Originally Posted by
country978
"GW Bush was too committed to what he thought was right." This is the best you've got on him? I just can't let this go without pointing out that this scoundrel is a war criminal, a draft dodger and a dim wit. What exactly did he think was right? WMD in Iraq? Engaging in 2 simultaneous wars lasting an entire generation? Presiding over a housing and financial crisis of his own doing? Fuck him! Turn that asshole over to the Iraqi's and let him hang just like Saddam. I can't even stand the sight of his daughter who looks just like him.
History has somewhat been rewritten regarding GW Bush, with the benefit of hindsight.
He had to deal with three tough situations which he inherited by both circumstance and mishandling from the previous (Clinton) Administration.
1) Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were allowed to grow and thrive in Afghanistan, despite a very clear indication for years that they were planning an attack on the US homeland. They had already attacked other US interests, such as the USS Cole, but Clinton was so obsessed with popularity that he chose not to get involved in any military action.
2) Saddam Hussein, who was allowed to live thanks to GW Bush's father (an an effort to keep the region stable), was becoming an increasing headache, and had been pursuing WMD ever since the first Gulf War ended.
3) The economy fell apart because much of it was based upon the first dotcom boom, and in 2001 everyone realized that most of these companies were worthless (much like is happening with crypto presently, except it won't have such an effect on the broader economy).
#1 and #3 came to a head in 2001, which led to increased pressure to finally do something about #2 after 12 years of bullshit from Saddam.
The real mistake on the part of GW Bush was to buy into all of the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" nonsense being pushed in his direction by his underlings. There was no strong evidence of this. In fact, his hawkish staff, including Dick Cheney, may have outright lied to him, in order to get him to go along with the 2003 Iraq War.
People laugh today at the "absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence" line from back then, but it's actually true. Saddam agreed since 1991 to stop pursuing WMDs, and to cooperate with UN inspectors about the matter. Not only did he repeatedly refuse to cooperate, but there was a lot of evidence that he was at the very least pursuing a WMD program, before either hiding it or destroying it when it seemed he was on the verge of being attacked by the West again. This dance between Saddam and the UN occurred over and over for 12 years, to where you could watch a 1991 news report about it in 2002, and believe it was current if someone told you that. Something had to be done, as he was clowning the UN over and over. By the time we invaded, no WMDs were found, but so what? He may have dismantled them. He may not have gotten as far as we thought. But who cares? He was definitely pursuing them for the prior 12 years, and this was going to continue for as long as he remained in power.
The problem was that much of the justification to invade was "al-Qaeda is in Iraq, too", and that was bullshit. So people felt duped by that, and even further duped when no WMDs were actually found. This made the 2003 Iraq War look pointless, and the loss of American life seemed even more tragic.
Had they simply just been straightforward about Iraq, and basically stated that Saddam has been an ongoing pain in the ass who won't comply with his agreements, and is clearly pursuing WMDs over and over, I think there would have been much less criticism of the invasion -- even when no WMDs were ultimately found.
And the Patriot Act? You have to remember the time. Yes, it was government overreach, but the public supported it, as did most Democrats. People were scared that terrorists were right here on US soil, planning the 9/11 attack, and that restrictions on warrantless monitoring somewhat prevented its discovery. Al-Qaeda promised bigger and more powerful attacks in the future, and people wanted that stopped. In hindsight, it was a mistake, because you simply can't give such powers to the government without abuse inevitably occurring. However, it's not fair to judge GWB upon something that the vast majority wanted at the time.
And I'll say this -- the Patriot Act pales in comparison to COVID restrictions, when it comes to government overreach.
Reply With Quote
