pmb, I think that is a seriously flawed view of US foreign policy. Even when used to interpret US motivations in Vietnam, it doesn't hold water.
To assert that Bush's motivations, post 9-11 - after an attack on US soil that killed more Americans than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor - have been based on a desire to enrich corporate America, is absurd. Conservatives are often accused of being simple-minded, but to view the actions of Bush's administration through the "corporate greed paradigm", forsaking all other evidence, is the epitome of simple-mindedness.
Bush's career will be over in 1-5 years. His only motivation, other than doing what he thinks is best for America, is likely, "What will my legacy be in the annals of American history?"
Take a step back, consider the BS those hippies have been feeding y'all up there, and think things through. We have enemies that mean us harm, have done us harm. At what point is it OK to fight back? Afghanistan was a resounding success, but the hippies railed against that action, as well.
And Iraq is neither a quagmire nor a disaster, no matter how many times media members declare it to be so. The military kicked some serious booty, in a hurry, and did so with too few soldiers.
The enemy that remains, since the close of open hostilities has generally coordinated one attack a day. Why? So that our idiot left-leaning media has something to report, some fire and blood and carnage to plaster on everybody's TVs each night.
I'm voting Bush, but even if Kerry wins, the mission to protect America from future attacks will continue. Everybody who has watched developments in the Middle East for the last 30 years, knows that to do nothing will be certain disaster for us.
And Osama's likely to be found in Pakistan, protected by anti-American fanatics. That the gov't of Pakistan is so unstable as to be unwilling to capture him (yet tenuously possesses atomic weapons) is more than a little disconcerting. Iran is continuing with their nuclear weapons program. It ain't a pretty picture that's shaping up.
I'm afraid that in some years from now the 900 brave souls we've lost in Iraq will seem very few compared to the number lost to acts of terrorism here in our own country. If Osama (or any of those other nuts) had a nuke would he have used it? Of course. What plan do you feel be best for preventing terrorists from obtaining WMD or from using them against us? I think that some of the folks in your neck of the woods WANT us to get attacked (including my unabashedly communist sister in the Redwood Empire
), want int'l trade to stop, want the domestic economy to stop, and have all of us go back to hunting, gathering and using seashells for currency.
I forgot one other source of info - the men and women who come home from Iraq. What are they saying about our efforts in Iraq? Don't hear many of their comments on the news, do you?