>> inode, I think the "competent" thing to have done after 9/11 would have been to go into Afghanistan and wipe out Al Queada and capture or kill all the leaders of the Taliban and Al Queada.
>>Bush did NONE of that even though he had most of the world backing him at the time.
That was the competent thing to do and it is precisely what Bush did. Al Qaeda was was essentially wiped out (with the exception of bin Laden) within a few months of the beginning of the war in early October. To the point where they were unable to deliver a successful attack against the US after 9/11, which most informed people thought was a very steep climb as of when the war began. And in fact, 3/4 of our war casualties have occurred after Bush left office, I would argue because of some pretty serious mismanagement after Bush left office.
Now, the pressure of the Iraq War definitely caused Bush to focus on that conflict, but given where we were at the time, it had to be done. You and I disagree on whether we should have been in Iraq; but once you get past that difference surely, you'll agree it was necessary to deal with the insurgency there, no?
>> I don't know what Obama would have done after 9/11, but I have a pretty good idea that Gore would have done exactly what I mentioned.
If we know anything about Obama it is that he would have been weak and ineffectual, as he has pretty much everything he's done. I can't speak for you, but everyone I know breathed a sigh of relief that Gore had not been elected once 9/11 hit. All we can know about Gore is what we know about Clinton, and Clinton mishandled the threat posed by AQ from the outset -- passing up the opportunity to get bin Laden no fewer than 3 times after the first bombing.
The fundamental problem with the Gore approach likely would have been the same as the Clinton failure: A failure to recognize we were at war and an attempt to handle it as a legal matter. Bush had the good sense to recognize that it was a war, not a time for an FBI investigation.
>> I have NO idea why you think Bush was competent or had integrity.
>> I think he was very lacking in both.
Yes, that's the usual complaint. While I can understand complaints from those who opposed the Iraq War, there are no grounds to challenge his integrity. His administration was EASILY the cleanest going back as far as I have any recollection (other than Bush 41's, which was equally clean). Not one substantive scandal. So, his integrity is pretty much beyond reproach.
I understand people saw Iraq as a quagmire and unnecessary. But Bush had what it took to end the quagmire. His successor didn't comprehend the importance of it, and his arrogance may end up costing more American lives before it is over.
At the end of the day, people who didn't see it as a necessary war will not change their views and those [few] of us who do believe it was necessary will have the other view. But Bush had to make the decision based on the information available at that time. The plethora of Democrats who supported the war at the time could easily turn tail and run when it turned ugly.
In spite of his apparently good genes, I don't know that Bush will live long enough to be vindicated. But the reality is the Bush Doctrine would have been a non-starter if he were to have provided an exemption for Iraq. We'll never know how things might have turned out had a competent individual -- even Hillary -- been elect in 2008 and 2012. What we elected in 2008 was essentially Chauncey Gardner, and has proven to have been a far bigger mistake than electing Bush ever could have been. |
