News Was George W. Bush's Response to 9/11 Justified?

[epkid08]

What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11? I remember back when that happened, it was the general consensus of the public that we should go to war; We were afraid of another attack. Heck, if the terrorists did it once for no logical reason, why wouldn't they do it again? We had every right to pursue those involved with terrorism. Bush did the right thing here.

A lot of people dislike what George has done because they're plain and simple, anti-war. Well folks, war is necessary, it always has been, and always will be(probably).

Infiltrating Iraq had its pros and cons. Saddam Hussein had ties to the taliban and was suspected of holding weapons of mass destruction, that right there justifies enough for U.N. peacekeepers to infiltrate Iraq. Also, after Saddam Hussein was relieved of duty, we set up a democracy in place of Saddam Hussein's 'government'; This will greatly help the people of Iraq in the future. Although it had great pros including a sense of security(which is good whether or not its justified), it also had some cons including, huge spending, and some lost life. Whether or not Bush did the right thing here is debatable, but it certainly is not a landslide in any way.

A war with Iran - Should we go to war with Iran? The benefits would be great, but maybe not apparent for the next fifteen years. Once going to happen when oil becomes so expensive that middle-class families can only use cars to get to work and back? Possibly a depression? In the next twenty years the United States will need to make a rash decision regarding oil. I'd say our best option now is to start drilling in Alaska, and let the import prices drop; After they drop we can start importing again, and if they go up, repeat the process. But of course, this idea won't happen due to Animal Rights Activists etc. America needs cheaper oil, and more money for that matter. Taking over Iran's oil production will help both of those needs. If Bush did this, I'd say he did the right thing.

Some of the new policies Bush has introduced I dislike, and some I like. That goes with most presidents. Bush had some rough situations as president, and for the most part, I agree with what he did, whether or not the consequences of what he did were good or not.

This topic is specifically about George W. Bush, and the decisions he was forced to make during his presidency. Please don't bring up any other subjects.

 

[Gokul43201]

Saddam Hussein had ties to the taliban...

Please explain.

 

[humanino]

What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11? I remember back when that happened, it was the general consensus of the public that we should go to war

Do you remember the world opinion on him before ? What would you have done before 9/11 ? Would you have given up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ? The Taba summit proved to be the ever closest we were to get them to agree on the road map for peace. Yasser Arafat expected your administration to keep playing the same role as the previous one. Ehud Barak even sent a letter (February 8, 2001).

All over Europe, your administration was literally ridiculed in the media. This suddenly ended on the very day of 9/11. This is something one should not forget either when looking back into this administration.

Whatever you say. He is considered by many to have been far below any other administration before, even lower than we would have imagined.

 

[humanino]

May I had about Irak war : Kofi Annan and Boutros Boutros-Ghali (among others) have called it "illegal". This is indeed the proper term because you knew we French, German, Russian and Chinese would veto is. That makes 3 of the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany who was one of the temporary member at this point. How arrogant of him to show such contempt. How childish... I wish I did not feel like saying "we told you..."

 

[jostpuur]

Heck, if the terrorists did it once for no logical reason, why wouldn't they do it again? We had every right to pursue those involved with terrorism.

Talking about logic, hasn't there been studies showing that US war policy is only motivating more radicals to get involved in terrorism?

 

[Crosson]

What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11?

In speeches I would ask the American people to keep perspective, and remind them that 'the only thing to fear is fear itself.' I would also send covert forces into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden.

I also would have dropped support for Israel, since this is, according to the terrorists themselves, the reason that they attacked us.

Heck, if the terrorists did it once for no logical reason, why wouldn't they do it again?

They didn't attack us for no reason, if you read the transcript from any of Bin Laden's videos he says that he attacked us because of our support for Israel.

We had every right to pursue those involved with terrorism. Bush did the right thing here.

I agree that Bush did fine in the first few weeks of Afghanistan, except that he said everything possible in his speeches to make Americans afraid. I think much of the rhetoric about how bad the 9/11 tragedy was exaggerated for Bush's political gain, which is wrong because the terrorists only win when we are afraid.

A lot of people dislike what George has done because they're plain and simple, anti-war. Well folks, war is necessary, it always has been, and always will be(probably).

Just because war in general is a permanent feature of human life does not mean that all wars are necessary. For examples of unnecessary wars, see Vietnam 1965 and Iraq 2003.

Infiltrating Iraq had its pros and cons. Saddam Hussein had ties to the taliban and was suspected of holding weapons of mass destruction, that right there justifies enough for U.N. peacekeepers to infiltrate Iraq.

It turned out that the Bush administration used dubious sources and exaggerated the evidence that Saddam was a threat, and exaggerated the evidence that he supported the Taliban, and ignored evidence to the contrary that was presented by the CIA.

Besides, the UN inspectors had total freedom to search everywhere, and they were making good progress without finding any weapons. Why not wait for the inspectors to finish their job, instead of rushing to war on extremely weak evidence?

The answer to that is because Bush was already determined to start a war in Iraq before 9/11 even happened. After being told that Bin Laden was responsible, Bush repeatedly asked Richard Clark to look into Saddam, and then told him to find links between Bin Laden and Hussein. Bush ignored all the evidence that was against going to war, that's why we hate him.

Also, after Saddam Hussein was relieved of duty, we set up a democracy in place of Saddam Hussein's 'government'; This will greatly help the people of Iraq in the future.

There is no democracy in Iraq, because if there were the Shia majority would supress the Sunni minority. So instead we setup a constitution that favors the Sunni, and it is hardly surprising that the Shia 'insurgents' hate us.

Although it had great pros including a sense of security(which is good whether or not its justified), it also had some cons including, huge spending, and some lost life. Whether or not Bush did the right thing here is debatable, but it certainly is not a landslide in any way.

You are ignoring the fact that Bush lied to go to war. Do you need explicit examples of CIA reports that he ignored?

A war with Iran - Should we go to war with Iran? The benefits would be great, but maybe not apparent for the next fifteen years.

Before George W Bush there was no talk of the 'great benefits' of war, instead war was consider to be a very last resort only when it is necessary.

Once going to happen when oil becomes so expensive that middle-class families can only use cars to get to work and back? Possibly a depression?

Yes.

I'd say our best option now is to start drilling in Alaska, and let the import prices drop;

I disagree, what we need is a long-term solution and not a quick fix. This is like a junkie selling his blood every day to get high.

America needs cheaper oil, and more money for that matter. Taking over Iran's oil production will help both of those needs. If Bush did this, I'd say he did the right thing.

Then maybe you should start a branch of government called the 'department of attack'.

Some of the new policies Bush has introduced I dislike, and some I like. That goes with most presidents. Bush had some rough situations as president, and for the most part, I agree with what he did, whether or not the consequences of what he did were good or not.

I agree there were some rough times, but Bush handled it worse then I previously could have imagine. He is a great shame for America.

 

[humanino]

Should we go to war with Iran? The benefits would be great, but maybe not apparent for the next fifteen years.

Multiply that by 10 easily. Your grand grand grand children would still fight terrorists. If you remember, Saddam in 1979 thought Iran is weak and disunited because of the Islamic revolution. And he was right : but what he did not recognize, was that Iran would re-unite in a few days, under the islamic government, to save their own country.

Invading Iran would do the same. That would be the best gift to islamists.

 

[sketchtrack]

What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11? I remember back when that happened, it was the general consensus of the public that we should go to war; We were afraid of another attack. Heck, if the terrorists did it once for no logical reason, why wouldn't they do it again? We had every right to pursue those involved with terrorism. Bush did the right thing here.

A lot of people dislike what George has done because they're plain and simple, anti-war. Well folks, war is necessary, it always has been, and always will be(probably).

Infiltrating Iraq had its pros and cons. Saddam Hussein had ties to the taliban and was suspected of holding weapons of mass destruction, that right there justifies enough for U.N. peacekeepers to infiltrate Iraq. Also, after Saddam Hussein was relieved of duty, we set up a democracy in place of Saddam Hussein's 'government'; This will greatly help the people of Iraq in the future. Although it had great pros including a sense of security(which is good whether or not its justified), it also had some cons including, huge spending, and some lost life. Whether or not Bush did the right thing here is debatable, but it certainly is not a landslide in any way.

A war with Iran - Should we go to war with Iran? The benefits would be great, but maybe not apparent for the next fifteen years. Once going to happen when oil becomes so expensive that middle-class families can only use cars to get to work and back? Possibly a depression? In the next twenty years the United States will need to make a rash decision regarding oil. I'd say our best option now is to start drilling in Alaska, and let the import prices drop; After they drop we can start importing again, and if they go up, repeat the process. But of course, this idea won't happen due to Animal Rights Activists etc. America needs cheaper oil, and more money for that matter. Taking over Iran's oil production will help both of those needs. If Bush did this, I'd say he did the right thing.

Some of the new policies Bush has introduced I dislike, and some I like. That goes with most presidents. Bush had some rough situations as president, and for the most part, I agree with what he did, whether or not the consequences of what he did were good or not.

This topic is specifically about George W. Bush, and the decisions he was forced to make during his presidency. Please don't bring up any other subjects.

The number one reason I don't like him is because he is a liar, and grins about doing it. The second reason is that he abused his position as President of the U.S. buy using our military might, and our budget to enhance his own interests.

Even if you support the war effort in Iraq, Bush failed horribly, making himself unpopular even to those who are war buffs. He shows no respect to the people who actually had to carry the weight by not providing them with adequate protection, letting them go around in un-armored Hummers, he doesn't support veterans benefits. He gets away with more blatant corruption than any president I can think of, and he has no shame.

 

[Evo]

They didn't attack us for no reason, if you read the transcript from any of Bin Laden's videos he says that he attacked us because of our support for Israel.

Actually, his main reason was that we "desecrated' what he considered "holy land" by our troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War.

Having grown up during the Nixon administration, Bush doesn't seem that bad.

 

[cristo]

What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11?

This question is an impossible question to answer, since no one on this forum is privy to the necessary intelligence. Whilst I'm all for questioning some of the decisions made by world leaders, it should not be forgotten that the United States is not a dictatorship- George Bush was elected by your people as the best person to lead your country. This point seems to go out of the window all too much recently, and seemingly no one agrees with his policy decisions. Well, that begs the question, why is he there?

 

[wildman]

I think there are two questions here. These are my opinion on them.

1) Why do people hate Bush?
I think most people who really hate him (versus just disliking the war and the floundering economy) are Democrats. They hate him less for the war than for stealing (in their opinion) the election in 2000 (and by extension in 2004). They never felt that he was legitimate and therefore really President.
2) What would you have done as a response to 9/11?
We were attacked in 9/11 because we supported the Saudi government which the terrorists were trying to overthrow. Keep in mind that we are Saudi Arabia’s protectors. It was (and is) an internal war that we are involved in because we (and the rest of the World) need the Saudi oil.
So what could I do as President? Hmm, anything that would get us and the rest of the World off of Saudi oil would have been a good response.

 

[humanino]

Well, that begs the question, why is he there?

This is an excellent question I wish were addressed.

 

[wildman]

In the next twenty years the United States will need to make a rash decision regarding oil. I'd say our best option now is to start drilling in Alaska, and let the import prices drop; .

There is total of an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR (50% probability level), really the last big field in Alaska. This is a year and a half's supply. If extracted over 30 years (necessary by the physics of oil extraction), this is in the order of 4% of our consumption over the same period assuming consumption remains level. That will not lower imports prices.

 

[Evo]

This is an excellent question I wish were addressed.

It's because a lot of people were so opposed to the alternatives. Al Gore and Kerry. Neither were Presidential material in a lot of people's minds, although both races were very close. The Democrat's just didn't have strong candidates. In 2004 Bush's approval rating had just gone up temporarily, but long enough to win the election.

 

[humanino]

Neither were Presidential material in a lot of people's minds

What criteria were used to decide what should be "presidential material" ?
To me, they forgot to take into account intellect.

 

[russ_watters]

What criteria were used to decide what should be "presidential material" ?
To me, they forgot to take into account intellect.

Au contraire - intellect is the only reason they got as far as they did! For Gore, his personality was his biggest problem and for Kerry, it was largely his involvement in the hippie fringe after Vientam.

Anyway, for the op: the one big mistake you make is the answer to your question! There never was any evidence of Hussein being involved with al Qaeda and 911 and afaik, Bush never even claimed that (though he may have implied it). And regardless of how strong the evidence for WMD was or wasn't, the fact is they didn't find any. So that's probably the biggest reason people hate Bush.

Few people hate Bush for going into Afghanistan. Most people understand that was necessary as a direct response to 911.

 

[sketchtrack]

Bush getting in just goes to show how strong the propaganda machine really is. That plus the fact that most Americans don't do any research for themselves and instead adopt the opinions of people they see on TV.

 

[humanino]

Au contraire - intellect is the only reason they got as far as they did!

I should have thought of that indeed !

 

[falc39]

Infiltrating Iraq had its pros and cons. Saddam Hussein had ties to the taliban and was suspected of holding weapons of mass destruction, that right there justifies enough for U.N. peacekeepers to infiltrate Iraq. Also, after Saddam Hussein was relieved of duty, we set up a democracy in place of Saddam Hussein's 'government'; This will greatly help the people of Iraq in the future. Although it had great pros including a sense of security(which is good whether or not its justified), it also had some cons including, huge spending, and some lost life. Whether or not Bush did the right thing here is debatable, but it certainly is not a landslide in any way.

Sense of security? At what price? Do I need to bring up that Benjamin Franklin quote? The spending alone is horrific, given the state of the economy. And the worse, is what you claim as some lost life. Some lost life? Oh, it's just some lost life. Do you realize how many of their citizens have died? If you look at how many people died in 9/11 compared to how many people have died during the war in response to it, you will realize why so many people are joining the resistance groups to repel the foreign invaders that is the US.

 

[WarPhalange]

What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11?

Gone after the people that did this. What does that mean?

Invade Afghanistan: check
Take out Taliban: check
Find Bin Laden: Oops

Anything else? Nope.

I remember back when that happened, it was the general consensus of the public that we should go to war;

Yes, with the people responsible. That's Afghanistan (ignoring the fact that the terrorists were from what, Saudi Arabia?) because of the Taliban's ties to Al Qaeda.

We were afraid of another attack. Heck, if the terrorists did it once for no logical reason, why wouldn't they do it again?

No logical reason? Go check up your history. We've been meddling with the Middle East for what, centuries now? Some people are tired of it.

We had every right to pursue those involved with terrorism.

Yup.

Bush did the right thing here.

Nope. He didn't go after the right people. And not because of a mistake, either. People make mistakes. What he did was decide that Iraq was the bad guy and try to fake the data (literally) to support their idea. That's not only bad, but illegal because of what it lead to.

The rest of your post is just a bunch of bad conclusions drawn from bad facts.

 

[Crosson]

Well, that begs the question, why is he there?

This is an excellent question I wish were addressed.

The reason that Bush was twice elected and the reason that he has not been impeached for his incompetence/lies is because of one man: Karl Rove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove"

Karl Rove is responsible for using fear of terrorism to get votes for Bush, and for using the war on terror to increase presidential power beyond all reasonable limits. Rove masterminded the political machine that silences calls for investigation into the presidents conduct with the excuse that he must be free to fight terrorists. He took dirty campaigning to a new level by raising the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election. The list of instances goes on, but if you are asking "why did so many Americans vote for Bush?" then the answer is "because those Americans were stupid enough to fall for Karl Rove's political tricks."

For the record, I knew in 2000 before he got elected that Bush wanted to go down in history as a war president. The only people for whom voting for Bush was not a stupid decision are the rich people that benefited from his $1.5 Trillion tax cut.

 

[wildman]

The reason that Bush was twice elected and the reason that he has not been impeached for his incompetence/lies is because of one man: Karl Rove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove"

For the record, I knew in 2000 before he got elected that Bush wanted to go down in history as a war president. The only people for whom voting for Bush was not a stupid decision are the rich people that benefited from his $1.5 Trillion tax cut.

Yea, yea, I was without doubt stupid in 2000. In 2004 though, I voted against Bush. Fooled me once...

 

[WarPhalange]

You ain't going to fool me again!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related

 

[DaveC426913]

What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11? I remember back when that happened, it was the general consensus of the public that we should go to war; We were afraid of another attack. Heck, if the terrorists did it once for no logical reason, why wouldn't they do it again? We had every right to pursue those involved with terrorism. Bush did the right thing here.

It is naive to start the 'what should he have done' clock on the day of 9/11. The clock should be started on the first day of his inauguration, and move forward asking what, if anything, the president did to make peace with the Middle East.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think the US should have even attacked Afghanistan. It was a bad idea. Covert ops mission? Maybe. Work with someone like interpol to track down and pick up terrorists and put more effort and funding into such an international effort? That sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[edward]

Read or watch "Buying the War" it is worth the time and effort. The invasion of Iraq was a sham and a scam.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

 

[chemisttree]

In speeches I would ask the American people to keep perspective, and remind them that 'the only thing to fear is fear itself.'

So you would have given us platitudes to deal with a deadly attack that killed over 3000 american civilians. I'm not surprised.

I would also send covert forces into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden.

We did that... and still didn't capture him.

I also would have dropped support for Israel, since this is, according to the terrorists themselves, the reason that they attacked us.

You need to bone up on http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html" Bin Laden declared war on the US because we had established bases in Saudi Arabia.

I agree that Bush did fine in the first few weeks of Afghanistan, except that he said everything possible in his speeches to make Americans afraid. I think much of the rhetoric about how bad the 9/11 tragedy was exaggerated for Bush's political gain,

This is just total nonsense. Care to elaborate?

It turned out that the Bush administration used dubious sources and exaggerated the evidence that Saddam was a threat, and exaggerated the evidence that he supported the Taliban, and ignored evidence to the contrary that was presented by the CIA.

You should read http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/"

Besides, the UN inspectors had total freedom to search everywhere, and they were making good progress without finding any weapons. Why not wait for the inspectors to finish their job, instead of rushing to war on extremely weak evidence?

I know someone who was a member of the 2002-2003 weapons inspection team. If you think that being rounded up by armed security guards and being allowed off the bus to investigate this site or that (under guard) only after months of waiting for approval from Saddam is total freedom, I wish that version of total freedom upon you someday.

 

[kyleb]

You need to bone up on http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html" Bin Laden declared war on the US because we had established bases in Saudi Arabia.

He did issue with our bases in Saudi Arabia, but in the text of your link he also puts our involvement in Israel's occupation of Palestine right up there with it:

Utmost effort should be made to prepare and instigate the Ummah against the enemy, the American-Israeli alliance- occupying the country of the two Holy Places and the route of the Apostle (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) to the Furthest Mosque (Al-Aqsa Mosque).

Al-Aqsa Mosque being in Israeli occupied East Jerusalem.

You should read http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/"

Clinton didn't say he wanted to go to war with Iraq there, but rather that he still held hope for a diplomatic solution:

And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Regardless, that was back when Iraq actually had weapons capable of causing mass destruction, while Bush attacked Iraq after the threat had been removed.

 

[russ_watters]

It is naive to start the 'what should he have done' clock on the day of 9/11. The clock should be started on the first day of his inauguration, and move forward asking what, if anything, the president did to make peace with the Middle East.

Why limit the question to "what should he have done"? Why not say "what should we have done?" and set it at least 8 years earlier, when al Qaeda got its start by bombing the World Trade Center.

 

[LightbulbSun]

What would you have done if you were the president of the U.S. during 9/11?

I would of gone to war in Afghanistan, like we did, but I would of stayed in Afghanistan until Al-Qaeda was obliterated and Bin Laden was caught.

I remember back when that happened, it was the general consensus of the public that we should go to war; We were afraid of another attack.

Yes, but the general consensus of the public was NOT to fight a war in Iraq.

A lot of people dislike what George has done because they're plain and simple, anti-war. Well folks, war is necessary, it always has been, and always will be(probably).

I dislike George Bush mainly for the Patriot Act, and the exploitation of 9/11 to invade Iraq. I am anti-war in general, but I still do consider war as a last resort option. We're at a point now, I think, where war doesn't need to be the first option.

A war with Iran - Should we go to war with Iran? The benefits would be great, but maybe not apparent for the next fifteen years. Once going to happen when oil becomes so expensive that middle-class families can only use cars to get to work and back? Possibly a depression? In the next twenty years the United States will need to make a rash decision regarding oil. I'd say our best option now is to start drilling in Alaska, and let the import prices drop; After they drop we can start importing again, and if they go up, repeat the process. But of course, this idea won't happen due to Animal Rights Activists etc. America needs cheaper oil, and more money for that matter. Taking over Iran's oil production will help both of those needs. If Bush did this, I'd say he did the right thing.

No, the best option would be to fund research into alternative energy sources. Obviously, this won't happen under Bush because Bush comes from an oil family, but our next president needs to act in this manner.

I am glad you brought up oil because after all, this is the main motivation for being in Iraq.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why limit the question to "what should he have done"? Why not say "what should we have done?" and set it at least 8 years earlier, when al Qaeda got its start by bombing the World Trade Center.

Well, that was the direction I was heading.

I don't know why we lick our wounds and wonder "why do they hate us" when we know perfectly well that they have excellent reasons for doing so.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would of gone to war in Afghanistan, like we did, but I would of stayed in Afghanistan until Al-Qaeda was obliterated and Bin Laden was caught.

The US is still in Afghanistan. And the situation is not so rosy.

 

[edward]

How far back do we need to place the blame. When terrorists first tried to take down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb in February 1993, there was no organized outcry of recrimination against George Herbert Walker Bush, who had left the Oval Office a scant six weeks earlier.

 

[DaveC426913]

How far back do we need to place the blame. When terrorists first tried to take down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb in February 1993, there was no organized outcry of recrimination against George Herbert Walker Bush, who had left the Oval Office a scant six weeks earlier.

Now we're talkin'.

We might want to go back even further and talk about removing Middle Eastern leader and putting puppet leaders in place that suited the West's agenda. And supplying arms to the Middle East when that met the West's agenda. And then realizing we created a monster.

I don't really wish to hijack the thread to rehash world history, I merely wish to make it plain that ANY event in today's world struggles does not start on some specific date where the West got 'done'd us wrong'.

Some day the Western public will be comfortable enough to look at their own role in the events that have transpired.

 

[edward]

Now we're talkin'.

We might want to go back even further and talk about removing Middle Eastern leader and putting puppet leaders in place that suited the West's agenda. And supplying arms to the Middle East when that met the West's agenda. And then realizing we created a monster.

I don't really wish to hijack the thread to rehash world history, I merely wish to make it plain that ANY event in today's world struggles does not start on some specific date where the West got 'done'd us wrong'.

Some day the Western public will be comfortable enough to look at their own role in the events that have transpired.

I agree completely. We support monsters and then have to go back and kill them. The Taliban is one of those monsters.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree completely. We support monsters and then have to go back and kill them. The Taliban is one of those monsters.

Wasn't Saddam aswell?

 

[edward]

Wasn't Saddam aswell?

He was definitely a monster and we definitely did support him for a number of years.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

He was definitely a monster and we definitely did support him for a number of years.

At one time I thought that might be good enough reason in and of itself to go to war in Iraq. That and the continuously perpetuated myth that Saddam had WMDs. I was prone to listening to conspiracy theories for a while (I still find them entertaining).
But it seems to have been a rather gross miscalculation, even on the off chance there are still WMDs hiding in the sand out there somewhere.
Going after Osama/the Taliban and Saddam were both bad ideas. I don't see how just because the US was attacked by some terrorists it gave us the right to bomb the hell out of the country they decided to hide out in. Its too bad assasination is illegal, perhaps for good reason though.

 

[LightbulbSun]

The US is still in Afghanistan. And the situation is not so rosy.

But it's not where the main focus is.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree completely. We support monsters and then have to go back and kill them. The Taliban is one of those monsters.

Ugh. You completely missed the point. We are the monsters.

 

[chemisttree]

He did issue with our bases in Saudi Arabia, but in the text of your link he also puts our involvement in Israel's occupation of Palestine right up there with it:

He mentions Israel briefly but most of the document is a rant about how the Infidel is occupying the land of two holy cities. The Israeli/Palestine situation has been going on now for quite some time yet he waits until the US establishes bases in SA to issue the Fatwa. This is seen by most as being the primary reason he issues the declaration of war...

Clinton didn't say he wanted to go to war with Iraq there, but rather that he still held hope for a diplomatic solution:

Clinton lobbied our allies and the UN Security council for military action or strengthening the UN sanctions during that timeframe. He was unsuccessful in convincing the UN to strengthen the sanctions and so he embarked on a separate military strike plan. This plan was eventually employed as "Operation Desert Fox".

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests. (Was he receiving a briefing about further diplomatic efforts?)

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

Clearly Clinton is laying the groundwork for military action. No other interpretation is possible.

Regardless, that was back when Iraq actually had weapons capable of causing mass destruction, while Bush attacked Iraq after the threat had been removed.

There was never any proof that the threat had been removed. Clinton initiated military strikes in hopes of destroying any in places suspected of having them. The military strike resulted in Saddam kicking out all of the UN inspectors and there was no information indicating that anything had been destroyed or if anything had even been there in the first place.
In late 2002 France and Russia reversed the position they took in the late 90's and helped pass UN Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution gave Saddam a 30 day deadline to give "...a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material." He never did provide the evidence needed to prove that the unaccounted for weapons had been destroyed, even after 4 months.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yeah, the official policy of the US towards Iraq was "regime change" under the Clinton administration. Anyone who thinks there's a "diplomatic" method for achieving that is delusional. That doesn't mean outright invasion by US forces, but it does mean the use of force, and the support of such force by America. And, indeed, Clinton did unapologetically use force against Saddam. The (naive, even ridiculous) hope was that if you keep Saddam weak enough, the people of Iraq would rise up and handle this all themselves. Of course, the sanctions weren't effective at weakening Saddam vis-a-vis the Iraqi population (far from it), and the Iraqi people were far too fragmented, sectionalized and tribalized to ever mount a systemic challenge to the Baathist apparatus in the first place. So the easy strategy of hoping for the best while maintaining the status quo (which included grinding the Iraqi population into dust under Saddam's boot) wasn't going to pan out.

By the time Bush came along, the choice was to either stand back and watch the sanctions regime disintegrate, and with it the security of the Middle East, or take direct action to remove him. The reason to hate Bush is not that he opted for the latter (who wouldn't? it's war either way...), but that he bungled it, and much of the War on Terror, so badly. If the fact of the invasion is what bothers you, you should be directing your ire at Jimmy Carter for screwing up on Iran so badly that we ended up having to support Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.

 

[mheslep]

... The (naive, even ridiculous) hope was that if you keep Saddam weak enough, the people of Iraq would rise up and handle this all themselves. Of course, the sanctions weren't effective at weakening Saddam vis-a-vis the Iraqi population (far from it), and the Iraqi people were far too fragmented, sectionalized and tribalized to ever mount a systemic challenge to the Baathist apparatus in the first place. ...

Agreed, though I would change 'even ridiculous' to 'though understandable' because, as John Burns NYT correspondent points out, the true condition of Iraqi society was not that well understood, at least by the press.

"Five Years"
By JOHN F. BURNS
Published: March 16, 2008

...reporters, too, may wish to make an accounting. If we accurately depicted the horrors of Saddam’s Iraq in the run-up to the war, with its charnel houses and mass graves, we have to acknowledge that we were less effective, then, in probing beneath the carapace of terror to uncover other facets of Iraq’s culture and history that would have a determining impact on the American project to build a Western-style democracy, or at least the basics of a civil society.

... from the exhaustive reporting in the years since, Americans now know how deeply traumatized Iraqis were by the brutality of Saddam, and how deep was the poison of fear and distrust. They also know, in detail, through the protracted trials of Mr. Hussein and his senior henchmen, of the inner workings of the merciless machinery that transported victims to the torture chambers and mass graves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/weekinreview/16jburns.html?pagewanted=2

Burns has elsewhere condemned other reporters from major newpapers for making sweet heart deals w/ Saddam's information people prior to the war.

 

[roam]

Wasn't Saddam aswell?

Saddam was no angel, but he was no devil either. He was a smart leader who managed to trick the western world into giving him weapons and times he needed, but more precisely, this man was the puppet of the west. Once he realized it and tried to stand on his own, he got f... over royally.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This question is an impossible question to answer, since no one on this forum is privy to the necessary intelligence. Whilst I'm all for questioning some of the decisions made by world leaders, it should not be forgotten that the United States is not a dictatorship- George Bush was elected by your people as the best person to lead your country. This point seems to go out of the window all too much recently, and seemingly no one agrees with his policy decisions. Well, that begs the question, why is he there?

Many of us were shocked by his election in 2000, not to mention in 2004. Bush is there because he, Rove, Cheney et al took disinformation and misinformation to new heights. They were assisted by the likes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, hate radio generally, and internet bloggers.

HE is there because he got the radical Christian vote. This was what made GW possible: The religious far right.

HE is there because hate [in this case, the hate of "liberals"] sells better than truth.

 

[drankin]

If the Christian vote is so influential, then liberals will have to influence Christians in order to get into office. If you want to be President you have to kiss up to the Christian voter. Basic politics. Get to work libs.

 

[WarPhalange]

They are working. Every time you hear a politician mention faith, bam, it's sucking up to the Xtians. Obama doing the whole "Faith-based" thing that Bush started?

Clinton saying "My pastor isn't like Wright" instead of saying "Wow these Xtians are bat**** insane"

If either of them let on that they were atheist (if they are, I don't know) they'd drop in polls faster than... than... ummm... really fast.

They don't appeal to the hardcore evangelicals, but let's be serious, libs and evangelicals are polar opposites.

But you have plenty of people who vote Democratic who are still religious, for example blacks and latinos.

 

[wildman]

They don't appeal to the hardcore evangelicals, but let's be serious, libs and evangelicals are polar opposites.

No they aren't. Many evangelicals are quite liberal in many ways. Not in gay rights and abortion, but those are not the only liberal issues in the World. Many evangelicals are very uncomfortable with the Bush Administration's anti-poor stance. That is an opportunity for the Democrats.

Actually, many conservatives support abortion rights. Roe vs. Wade was passed not by the Democrats but by the Republicans (5 of the 7 voting for it were Republicans). The dissent was written by a Moderate Democrat (White) and the majority opinion was written by a Moderate Republican. It is a sign of the brilliance of the Republican political leadership that they managed to blame the Democrats for Roe.

 

[WarPhalange]

Ok, you have a point. But liberals can appeal to evangelicals through the things you mentioned, helping the poor, environmental care, etc. They still wouldn't have to "show their faith" as it seems to be a requirement to do these day to get into politics in the US.

 

[J23Smith]

It is naive to start the 'what should he have done' clock on the day of 9/11. The clock should be started on the first day of his inauguration, and move forward asking what, if anything, the president did to make peace with the Middle East.

He gave Arafat the "high hat," and erased the progress Clinton had spent years making.