"DSK" wrote in message
...
So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic


NOYB wrote:
Yes.


and amoral?


No.

What moral code encourages backstabbing & & cheating, not to mention
buddying up to people who are trying to kill your fellow citizens? Maybe
it's OK as long as you later backstab them?


The ends *do* justify the means sometimes.




You forgot this part again:

" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?


I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same thing
about Iran: we needed a staging area.


By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting
terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring
nations.

He's not "buddying up". He's using them for whatever little help we can get
from them until the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on
terror. It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.