" 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?



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


For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq? Why didn't
President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that Saddam
reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a staging
area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he said?

In other words, your answer is 1- untrue 2- illogical 3- contrary to
what the Bush Administration has stated. I guess you must really hate
those rotten lying incompetent *******s!



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".


Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia?

... 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.

Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan?

... 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.


You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and
announce it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on
Clinton's watch. So his policy by definition was effective. Meanwhile
how many billions has Bush spent on ineffective policy?

DSK