I was listening to an interview with Scott Ritter, former head of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq from 91-98, 12 year marine, trained by the CIA in WMD technology. (Scott stated publicly many times in the runup to the invasion, as early as summer 02, that there were NO WMD in Iraq, UNSCOM destroyed 97% of them and the rest were basically "lost" due to accounting messups by the Iraqis. He also said we had adequate monitoring capability to determine that NO critical components for WMD had been imported, and there we no statements that ever indicated the monitors had detected anything critical going into Iraq). He was asked why the US is so interested in the Middle East (ME) and Iraq, as Islamic terrorism is not really that great a threat to US security, or at least not a threat that warrants occupying large foreign nations. He said it was correct, that Islamic terrorism is not a strategic threat to the US. In the list of threats, it is not in the top 10. #1 strategic threat to the US is China. They are huge and growing. Their economy is progressing, and they are collecting dollar with the huge trade surplus. Their military is not sophisticated weapon wise, like our and they lack a navy, but they are a viable force in their region. In 20 years, they will be harder to deal with. If attacking them did not make sense, how would we control them? His answer was controlling ME oil supplies. We are friends with Saudi, occupy Iraq, and may occupy Iran, giving us control of the top 3 proven oil reserves in the world. He maintains contacts with think tank folks in D.C., said those theories are floating around.
I agree with you, some expert to say something that stupid especially after 9/11. This should be more than enough proof that liberals don't believe that terrorism is a real threat anymore especially after they kissed Ritter's behind because he went against Bush.
In terms of overall security Islamic terrorists are just a blip. Sure they can strike and kill a few thousand of us when we let our guard down, but they are no threat to the nation as a whole.
That's exactly what makes the terrorists the greater threat. We spent 40 years with the USSR pointing enough nukes at us to destroy us 10 times over. It never happened...why? Because they knew we'd do the same to them. While the Mutually Assured Destruction safeguard would not be as secure with Iran or North Korea as it was with the Soviets, at least there is some security in that fact. But the last 7 years have proven that the terrorists are not afraid to strike us, and that it is very difficult for us to retaliate. Surely you're not saying the loss of "a few thousand of us" is just a blip on the nation's security?
I'm pretty sure B. Hussein Obama feels the same way which is a big reason why he scares the hell out of me.
