>The Waiting Game
>
>President Bush’s speech Tuesday night did indeed bolster American resolve towards the war Iraq. It bolstered resolve that the United States should get out of Iraq now. Bush laid out no timetables, no course of action and no regrets for the families of those killed and for those still to be killed.
>
>Bush stated that if the United States pulled out of Iraq, it would send a message to the insurgents that they need only to wait, and sooner or later, they win. While this might be true, this is not going to be a war if attrition. The insurgency has an unlimited supply of fighters willing to travel to Iraq for the chance of killing Americans, so “staying the course” is a plan doomed to failure.
>
>While Bush spews bravado and speaks of “nation building” and forming a democracy for the people of Iraq, the insurgents grow stronger and more sophisticated as time passes. They must be thrilled to know the U.S. will stick around.
>
>War Against Iraq Long In The Works
>
>In President Bush’s speech the week of March 7th, 2003, Bush mentioned the September 11th attacks eight times and referred to Saddam Hussein many more times that that.
>
>During this speech he never actually stated that he believed that Hussein was involved in the attack. Yet the essence of his message was to strengthen the belief among Americans which had been built up by the Bush camp since the attacks – that Hussein was indeed involved and that the war against Iraq was not only justified, but necessary as well.
>
>Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there never was any evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks or that he had been aiding Al Qaeda toward their goals. Yet the White House continues to encourage this false impression in hopes of buttressing support for the war, despite the fact that early on most Americans hadn’t considered Iraq involved.
>
>While post September 11th America did indeed want retribution, polling data showed that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked whom they felt was behind the attacks only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein.
>
>But by January of 2003, a Knight Ridder poll indicated that 44 percent of Americans believed that ay least some of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The truth is that none of the attackers were Iraqi.
>
>The fact is the Sept. 11 Commission Report indicates that there was no substantial link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. While the two parties had had various contact through low-level operatives, no partnership towards attacking American has ever been discovered.
>
>
>Iraq Was Always A Target
>
>Scarcely 5 hours after the attacks on September 11th, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered his staff to begin formulating plans to arrack Iraq, despite the fact the at that early moment there was no indication at all that Iraq was involved.
>
>Less than 15 minutes after the attack on the Pentagon, the NSA intercepted a phone conversation between Osama Bin Laden and an unknown party indicating that he was aware of the attacks and the knew the full extent of the plans for that fateful day. The CIA notified Rumsfeld at noon of the phone call.
>
>While Rumsfeld therefore had preliminary evidence that Osama Bin Laden was behind, or at the very least involved, in the September 11th attacks, he dismissed the phone conversation as “vague," and that it "might not mean something”
>
>Later that day, the CIA disclosed that they had discovered that some of the hijackers were suspected Al Qaeda terrorists, with one of them being a known associate of an attacker of the USS Cole.
>
>Regardless of the fact that on September 11th all evidence indicated Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks, Rumsfeld ordered the military to formulate strike plans against Iraq. Rumsfeld’s own notes on that day stated “…judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – meaning Osama bin Laden.
>
>4 Years later no evidence has been presented that Iraq was involved in the attacks on September 11th, yet to Bush and Rumsfeld, evidence doesn't matter.
>
>In conclusion, it seems that the Bush administration has had its eye on Iraq since the beginning, before the attacks and that no amount of truth and no rising body count is going to sway them from their plans.

I propose the following. Creation of a law that says. "Whenever a law is started the first soldiers sent to the country we're at war with will be the sons and daughters of the politicians and every member of the immediate families of those politicians."

This way don't you think that they (politicians) would REALLY try to do everything possible before declaring war to a country <vbg>