I’m not comparing Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I see the differences, and I acknowledge them.
I still disagree. Israel does go into places where terrorists are harbored. In 2001, they reoccupied Gaza, Bethlehem, and Jenin in order to root out the terrorist infrastructure. Yeah, this is not an exact analogy. Most people did not accuse the Palestinian Authority itself of terrorism – they accused Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade of terrorism. Some of these organizations are very close with the PA, some would be happy to see its destruction. Israel went in there and violated whatever fledgling sovereignty the PA had because it felt terrorists were being harbored. I’m not saying that this action was right, nor am I saying that I support the action. I am saying that Israel sought to improve its security situation at the expense of others’ sovereignty.
The US did nearly the same. We had the added advantage that the Taliban, who were known to be harboring top people in al Qaeda, was already very unpopular (remember the Bamiyan Buddhas?). Under Gore, I can see us cooperating with other unsavory regimes in the region – Saudi, Egypt, perhaps even Iran. But with a regime as extreme, as unstable and as unpopular as the Taliban, it was far easier to go in there and give the final nudging that the Northern Alliance needed.
I should hope the American public is not as simpleminded as to think that the Taliban itself was solely responsible for 9/11. They certainly were complicit, however, and with refusing to turn over Osama in the days following 9/11, they signed their death warrant. This conflicts greatly with Iraq – there was no Iraqi complicity (as much as the administration says so), the Baathists were far more popular, they (again to use Wolfowitz’s words) were floating on a sea of oil, and in 34 years Saddam had completely eradicated any opposition. It presents a far hairier picture, and I agree that Gore would have stayed away.
Troops in harm’s way generally do deserve support, and I would never grudge them that. But putting troops in harm’s way for questionable purposes demands strident protest - if not to get those troops out of such a situation immediately (which in this case is not practical), then at least to find out how and why those troops were put in that position in the first place.
I’m very surprised that Bush is not getting the kind of roasting Blair is (in the UK). Doesn’t America want to know why their troops are dying in Iraq?
Chance, we will undoubtedly continue to disagree forever. While A.Q. was not, strictly speaking the “government” in Afghanistan, they were harbored, aided and encouraged by those in power. That group had to go. Had to. I was very proud of GWB (even though I did not vote for him) when he stood in the rubble of the WTC and said “I hear you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us – real soon.” So were the construction workers, police, firemen and other New Yorkers who cheered those words. He’s no Tony Blair when it comes to speaking, but there is something about him that large numbers of folks feel a real kinship with. Of course those of us who are only as in touch with real life as a CRT screen and a modem will let us be may not feel the same way.
I fail to see how another 9 months would have helped Al Gore capture Osama bin Laden when the Democratic administration he was part of failed to do so in the previous 8 years between 9/11/01 and the WTC bombing. 9/11 would have still happened because we believed we were not vulnerable like the rest of the world. By “we” I mean everyone from the president on down.
He would have still go into Afghanisstan, but no way he would have gone into Iraq. And we would still be debating about the Patriot Act. That has some good and bad points, but basically I think Gore would have taken much longer to make any real changes to prevent further attacks and these delays could very well have resulted in more attacks. I don't agree with everything Bush has done and don't agree with everything in the Patriot act, but I think anything Gore would have favored likely would have been pretty weak and may well have ended up too weak prevent much of anything. Preservation of the status quo for civil liberties would have been much more likely.
The economy would still suck. As much as people vote based on the economy, I don't think the president has nearly the influence on it we like to think.