There is a reason why some nations supported the US in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq.
Lets assume for a moment that leaders of other nations were provided *at least* the intelligence that was provided to the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee... I have to believe that leaders of other nations were provided this plus more.
Why then, are so many traditional allies not with the US in Iraq?
Canada, for example, is a fairly big force in Afghanistan (relative to Canada's size), but would not go to Iraq.
Could it possibly be that the information Bush used to try to ellicit support from other nations was simply not compelling? Hindsight now available to mere mortals like you and me says this is so.
Re. his national security track record - well, I like it.
Every bit of evidence points to Bush and his handlers being single focussed on Iraq even before 9/11.
Every bit of evidence points to Bush totally blowing the National Security file, his people pointedly ignoring warnings from the security intelligence community that Al-Qa'ida, not Iraq, posted a grave and immediate danger.
The historical fact showed that Bush was on watch when 9/11 happened.
What's to like about his national security track record? That he reacted to the attack?
Do you honestly believe that any president, Republican or Democrat, would do anything but track down those responsible for 9/11 and also initiate a set of extensive changes to domestic security? If you really believe that then you do not understand politics at all.
No president would ever get re-elected if they failed to make an all out effort to track down OBL and also beef up domestic security. The marching orders were simple: rid Afghanistan of OBL and his supporters. Line up the international community to apply pressure on every front against terrorism. Beef up domestic security. Revamp the national and foreign intelligence services.
All very straight forward. Bush did some of these things, some better than other. Any president would have acted on each of these major items.
Where this one went completely wrong is to divert 120 billion away from *direct* terrorism threats to a foolish war on Iraq. That 120 billion spent, plus another 80 billion in the next fiscal year, plus 30 - 80 billion in each of the next few years, is going to be focussed on the single country of Iraq. That adds up to perhaps ONE HALF TRILLION DOLLARS on Iraq before this decade is out.
Do you not think that money would have been better spent focussed on global terrorism?
Instead, he's created a completely unstable state out of a completely failed state. At least before, it was a contained failed state. Now there is an active, armed, resistance and enough motivated people ready to join guerilla warfare for years to come - both from within Iraq and without.
All the while there remain serious national security challenges.
And it is Bush, not Kerry, who has created problems in the international community. It is Bush who is president, it is Bush who acted against international will to go to Iraq. What are leaders of other major countries going to remember - Kerry making short term political hay? Or Bush sending the US into an illegal war?
You can bet that not a single international leader is spending moment one worrying about any minor insulting comment Kerry might have said.
Those that were not onside with Bush and his gang of pave-the-middle east (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Pearle, etc) folks are chuckling about all the revelations coming to light right now.
And those that were onside with Bush are now worried about their own political careers in their own countries.
No matter how much postering Bush does, he is not a strong leader, he has not acted responsibly on the national security file and he has taken his eye off the ball. Just sending troops into Iraq -- "a 'tough decision'" he says -- does not make him "tough" or a leader.
I find it very ironic to find myself agreeing with Liberals but I must say it was an excellent touch by Kerry to remind viewers that G.W.'s own dad didn't overthrow Iraq in Gulf War I because there was "no exit strategy" and a bloody unwinnable mess would ensue.
The difference between George Bush Sr and Jr is this: Sr. is smart enough to have led the CIA; while Jr. couldn't even run a successful oil company, in Texas of all places.
PS: Having spent many years consulting for big oil, I have some insight as to just how dumb that makes the man. |
