Quote Originally Posted by yesdachi
I don’t think he was as pacifistic as he was preoccupied and he wagged the dog to preoccupy America. My point is that he felt strong enough about other “threats” that didn’t really threaten us then he did about the one that really was a threat, but wouldn’t get a big enough headline to distract from the issues he wanted to cause a distraction from.
And yet he pressed, above all else, for action on Osama Bin Laden. Why? Focusing on Al-Qaeda didn't merit headlines in America, Iraq did, yet he emphasised the threat posed by Bin Laden, not that posed by Saddam. If he really wanted to distract people from his domestic problems, wouldn't he have gone for the headline threat instead of the more insidious one?

My calls keep going unanswered or unreturned.
Dealing with America is not difficult if you want peace, they don’t. They want to destroy their enemies, not build a prosperous country that enjoys the benefits of free trade and commerce. A hostile environment is good for them politically.

America (right now) does have some black and white demands but they are not unreasonable IF peace was the goal but it isn’t. The only thing talking more will do is give them more time. Why bother?
Have you read the various goals of the neocons? Regime change ("democratisation") in the middle east, except of course if they elect governments unfriendly to Israel (eg. Lebanon, Palestine). Starting with Iraq, but other prominent targets are Iran, Syria, and even Egypt. Is it a conspiracy theory if the neocons state it themselves?