I’m guessing that it’s just that they know and are glad for what Bush said and did and that beats thinking/hoping someone else *would have *done the same thing. Perhaps some recall the large segment of the left that did oppose ousting the Taliban and worry that Gore would have listened to them. I don’t think he could have (politically), even if he wanted to, but that’s me. I also think Gore, like Bush, would have recognized that the practicalities in Afghanistan mitigate against doing much more reconstuction there than we are now.
For my own self, the question is not about the immediate response to 9/11, which as we have said any responsible Admin would have done (perhaps better or worse in execution but similar in strategy), but rather what is going to be done about the underlying problem.
As I said in the other thread I linked to, I regard fundamentalist Islam as mortal opponent of Western Civilization that must be dealt with. I am not crazy about the neocon infectious-democracy plan or the admin’s execution of it, but at least it’s a plan. What I hear from the left are variations on head-in-the-sand denials that there is a threat, abject wussism, assertions that the UN should be in charge and (from the nominee) vague me-tooism of questionable sincerity.
Joe Lieberman is a good and, above all, serious and responsible man who I would have happily pulled a lever for. The fact that he finished in a heat with Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich tells me a lot about the Democratic party and where it’s heading
In a better world I’d chide you for your cynicism. In this one I’ll praise you for grasping the roots of a basic truth that eludes many people twice your age.
In truth, I think many of them mean well; but Lord Acton comes into play.
I agree. So I’ll try once more to simplify:
In the last presidential election there were two possible outcomes. We wound up with Bush. Many have said that, looking at 9/11, they’re glad that Bush prevailed, and not others (really meaning Gore), because of those actions taken by Bush. He went after OBL and the Taliban. So far, pretty reasonable. And likely what Gore would have done. But OBL somehow evaded capture, and here’s where I think Bush and Gore might have taken different paths. Bush invaded Iraq, partly on the premise (Hmmm, promise?) that Saddam was aiding OBL.
Is this the part where Bush supporters become glad that Gore didn’t take office? Because this is mostly what they seem to talk about, not the attack of 9/11.
Peace,
mangeorge
A) Bird in hand: they saw Bush do a good job, Gore might have.
B) Some on the left did oppose military action in Afghanistan.
C) Bush is addressing the root cause (a hostile Arab culture), not just the symptom (OBL).
Ok. My milage does most definitely vary, though. These supporters obstinately insist that Bush’s reaction to 9/11 was a great one, even though the threat of another attack by the same people (according to the admin’s own claims) is at least as great now as it ever was.
I just don’t get it.
Oh, and Gore is most certainly not “some on the left”. Not by a long shot.
I’ll give you plenty. First, Bush attacked the Taliban a mere three weeks after 9/11. He did so in spite of worldwide protests against the attack, and the objection of many Democrats in Congress. Would Gore or Kerry have gone after the Taliban? Probably. But not as quickly, and perhaps not as thoroughly. Rather than launching a full-scale invasion and overthrow of the Taliban government, I find it plausible that they might have opted for selected air strikes, maybe some Special Forces incursions, etc.
But I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have acted as quickly, because they were calling for ‘more dialog’, and ‘more international cooperation’. They wanted the U.N. involved. They wanted lots of talk, lots of debate, some resolutions and votes, etc. Bush was the ‘cowboy’, with the ‘wild west mentality’.
Now we know that al-Qaida had planned a series of secondary attacks on the west coast of the U.S., but they were caught off-guard by the rapid response of the U.S., which NO ONE expected. Bush’s ‘cowboy’ attitude may well have saved thousands of other lives in the U.S.
Then there’s the Patriot act, which was met with widespread opposition from Democrats, including most on this board. There was the arrest of Jose Padilla, the Lackawanna Five, and countless other detentions and deportations that were fought tooth and nail by Democrats. Well, the 9/11 commission has said that the Patriot Act is one of the best tools available for fighting the war on terror.
And of course, neither Gore nor Kerry would have gone after Iraq (well, Kerry’s an open question, because he wanted to overthrow Saddam back in 1996. But then he was against it in 1998. But he wanted to overthrow him again later. Until he was against it again. So who knows?
This is a joke, right? Go look up how many troops Bush sent to Afghanistan, compare that to how many troops Bush sent to Iraq, and the fiction that Bush did a “thorough” job falls flat on its face.
The point is that he attacked them without delay, rocking al-Qaida back on their heels and forcing them to run and hide instead of planning their next attack. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed has said during interrogation that al-Qaida was caugth off-guard by the rapid response and forced to abandon their plan for follow-up attacks on the west coast.
When Bush ordered the attack, he was widely derided for it around the world because he hadn’t given ‘peace’ enough of a chance before ‘recklessly’ going to war. Good thing he didn’t listen.
I don’t suppose it occured to you that we can’t really sustain many more troops in Afghanistan? It’s landlocked. That means it doesn’t border the oceans. Not even a little bit. That means our supplies are either A) Flown in, B) Sent in through Russia, into the -stans, and into Afghanistan, or C) Sent to Pakistan, then on into Afghanistan.
C) is not used much. Reasons of regional politics. B) is takes a really long time, and we don’t trust the central Russian rail system much. A) is pretty much at its sustainable limit; We can send in more, but the airfleet couldn’t maintain that tempo indefinitely. So ~20,000 light infantry and some choppers and aircraft are it.
Hey, you sit there and compare the numbers, Clausewitz. It’s easy and it doesn’t take much actual knowledge! But don’t worry yourself with the actual facts behind those numbers; It could have a negative effect on your blog-created view of the world.
I am glad to see you now make not claims about the size of these protests rather than suggesting that they were larger than those regarding the war in Iraq when they were in fact smaller generally by more than order of magnitude.
Also, how many Democrats in Congress objected? I agree with you that the number was not zero, but it wasn’t very many either.
We know this from how? In the past, you have provided us with a cite to a Washington Times story claiming that one of the captured Al Qaeda folks made some claims. However, his claims sounded so implausible that I don’t think we can give them much credibility. (E.g., I believe he implied the hijacking of other planes to be used as missiles…a plan very unlikely to work without the element of surprise [and also with increasing security on the planes], as the plane downed in Pennsylvania demonstrated.)
Actually, that act was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress, althoug few of them had bothered to read and understand what was in it. Now, thoughtful Democrats (and Republicans like Bob Barr) want to get rid of certain provisions of the act which have a very chilling effect on civil liberties while having few real benefits. If you could lead to the part of the 9/11 commission report claimed that the controversial provisions have been one of the best tools available, I’d be most grateful.
I am really surprised that a libertarian such as you are so blind to the potential dangers of giving the government any more powers than it really needs.
Very cute. But, I would take a President who sometimes changes his mind over one who decides his policies on the basis of ideology and with ignorant disregard for the facts and then sells them with whatever facts and fictions are useful.
Okay, let me get this straight. Are you claiming that the U.S. military is not capable of having more troops on the ground in a “landlocked country”???!?? This sounds a bit suspicious to me. Care to back it up with some reputable cites?
Well hell, Sam. I went agoogling to counter some of your assertions and came back all prepared, then I read jshore’s post above.
Damn.
So, how’s the weather there?
No, I am claiming that the U.S. military cannot indefinitely sustain more than the current troop levels in Afghanistan without serious problems. We could certainly ‘surge’ more forces in, but that would have a serious impact on our airlift capabilities (all those transport aircraft would then be down for needed maintenance at roughly the same time; Right now we are using them a bit slower than we can maintain them, giving us a little surplus.) But airlift can only carry so much. If they had a port, we could, in time, maintain whatever troops levels we desired over there. In the meanwhile, if someone knows a way of miracling MREs and bullets into the theater, I am sure the Pentagon would be interested…
Afghanistan isn’t only landlocked, it is damned far from anything resembling a friendly port, and the infrastructure in the area blows. You can only move so much supplies from the -stans by road, you know. (Shitty roads.) Besides, there aren’t that many landlocked nations in the world, and they all seem to be in the 3rd world. No ‘great powers’, certainly.
As for cites, what, my post is not my cite? Oh, fine:
According to this cite, Gallup polling showed the following support for Bush’s attacks on Afghanistan:
In the U.S., support for ‘military action’ was high, but,
This was my recollection… Democrats at the time were all about ‘finding the guilty and punishing them’, but many thought that Bush was ‘rushing to war’ and being a ‘reckless cowboy’ and not giving as much attention to world opinion as he should.
I will admit that the Congress itself was pretty united on the Afghanistan issue (only one dissenting Democrat on the anti-terror resolution which included authorization to attack the Taliban - I had thought it was more, but I was wrong), although Bush was clearly the out-front leader on the timing. My personal opinion is that John Kerry wouldn’t have been nearly as tough. Bush refused to even negotiate with the Taliban. They even offered to serve up Bin Laden to an Islamic court, and Bush didn’t even entertain their suggestion. The response from the White House was, and I quote, “What part of “no negotiations” do you not understand?” About this time Bush uttered his, “Wanted - dead or alive” comment, and called them “Evil-doers”, much to the derision of the Democratic faithful on the SDMB.
My feeling is that had Kerry or Gore been in power, Afghanistan would have been attacked, but not for some time. They would have done the U.N. dog and pony show first, maybe negotiated longer with the Taliban, etc. But that’s just my opinion. Which is about all you can ask for when the question is, “Do you think the other guy would have done things differently?”
One thing I’d like to know from those of you who keep claiming that Bush is ignoring Afghanistan: How do you know? Why isn’t it possible that the U.S. has all the troops there that it can reasonably find jobs for? Short of forming a big conga-line and walking the country from end to end (and then on into Afghanistan), just what are American troops supposed to be doing in Afghanistan right now? I know, “Hunting for Bin Laden”. HOW? And isn’t that an intelligence/CIA/Special Forces kinda gig? What are you going to do with a bunch of 20 year old army soldiers there?
Is the military asking for more troops? Is the Afghan government asking for more soldiers? Is the CIA complaining that they could find Bin Laden if only there were more soldiers in country?
Sam, what all your misdirection doesn’t address is this key point: **the Afghanistan war has failed its primary objective and is apparently losing one of the key secondary objectives, too. **
What you’re trying not to admit is that military expert after expert has said Bush was NOT aggressive enough in pursuing al-Qaida, that the Afghanistan war was stupidly fought, and that the use of traditional, conventional means - especially the failure to get substantial ground troops in the area bin Laden was known to be at the beginning of the war - allowed bin Laden to escape. You cannot deny bin Laden has not been captured and that al-Qaida remains a significant force in world terror, nor can you deny that US-backed allies don’t control Afgahnistan outside Kabul.
What an opinion poll in Mexico has to do with that, I cannot imagine. Who gives a crap? The only issue that matters is Bush’s competence in fighting the war on terror, and he has simply not achieved the main goals after three years of effort, and the main reason is that he and his administration were distracted by their obsession with a completely separate war of their own making. Christ, man, it’s time you started smelling the damned coffee.
Now, would Kerry have fought a better war in 2001? Maybe, maybe not. But he certainly couldn’t have done worse. He couldn’t have done a worse job in finding bin Laden. He would have been smart enough to stay out of Iraq and concentrate on the war against terror. That’s the WORST you could have expected.
It still doesn’t change the fact that the Iraq war is not a part of the war against terror and took resources away from the war against terror.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden is still running around at large two-and-a-half years after the 9/11 attacks is sufficient proof Bush bungled the whole Afghanistan/Al Qaeda bruhaha. How the Bush apologists can claim George is “strong on terrorism” with that blemish on his record is beyond me.
Do me a favor. Ask them how they would feel if the draft were re-enacted, and if that would change their view. It is easy to sit in the ivory tower and theorize with a Starbucks in your hand.
And regarding other comments about NASCAR voters and the South in general…why is everyone pussyfooting around the truth. Most of the states in the South are idiots. Period.
Bush could bomb London, ban the Constitution and beat a baby seal to death on live television and still win those states.
