Wow - George Bush is a real problem - the U.S. should consider itself lucky to have survived. I'm not sure if he is still awash in spin-doctoring in order to secure his place in history, or if he really wasn't aware of what he was doing during his 8 year tenure.
It's hard to imagine, even given the elapsed time, that the Iraq war can be considered a positive step or a choice that is anything other than foolish. The Afghanistan war was a reasonable reaction to the 9-11 attacks on NY, and the world responded with troops and support. By contrast, the U.S. couldn't even convince Canada to support the Iraq invasion. For George Jr. to suggest that the world opinion was unanimous and that Saddam Hussein represented anything other than a sore in the Bush backside is ridiculous. The timing, in particular, left a lot to be desired - imagine an intelligent response where Afghanistan was given priority and resolved to either a long-term stay (not the preferred outcome) or an actual free-standing democracy (the ultimate goal) and then using that as a base, it would be much easier to deal with Iraq in any reasonable manner from pressure to invasion.
The biggest problem I have is there seems to be little acknowledgment that having "strong feelings" of "relying on faith" is only part of decision making - there is a need to get and acknowledge other opinions. Iraq is the biggest blunder, and he doesn't mention that the initial 9-11 response to Afghanistan produced targets in Iraq because Rumsfeld and Cheny didn't think there were enough targets in Afghanistan - a stronger sign of the parallel objective toward Iraq from election night onward.
The other non-acknowledged issue is the reaction that Bush had to the very narrow (and arguable) victory over Al Gore. Wouldn't a normal person see the division in the country and make a compromise or conciliatory administration to heal wounds - wouldn't that have been a more positive presidency?
No comments:
Post a Comment