DKW:
Rashak Mani - Well, first of all, Bush has to finish in Iraq before he can think about repeating it anywhere. If Iraq descends into ethnic chaos after June 30 or an anti-American leader gets elected, it’s doubtful that he’ll even get any kind of support for another invasion.
Man, I really feel for our good folks in the armed forces right now. They’re stretched to the breaking point as it is.
Perhaps not. The man is truly insane. Check this out:
**Iran ‘Will Be Dealt With,’ Bush Says **
*President Bush told newspaper editors in Washington yesterday that Iran “will be dealt with, starting through the United Nations” if it does not stop developing nuclear weapons and begin total cooperation with international inspectors. *
Bush said he will encourage allies to insist to the Iranians that they live up to commitments to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and end any enriching and reprocessing of uranium.
“The Iranians need to feel the pressure from the world that any nuclear weapons program will be uniformly condemned – it’s essential that they hear that message,” he said. “The development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable, and a program is intolerable. . . . Otherwise, they will be dealt with, starting through the United Nations.”
Earlier this month, Iran pledged to speed up cooperation with the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, but called for an end of inspections by June.
The language was reminiscent of comments Bush made about Iraq long before the war, and to admonitions he has issued to Syria. Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, was part of the “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address in 2002.
Iran ‘Will Be Dealt With,’ Bush Says
Nope. And we need more money! See:
Hhmmm… I thought of another angle to my questions:
Would it be a valid point for the Democrats to claim that 4 more years for Bush would mean risking another invasion and quagmire ? That Bush is the military adventure president the same way they try to portray Kerry as “soft on defense” ?