<<If we wanted to have a quiet but effectual involvement , why wouod we need a bomber first?>>
I said an involvement that fell short of an actual invasion and occupation. That is NOT a "quiet but effecutal involvement." I had in mind some form of violence and mayhem perhaps falling short of an invasion but certainly not "quiet."
<<Yemen is where the USS Cole was attacked , an excuse for a smaller action is already present.>>
No, I disagree, USS Cole was too far back. Ten years ago. You can't suddenly explode into rage 10 years after the event. Not even the morons who fell for the WMD BS would fall for that.
<<That is to say , we know the Al Quieda is present, we can confrount them anywhere and have American public approval.>>
You're kidding. You "know" the Al Qaeda is present?" How do you "know" that? The same way you "knew" that Saddam had WMD that could be launched on 45 minutes' notice? People don't give a shit any more what you "know," plane, they've been fooled too many times before. If you need an excuse to start another war, what you "know" isn't going to do it. Blowing a plane out of the sky will do it, though. THAT'S really what your policy makers "need" and maybe the CIA was ready to supply it for them too. Or maybe just scaring you into thinking an airliner was ALMOST blown out of the sky. It's nicer to think they'd be satisfied with the latter. Who the hell really knows? The level of evil that resides in those characters is literally unfathomable.