first?

A) A country that is diplomatically and militarily isolated, is routinely flown over by friendly military aircraft who gain intel with each sortie, and who the American people have supported attacking (Iraq)

OR

B) A country with nukes that can hit US states, artillery that can turn a major ally's capital into a firestorm of death and chaos, and a massive army that we have little intel on (North Korea)

OR

C) A country with a populace that is actively seking to overthrow the present lunatic government, and is pretty much surrounded as it is (Iran)

I choose A.

Low-hanging fruit...

[Of course, you'll choose "D", none of the above. Which is fine. Of course, the American people did not (and would not) elect you. And they would not want you leading a War On Terror...)

Okay. Let's pretend you are engaging in a Global War On Terror. Whom do you attack first?

You stacked the deck by not including a correct answer in your list of choices.

I'm sure you can figure it out with a bit of thought.

First Question:

Does Iran have oil?

If so, how much?


Thanks in advance,
Dick Cheney

I think RJ is right on with the phrase "low hanging fruit". Bush redefined himself as a war president, invaded Afghanistan, let bin Laden escape, and then ran out of highly visible successes to tout for his next election campaign. If you're trying to "focus on the war", you need to have something to show for it.

There were ample good reasons to topple Saddam Hussein, and it was demonstrably easy to defeat the Iraqi military. I'm not convinced North Korea wasn't a higher priority, but it was clearly a much thornier problem. Going after the "low hanging fruit" was the obvious political move to make (especially if you haven't given much consideration to post-war stabilization).

Now if the U.S. invades Iran, any draft-age males around here should make themselves scarce. Who wants to be the next one to die for a mistake?

Going after the "low hanging fruit" was the obvious political move to make

Low-fruiting was definitely part of the Bush team's planning and was raised within four days of 9/11 as described in Bob Woodward's first Bush-stroke-book, "Bush At War":

pp. 82-83: [9/15/01] "Another risk they faced was getting bogged down in Afghanistan, the nemesis of the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th. Rice was wondering whether it might be the same for the United States in the 21st.

"Her fears were shared by others, which led to a different discussion: Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad? ...

" Rice asked whether they could envision a successful campaign beyond Afghanistan, which put Iraq back on the table."

How sure you are this fresh trail is not leading to the same end as the previous?

How sure you are that you are not, again, led by the nose into another adventure, to overcome election perils?

If Bush were really serious about protecting US interests, he should have invaded Florida.

No Shark dear, it was an intelligent decision not to invade Florida. You cannot fight Invisible Wo/Men.

How sure you are that you are not, again, led by the nose into another adventure, to overcome election perils?

Of course we are.

But the idea of invading yet another country begs the question:

With what?

I suppose they could draft the neocons, but I'm not sure that this would be an ideal fighting force (spin doesn't work against bullets).