It was entered into without any planning as to exactly what we as a nation were hoping to accomplish. We wanted…vengeance? To get rid of the current government there, and replace it with [vague ideas about Democracy and Justice]? To kick some ass because we were pissed off and there was a marginal connection between the government of Afghanistan and the Saudi nationals who killed people on 9/11?
But it seems that no one really stopped to truly lay out a solid reason and plan, and we charged in looking for a fight, and were extremely surprised when we got one. As far as I can tell we expected to be hailed as liberators and heroes, when perhaps the primary image of America in Afghanistan was when we said, “Yes! Rah, rah, fight the Soviets! We’ll help you beat those commies!” and then when it came time to clean up the mess from beating the commies, we were nowhere to be found.
Eight years later we’re still bogged down there and the country isn’t significantly better off for our efforts, we haven’t exactly brought anyone to justice, and there’s no real reason to believe that the situation will improve anytime soon.
Hell if I know. Because he’s extremely inexperienced and blindly listening to military advisers? Because he’s more of an aggressive, imperialistic jerk than he seems? Because he too buys into the thinking that the only way to stop the fighting is by fighting even more? Your guess is as good as mine.
He wants something to do? I have a damn good suggestion [post=9551714]here[/post]. Assuming he doesn’t have the balls to take a plane to The Hague and remand himself to the international war crimes tribunal. Hey, Dubya - prove you’re a man and take the consequences of your actions.
I disagree. Now, I dislike Bush as much as anyone. (Well, there are some who are pretty rabid. Suffice it to say that he’s on my Not My Friend list.) But I think we were justified going into Afghanistan and think it was the right decision. We knew bin Laden was there. We requested the Taliban government turn him over. When they didn’t, we told that government ‘Turn over bin Laden or else.’ Our solid reason was that we were going to go in and capture or kill the person responsible for the WTC attacks.
But as the former Soviets could have told us, Afghanistan is that it’s a rough country to fight in. The British could have told us too. So when we didn’t capture bin Laden ‘Dead or Alive’, as Bush promised, Bush started saying, ‘bin Who? I don’t really think about him. Hey, guys! Look over there! Saddam’s bad, m’kay?’
Was there a solid reason for the invasion of Afghanistan? Yes. A solid plan? No. This is why the situation has been getting worse of late. They’ve been bringing in a lot of new people of late and trying some new things (I’m not a military expert, so I don’t know what exactly to say about these new things) and I hope they work. Speaking as a pinko liberal who wishes Obama were more left-wing, I support the war in Afghanistan 100%. The disruption and lawlessness in Afghanistan is a mess that has the potential to disrupt all of Central Asia; it’s already doing so in Pakistan, and it could easily spread to other countries in the region. It’s already terrible and will only continue to get worse unless someone (guess who?) steps up and does something about it. Not to mention, the Taliban are atrocious and cannot be allowed to regain control of the country. (Or any more of it than they already have.)
The subsequent invasion of Iraq and relegation of Afghanistan to the back burner were unbelievably bad decisions. It’ll be a cold day in hell before I feel sorry for George Bush for anything. Jesus fucking christ he was a shitty president.
I wish I was still in touch with the former coworker who kept telling me, back in 2002 and 2003, that ‘I won’t be alive; but mark my words: In 50 years Bush will be seen as one of our greatest Presidents.’ I told him he was wrong then, and I wish I could tell him now.
It seems quite clear now that he has undertaken as much planning for the post-presidency phase of his life as he did for the post-invasion phase of the Iraq war.
Perhaps he thought the good citizens of Crawford would welcome him with rose petals at his feet and all would be jubilation thereafter.
Can’t he round up a foursome for golf or at least take Laura to a baseball game? The man seems to be bored out of his mind. Ya know, that brush out in Crawford isn’t going to clear itself, George.
Yeah, it’s a reworking of one of Clarkes’s Laws {the third?} about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from actual malice: I dunno who came up with the reworking - it could have been Niven for all I know, although I wish to God it had been me - but I read it first on this board and thought it was both pithy and true.
I admit I started to feel a little sorry for the guy while reading those little stories at the beginning of the article. But by most accounts he was always very grateful and friendly.
To people who supported him.
It was his behaviour toward people who didn’t agree with him that so often infuriated me during his term. Flippant dismissal of opposing viewpoints is beyond contemptible when serious issues are being decided. He wanted to be surrounded by people that agreed with him. Further reading of the article indicates that nothing has changed. He’s still surrounded by rich Republicans that support him. Just like he was in the White House.
Sympathy? Get back to me when he shows an ounce of remorse for all the damage he’s done.
