Monday, July 4, 2011
Right (As in Correct) to a Point
I consider myself the nuanced guy. You might even say that I live for ambiguity. But on this particular set of topics, folks, I am prepared to be quite crystal clear. President Bush was RIGHT to go after al Qaeda. He was RIGHT to not give the Taliban evidence pertaining to Mr. bin Laden's guilt. And he was VERY RIGHT to not agree to turn bin Laden over to an organization presided over by people such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and the Iranian mullahs.....................................................................................................Of course, after having uttered THAT, this same President Bush was WRONG (as in negligent) in allowing Mr. bin Laden to escape to Pakistan/Jalalabad. He was WRONG in turning this Afghanistan mission into a nation-building/counter-insurgency enterprise. And he was certainly WRONG in going to war in Iraq. Hm, what was the lyric from that old Kenny Rogers song, "You gotta know when to hold, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run......" Mr. Bush, in my opinion, was very good at holding them. He just didn't know when to fold 'em/walk away. One could even conceivably call that his legacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Why was he right to not turn over evidence to the Taliban?
Just the absurdity of it, John. The fact that we have to justify ourselves to a regime like that. And what if they didn't like our evidence and/or we couldn't give it to them because of national security concerns? Destroy the terrorist organization as completely as possible and then get the hell out. That would have been my strategy.
Afghanistan invasion = illegal
bush = war criminal
Being a republican means never having to admit a mistake or say you're sorry.
Options. It is always about options. We could always bomb/invade them. Why not try other options first? The lives saved, besides all the money, makes it worth it.
I don't see where the "absurdity" is.
Jerry, there were minimal civilian casualties during the early phases of that invasion. The people that we were killing then were predominantly al Qaeda. If Bush had gone full throttle and sent in special ops to go after bin Laden, we could have wrapped up the mission in basically 6 months. As for "weighing options", that would have allowed more of the terrorists to escape into Pakistan. Bush made a lot of mistakes but his decision (buttressed by a 518-1 vote in Congress and a UN resolution) to go after those slimeballs in Afghanistan WASN'T even remotely one of them.
Truth, this isn't a partisan issue at all. The Joint resolution passed both houses 518-1, and it was sponsored by Tom Daschle. Please, don't fall prey to wd's blind and excessively rabid form of vitriol.
Will: You are falling into a terrible trap of looking at all the facts. Of not giving up critical thinking (a failure which results in seeing everything in black and white).
As a result, the Bush worshippers and the pure anti-Bush hatemongers will be your enemies.
Will: If Bush had gone full throttle and sent in special ops to go after bin Laden, we could have wrapped up the mission in basically 6 months.
Hahahaha. That's funny. bush NEVER hand any intention of going after bin Laden. bush LET him go. On purpose... because if he had captured him the American people would have considered the mission accomplished and would NEVER have signed off on Iraq (the country bush wanted to invade even before 9/11).
The decision to reject the Taliban offer to turn over bin Laden was made by the bush administration... Tom Daschle wasn't consulted.
The UN did NOT approve the invasion.
In a 2002 article professor of international law Francis Boyle said, "[The Afghanistan war was not] approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law".
Will,
You need to look at what is, not what you wish it was.
To play Devil's advocate, just because I love the Evil One so much, on principle, one government should never have the right to tell another government to turn anyone over without offering a compelling reason why. "Because we are more powerful than you and we do not approve of your government" is not good enough.
Unlike many others, I was all for going after Bin Laden. However, the honorable thing to do would have been to be transparent, not haughty. We could have acted with obvious righteousness if we had conducted ourselves in this manner. Instead, we declared that if you are not with us, you are against us, and if you are against us, you are dead. That is an imperialistic attitude, and is not one we have earned the right to have.
John: As bin Laden had already been proven to have caused 9/11, and he was proud of doing so, there was an extremely compelling reason already.
There was no imperialistic attitude at all, except perhaps by the Taliban government, which wanted to wipe out Israelis, force terrorist rule on everyone, etc.
wd, a series of UN security Council Resolutions (starting with 1363) approved our actions. This illegal stuff is purely a product of the hateful far-left.............Tom Daschle is a patriot. He would have never, ever, EVER, agreed to that idiotic offer by the Taliban (evidence LOL - like dmarks said, bin Laden and the rest of those frigging knuckle-draggers bragged about it). And you what else, I doubt that even Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich (2 of the biggest isolationists in the Congress) would have accepted it, either. You and Mr. Sanders are dancing on the head of a pin on this one.............As for Mr. Bush letting bin Laden escape on purpose, that sounds a little paranoiac to me - not to mention unprovable.
John, we were attacked by a terrorist organization. Afghanistan was giving that terrorist organization safe haven and they refused to cooperate with us. The House and Senate passed (sponsored by Senator Daschle) a joint resolution 518-1 to give Mr. Bush authorization. The initial response to go after al Qaeda and bin Laden was completely justified, in my opinion.............Now, did Mr. Bush muck things up several months after that? Of course he did! And, yes, his language wasn't helpful at all. But, come on, to pile on the guy for wanting to annihilate those terrorist training camps and kill as many of them as possible, that's a little bit much, in my opinion.
Will said: "Afghanistan was giving that terrorist organization safe haven and they refused to cooperate with us."
Not only that, the two have been in lock step for a very long time.
Will: The House and Senate passed (sponsored by Senator Daschle) a joint resolution 518-1 to give Mr. Bush authorization.
The Congress never voted on a resolution to invade Afghanistan. The resolution you are referring to is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. The resolution does not mention the Taliban, bin Laden, or how an offer to turn OBL over might be handled. The Congress never voted on any of these things.
One thing is for certain, and that is the resolution put far too much power in bush's hands... which he greatly abused. The Congress should have known better. I applaud those who voted against it. They are true American heroes.
OH...MY...GOD. "the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" - THAT IS WHAT I'M ARGUING FOR!!! I have said on numerous occasions that, once in fact this mission morphed into a nation-building/counter-insurgency one, I completely ceased supporting it. It's like, what, do simply not read my words? Do you not comprehend them? WHAT?
And as for the Democrats not being in support of this war, BULLSHIT! There was not a single Democrat that I can recall saying that we shouldn't be there FIGHTING THE TALIBAN (I was WAY ahead of the Democrats on this one, buddy). In fact, they were tripping all over themselves saying that Afghanistan was the GOOD WAR and that Mr. Bush was flat-out negligent in ignoring it. It was an frigging Obama talking-point, for Christ!!!!!!!!
And I challenge you. Find me one mainstream Democratic politician who EVER criticized Mr. Bush for a) not giving the Taliban evidence that Mr. bin Laden was involved in 9/11 or b) not agreeing to turn Mr. bin Laden over to some Islamic Council that had S. Hussein, Gaddafi, and the Iranian mullahs as some of its charter members. ONE.
I said, "The resolution you are referring to is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists".
And in response you say, "OH...MY...GOD. the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - THAT IS WHAT I'M ARGUING FOR!!!"
In other words I say you are for "A"... and you say you can't believe I DON'T KNOW you are for "A".
Obviously it is you who is failing to comprehend my words.
I also have no clue what-so-ever why you're calling "bullshit" on a claim I NEVER made. Or pointing out that Obama was FOR the war (which I know). More proof that it is YOU who is failing to comprehend MY words.
I challenge YOU to find any (pre-invasion) statement from ANY Congressperson that acknowledges the offer from the Taliban and rejects it.
You're right, I have no idea what you're talking about. If Mr. Bush's rejection of the Taliban offer was such an outrageous move, why is it that NOT ONE mainstream Democratic office holder has since spoken up against it?......And if this Afghanistan War is such an illegal war (I've opposed it since mid-2003 - mainstream Democrats, not so much!!) why didn't more mainstream Democratic officials speak up against it from 2001-2009 (as opposed to saying that it was the "just war")? Are the Democrats part and parcel (hell, with a Democratic President, they're frigging kingpins now) to an illegal war?
I have a lot more faith in the Democrats than you do, apparently (well, at least in this one respect). I cannot fathom a single Democratic member of the House or Senate that would have ever, EVER, conceded to those ridiculous demands put forth by the Taliban. a) You don't give the Taliban anything vital (and, yes, inculpatory evidence against Mr. bin Laden no doubt would have been). b) You don't hand over authority to an organization that's steered (even partially) by Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc.. You just frigging don't. And c) it wasn't just bin Laden that we needed to annihilate. We needed to take out as much of the al Qaeda organization as we could, their training facilities included.......Man, are you ever effed up on this one.
"I challenge YOU to find any (pre-invasion) statement from ANY Congressperson that acknowledges the offer from the Taliban and rejects it."
Why would anyone even bother to mention joke offers laden with ridiculous conditions?
Will: Isn't it ludicrous for anyone to argue that bin Laden should have been turned over to this terrorist quasi-court which has been discussed?
It's beyond ludicrous, dmarks. In fact, I can't think of another person (perhaps even Bernie Sanders included) who would even contemplate it.
As if there'd be any justice in the terrorist court some wanted bin Laden handed over to.
Beyond ludicrous = all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
Post a Comment