http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10198It's one thing to intensely dislike George W. Bush. It's another thing entirely to want to defeat him so bad, you are willing to adopt his own bring-'em-on worldview. But that is exactly the position in which many progressives and the "liberal media" find themselves.
The precipitating event may have been the Richard Clarke affair. The former Bush counterterrorism official, of course, was and is a hawk. And the essence of his much-discussed critique is that the administration did not initiate enough proactive measures before 9/11 to knock out Al Qaeda. This position has been taken up gleefully by many anti-Bush partisans, from columnists and talk show hosts to activist organizations and elected officials.
But have these Bush critics stepped back and thought out the implications and consequences of such a stand? Or are they just looking for anything to use against Bush, even if it violates some of their most cherished tenets?
Because that's just what the Clarke position does. How should the United States have dealt with Al Qaeda before 9/11? Launch a pre-emptive invasion of Afghanistan? Despite a series of attacks by Al Qaeda—in Kenya, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, etc.—it would have been difficult, absent the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, to win world support for large-scale military action. Small, coordinated, surgical efforts, perhaps—like those Clinton had already tried (bombing a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant tied to Osama) without notable success. But a truly massive assault would only have stirred up the current global maelstrom far earlier. And it wouldn't necessarily have done anything to prevent the 9/11 attacks...more..
Something to think about as to where we want to go...as a nation I
would presume.