In his first 9-11 since leaving the White House, former President George Bush issued the following statement through his spokesman:
“Eight years ago, our nation and our freedom came under attack. On this solemn anniversary, Laura and I hold the victims and their families in our thoughts and prayers. We honor those who volunteer to keep us safe and extend the reach of freedom — including members of the armed forces, law enforcement officers, and intelligence and homeland security professionals. Their courage, service and sacrifice is a fitting tribute to all those who gave their lives on Sept. 11, 2001. On this day, let us renew our determination to prevent evil from returning to our shores.”
Most of George Bush’s presidency was defined by 9-11 and its aftermath. Has much changed since then? Are his words still relevant? Was he offering his opinion about Afghanistan and Iraq?
There is quite a stir going on now about sending more troops into Afghanistan. Is it necessary? I thought President Obama was committed to finishing things in Afghanistan. Is he faltering now like Congress?
No one remembers Bush before 9/11 except that he blew the Clinton Era budget surplusses and exploded the national debt in one giant tax giveaway for the wealthiest 1 percent.
After 9/11 was another story. He was defined, not by it, but by his reaction. I was very proud of the speech he gave at the National Cathedral. I liked the bravado of saying the terrorists would hear from us soon. I won’t dwell on all the blunders, scandals, and fudging the intelligence to fit the policy, except to say that America’s “freedom” was never threatened by any terrorist or any terrorist act.
No. Our freedom was threatened by Bush’s reaction to the 9/11 attack, which was to panic and abdicate to Dick Cheney.
Nevermind that the wealthiest 1 percent already pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 of the total taxes in America, and some 40+ percent of the population doesn’t pay a dime in income tax.
Slow
Very profound comment re 9/11!
I don’t know what to think about Bush and 9-11 except to say that a prolonged war isn’t the answer to terrorism. We need to protect our borders and have eyes and ears all over the world. That doesn’t mean we need to blow up our troops and other countries.
Slow, people like me don’t fare well with people like Bush who ignore domestic policy and give big banks a free ride to rip us off with no repercussions. Get screwed over for huge amounts of money and then get told you have no legal protection. You might feel differently.
Recall Bushie never did anything about the immigration issue, either. Nah, I’m no fan of his. But I’m not one of those “everything is the President’s fault” people either. In fact, I think it’s more about Congress which had the lowest satisfaction rating during the Bush years. Sounds like the whole government was messed up, eh? Quite a legacy to leave the next president, no matter who won. I don’t think any president succeeding Bush would be considered a popular one for the simple reason s/he would have to clean up the mess.
Send our troops home and let’s fix our country.
Pinko, would you really want to bring the troops home now, especially from Afghanistan?
As much as I disliked HOW we got into Iraq, and as much as I think we rushed into Iraq without finishing business in Afghanistan, I would be extremely opposed to pulling out of Afghanistan now.
We are barely past the burqua in Afghanistan. Women have very few rights. The government there is unstable, the Taliban is still very much in power in certain regions, The poppy fields are still providing 90% of the drugs derived from opiates. There is strong evidence that terrorist training is still going on.
We need to set some clear objectives for Afghanistan and go take care of business. Give them the troops that are needed. Leave now and we are back at square one.
There is my hawk statement for the day.
M-H, I saw a good distinction being talked about on PBS yesterday.
Which should be our goal? Counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency? I vote for counter-terrorism, which requires intelligence gathering with some military presence that can strike if need be. Fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan will take forever. They’re not fighting Al Quada any more. A lot of the fighters are just men with nothing else to do. Time to switch to counter-terrorism. Our resources will be better spent.
I wonder if anyone with that position is at the Right Wing Extremism march on Washington today?
As for the Bush tragedy, let’s leave the poor man alone. I will say this for him, he is not a hateful man. He is disgusted by hate. He tried to speak against it when the immigration issue came up. He spoke against it effectively after 9/11 telling Christian Americans not to hate Muslim Americans. Faced with mobs of people and Republican politicians who DO give in to hatred, I have to say it: I prefer Bush! Incompetence is more easily forgivable than open hatred.
Only if it fits under a tinfoil hat.
I am not sure what either entail: terrorism or insurgency. I am not sure they can be separated at this stage of the game. Remember that Al quada paid the Taliban for their blind eye.
A clear objective is needed. I would hate to feel that the lives lost have been in vain. I also want them keeping a keen eye on Pakistan. Talk about a powder keg!
Doesn’t look like the numbers are too good for Bush.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closing_the_book_on_the_bush_legacy.php
I don’t think the lives have been lost in vain, M-H. By flushing Al Qaeda into Pakistan, we put them in a much tougher spot. We gained a lot of experience and intelligence in how best to fight them. The drone attacks are working great! We have killed half of their leadership in the past two years. We are better prepared for counter-terrorism after 8 years of counter-insurgency. I think the anniversary of 9/11 is a good time to recall that we are fighting terrorism here. Insurgencies are just what happens in occupied countries. It’s a byproduct of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. But it can’t be the FOCUS of all our energy and resources.
And then there’s Iraq, where fighting terrorism was never part of the equation. But we’re not looking back. Looking forward. We learned things from Iraq as well. So deaths there are not totally in vain.
New leaders pop up where old ones used to be.
Leaving Afghanistan now would dishonor those who have lain down their lives, in my opinion. Opinions are neither right or wrong….they are just opinions.
I don’t think it is that cut and dry between terrorism and insurgency. What govt employee gets to make the distinction? The Taliban has been entrenched long enough in the region so they don’t count as insurgency in my book. The opium business cannot be ignored either considering the huge impact it has on global crime and the economy.
There are no simple answers to complex answers. I don’t know where to start solving them. That’s why I think we should stay put and finish the job.