<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Dear Auntie:<BR>
<BR>
If you assume the "1984" thesis that maintaining a continual "War On Terror" with no end in sight is the goal to maintain this "War" as a tactic of control over the masses (control over us by who for what ends?), then of course the "powers that be" want to tip off the "enemy" to give them advantage. If the Bush administration suddenly found itself totally victorious over Al Quada and the threat of terrorism, what would Bush base his reelection theme on?<BR>
<BR>
And so again this line of reasoning begs the question: why did the US not go all out to capture Bin Laden, and not invest our full resources to stop the extremist Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and instead invade Iraq, diverting massive resources and focus to invade a country that there is little evidence was supporting Al Quada or Bin Laden?<BR>
<BR>
Am I wrong to think this is a fundamental question that until answered leaves us in la la land?<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>