Presidential Debate

[Sir_Die_alot]

Simple answer.  I included the entire paragraph so that there would be some context. 
A rather huge stretch.  Add the emotional appeal of "WTC rubble" and you've said... absolutely nothing!

Not a stretch at all! In fact it is a huge stretch to leave out the "emotional appeal" of "WTC rubble". Leaving that out would be seriously taking the whole speech out of context since at this point in time the buildings were still burning.

Nope.  By "lengthy" most assumed that subsequent battles would be against those most relevant to the terorist threat.  For instance, finishing matters in Afghanistan before extending operations to Iraq.

What did the first sentance have to do with the other? Maybe you think Afghanistan should be a pristine 1st world nation with a booming economy before we go for the next stop in the terrorism list? Seriously what does "finish" mean? It took us many years after the war was officially over to "finish" Germany. Some might say that by having bases there, we still technically haven't. As for "most relevant", Saddam was perceived to be that. Are there others that will require more of the same, and different tactics? Of course. I took that to be what "lengthy" meant, even at the time. It will take quite awhile to force or negotiate terrorist states to change.

Fact is, Iraq didn't really have much of anything to do with terrorism.

They didn't have much to do with Al-quieda. There is a significant difference between those 2 sentances. Many terrorists found their refuge and funding there. Since at the time it was believed they had WMD not just because of intelligence obtained by the US, but because of that obtained by other countries as well, that made it a pretty significant threat. Now with 20/20 hindsight it's fair to say that there was an intelligence failure, and the people involved with that should be paying a much higher price than they are, but the President's actions were responsible going on the information that was givin to him as fact.

It was, perhaps, a broader political and economic security issue that "needed to be dealt with" (in view of the larger context of American political hegemony).  Equating Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.

So do you think it was right or wrong to go to Iraq? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. As for equating Afghanistan and Iraq, I do, only that they were both terrorist states. There are plenty of morons on both side of an issue, it just happens that the ones on mine think Saddam was responsible for 911. Don't confuse me with them, and I won't confuse you with the morons who think this is all a campaign for Israel against the Palestinians.

Well. We shall see about that.  As far as I can tell, fundamentalist Islam and the "terrorist world" has at least as much, if not more support now, post-Iraq than it did before operations commenced.

Thanks Al-jazeera. The irony of their skewed reporting is that exactly what they want they delay all the more by inciting violence.

Sure, it sounds great.  Point is that there is more to stopping terrorists than chasing them around.

Hence Bush's use of the word "lengthy".

In the process of invading Iraq, American military involvement has probably bred as many new terrorists as it has caught.  Granted, sovereign nations might think twice before harbouring terrorists.  However, they can't really do much other than 'act nice' at an ambassadorial level if the bulk, or even a significant percentage of their populations support the terrorists.

Or they could perhaps begin efforts to stop the schools that teach extreamist Islam. This certainly won't be solved in a day by a government's agreement to stop supporting terror, but that's where it starts. "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." Is that making more sence to you yet?

Did you read my post?  I don't think that you understood it.  You did not address the point, that's for sure.  Bush, or more accurately, his strategic 'team', was completely ambiguous with their blanket statement, and it was intentional.  "With us or against us" is an empty and counterproductive rhetoric.

I understood it just fine. You hate Bush and you are just looking for reasons to hate him more. Who cares if he qualified the statement before he said it? That doesn't help your world view. He said "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists", you didn't like it, and that is all that matters. Now, since the US and its allies don't see eye to eye on the how that must mean Bush has plans to invade, enact sanctions or otherwise destabilize them.

Allow me to oversimplify to a ridiculous extent; as sovereign nations, we reserve the right to judge what is justified and useful and what is not.  It is possible for 'us' to disagree with US action.  In so doing, we may not necessarily be 'supporting' terrorists.  If Canada decides that they don't want to deport citizens without due process a la the Patriot Act, is it really the US's place to hold such an ambiguous threat over our head?  I guess in some senses, it's not a matter of 'right or wrong'.  Fair enough.  It just 'is'.  Regardless, the threat remains.

Only because you want it to. Maybe that is a guilty conscience and you think your country is not doing as much as it might. But if it is a real fear Bush has military plans for United States' allies, then you have had a little too much of the anti-Bush retoric.