Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I keep hearing this over and over as the one thing people can claim Bush's legacy should be praised over.
But a serious question, if Bush's policy in response to 9/11 and terrorism results in over 4,000 Americans killed (much more when you include contractors) and perhaps a trillion dollars spent...
...and considering that the successes we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan probably aren't going to do much to improve domestic security here at home.
Is this really reasonable?
-spence
|
Well, you asked so here's the argument the way I see it.
During the reign of Bill Clinton, Islamic terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, and we responded by launching about 250 cruise missles against tents in the desert. As it turns out, tents are fairly easy to replace and little was done to disrupt the terrorist information and financial networks that were later used to execute attacks against the US in Africa, against the Cole, and of course on 9/11/01. It has been said that the major reason we weren't able to capture Bin Laden immediately after 9/11 was that Clinton had reduced the number of agents in the field, and we had no "eyes on target".
George Bush took the terrorist attack on 9/11 personally. Those tears in the interview later that day were not of sadness as much as they were of shame. America had been attacked on his watch. In an interview the following day, Bush outlined his action plan and plainly stated that long after everyone else forgot (he actually said that), he would continue to battle the terrorists. His approval rating at the time was somewhere around 70%. Since then, the primary focus of the Bush administration was to keep America safe. It has been reported, if you're willing to look toward the back of the paper, that the Patriot Act has helped to stop numerous attacks on the US, including plans to cut the cables on the Brooklyn Bridge. Part of Bush's doctrine was to shift the defense strategy of the US from being counterpunch experts, as had worked during the cold war, to a policy of attack first. The reson for this is simple. Fear of retribution works against established governments but not against terrorists who don't care if they die.
Good men and women have died in Iraq, Afganistan, and God knows where else in the war on terror. It has been reported that fewer soldiers have died during Bush than during Clinton. One argument for soldiers being in Iraq after WMD was that it is better for terrorists around the world to travel to Iraq to fight the Marines than for them to travel to New York to attach civillians. The good new is it seems that the surge in Iraq has worked, and people are returning to somewhat normal lives. Again, you'd need to be willing to flip a few pages in the newspaper to find this information, but it exists.
So, is Bush culpable for continuing the policies of Clinton that encouraged banks to write riskier loans in order to encourage more home ownership? Yes, you can blame him for that if you want. He could have fired Greenspan and restructured the US economy away from consumer spending that was being fuled by the housing bubble. But I don't think anyone in congress would have supported it. Certainly not as many as voted for the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act.
So, it's fair to criticize Bush for the economy, and for pissing off other nations, and for keeping Islamic terrorists in Cuba, but you also have to acknowledge that in what democrats called and increasingly dangerous world, his policies prevented any further attacks on the US.
As a final note. I firmly believe that future generations are going to view the disrepect that was shown to President George Bush in the same way that we now view that disrespect that was shown to returning Vietnam veterans. Even if it takes 20 years.