I hear he increased support to those suffering in Africa during his terms as president.
"[C]onquer large swathes of the country"?The way he led the country post 9-11 was certainly commendable. Yes, he did support quite a few programs in Africa. Every time he spoke, he undoubtedly made millions of people laugh out! Afghanistan was a just war and as commander in chief, he managed to conquer large swathes of the country pretty quickly although he did mess it up later on.
Control a city or two (in which US surrogates are still not truly safe) and cede control of the rest of the country to local warlords, Taliban, and other groups that support opium production, oppress women, burn schools dedicated to the education of girls, and generally enforce their own religious dictates? (The recent attack on musicians playing at a wedding, shaving and humiliating the musicians, etc, shows how open-minded these despotic groups are.) Does that equate to military/administrative "control" of a country in anybody's world (outside of la-la land)? Neighboring Pakistan cannot adequately exert control over areas of their country just 10s of miles from the country's capitol. How was the war in Afghanistan any more successful?"[C]onquer large swathes of the country"?
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
He didn't issue blanket pardons to all the people in his administration that justified wars of aggression, suspension of human rights, extraordinary rendition in foreign secret CIA prisons, torture, or warrantless wiretapping and other violations of privacy against US citizens. I fully expected that he would issue blanket pardons for at least some of these offenses. Maybe he got something right, in the end.I hear he increased support to those suffering in Africa during his terms as president.
1. "Eliminating a dictator " is rightEliminating a dictator is only the right thing to do IF it was worth sacrificing over US 4000 lives, disrupting or permanently changing or ruining the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers and family members, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, in order to do it. It was an unnecessary war so it was not the right thing to do.
And it's pretty much a factor of propaganda and perceptions as to which groups are considered terrorists, and which leaders are considered dictators. I can get BBC feeds from time to time, but US commercial and public TV is quite reluctant to express any progressive views. The fantasy of the "liberal media" died a long time ago.one forgets how much power it gave to the remaining one in the middle... but that's pure speculation.
Even though, of course, everybody knew that speculation long ago...
I take exception to that. It was meddlesome of the US to have intervened in the first place. Removing dictatorships is not our business. The US interfered in the sovereign affairs of another nation ... and acted without any other cause than that Bush-Cheney wanted to, and trumped up reasons to do so.1. "Eliminating a dictator " is right
That looks highly speculative. Supposing that anything was specifically prevented, looks to be an invention of the Bush-Cheney supporters. Manufactured I'd say about as certainly as the reports of yellow-cake and bio-weapons that were supposedly under development in Iraq prior to the US invasion.He prevented multiple terrorist attacks on the US via his actions following 9/11.
Yes, but to describe that as conquering large swathes of land...? This isn't exactly Rome in 52BC. You don't get brownie points in the 21st century for "conquering large swathes of land".I was talking about the first month or so after the invasion. The Taliban retreated from most of their positions into the mountains.