We sure live in a confusing world, don’t we?
If (1) the U.S. military has been fighting “terrorists” in Iraq, and
(2) the Iraqi government just signed a peace treaty with said “terrorists,” doesn’t
(3) application of the “Bush Doctrine” (we make no distinction between the terrorists who commit acts and those who harbor them) require that
(4) America now attack the government it helped establish?
If I was the skeptical type, I’d be thinking these terms being tossed around are pretty meaningless and only get invoked when the administration wants to pursue a particular agenda.