"Collaborative Relationships"

Militant Vow to Assassinate Iraq Premier

None of this should be surprising.. None of this should be having anyone in shock or awe.. None of this should be met with mouth gaping open..

If anything this should serve as a warning (again): we're not welcome over there.. A pretty healthy contingent is going to continue to wage this war - no matter the costs.. The major difference is before 9/11, there was a belief that many of these groups just didn't have the ability to throw anything more than stones at their potential enemies..

9/11 changed all that..

Not only can they throw something more than stones - but they did a pretty good job at running planes into the World Trade Towers.. They got our attention and our President originally started off on the right path: through Pakistan.. Instead of crushing them - he stopped.. He turned his attention into what has turned onto a country solely on this premise:

From Fox News: "Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks."

Great.. But I have one follow-up question for Dick: "Mr. Vice-President, if we are securing all possible 'collaborative relationships' with Al Qaeda, can we expect to attack France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia anytime in the near future??" Because I'm a little fuzzy on exactly a "collaborative relationship" is - as it applies to what happened on 9/11..

Let's consider this a little outside the box:

Many nations their hand in training Al Qaeda back in the day: Cold War.. Remember?? Let's also not forget that WE legitimized Iraq AND Al Qaeda.. We helped with training, funding, weapons, etc.. So we're fighting a war - a war on terrorism - with someone that WE assisted, WE trained, WE funded, and WE armed.. So should we start by invading California??

No - no - we won't do that.. We're really good at placing blame in other directions and really really good at disassociating ourselves when we have to blame something we did.. I'm not trying to let this become a partisan thing - because every administration has done it (yes, even Reagan I'm afraid..)

Blame the CIA, blame the 7 troops of the Abu Ghraib prison, blame the INS, blame Clinton, blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Rummy, blame Tenet, blame the liberal press, blame Michael Moore, blame Air America -- blame whoever you see fit.. The problem remains: no one is taking responsibility for it and showing the gumption of taking that responsibility: why??

Because it will ruin their chance for advancement in the future..

Bush knows that if he accepted responsibility for what happened that it would be the equivalent of political suicide.. So the chess pieces are maneuvered in a way that will try to protect Dubya..

Let Me put it in simpler terms:

Bush is putting his own political career ahead of the responsibilities of securing and bringing those people to Justice who attacked our country.. He's lost focus in the war on terror.. It's speculative how much of a role Iraq had in the affairs of international terrorism, but if the 9/11 commission's report is any indication, we went into Iraq under questionable pretenses..

Instead of going to northern Africa, southeast Asia, and continue to vacuum the Afghanistan, Pakistan border - we focused on ONE country, ONE man - and have nothing to show for it.. We should've continued to expel the Al Qaeda cells across the world - but the choice was made to invade Iraq..

"Collaborative Relationships" is an interesting way to end this blog.. Because I'm questioning the real collaborative relationships with this administration and where their focus has gone since 9/11..