Would your opinion on Bush would've been different if......

.....there was no 9/11 and no war in Iraq?

https://gma.yahoo.com/bill-clinton-h...opstories.html

Quote:

---

Hours before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former President Bill Clinton told an audience in Australia about his missed chance to kill attack mastermind Osama bin Laden, according to audio released this week.

Clinton was speaking at a business meeting in Melbourne when the topic turned to terrorism.

“I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden ... He’s a very smart guy. I spent a lot of time thinking about him. And I nearly got him once,” Clinton said in the audio, which was recorded by former Liberal Party head Michael Kroger and aired by Sky News.

“I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him.

“And so I didn’t do it.”.....

---

My impression on Bush prior to 9/11 was that he was more focused on his domestic agenda. He seemed to have a hands-off policy when it came to international conflict issues such as in the Middle East and the civil war in an African country that I can't remember. It was soon after 9/11 that his policies went through a dramatic change. When we note that most of the criticism and jokes on him were on Iraq or influenced by that situation, I get the feeling that the opinions on him would've been totally different had 9/11 never happened.

I can't blame Clinton. I remember the accidental missile attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. It was accidental in that the US didn't know that it was a Chinese embassy. This was a major setback for Clinton. I remember the reaction of the Chinese and the other people, and I understand why. We might say that Clinton should've killed Bin Ladin when he had the chance, but without the knowledge that 9/11 would happen, I too would've hesitated on that decision.

I don't know how the economy would've been. I hear that the costly war in Iraq worsened the economy that was already stagnating due to the numerous dotcom companies that went belly up.

Please explain how Saddam Hussein who was on the Al Qaeda hit list was helping Osama Bin Laden.

Even with the shonkiest of low grade evidence used to justify WMD in Iraq there is still none showing Iraqs involvement in 9/11.

I had hopes for Bush when he was elected. He had a reputation as governor of Texas as being able to work with both parties to reach consensus on legislation. I voted for him in hopes he would do the same as president - the parties working together rather at each other's throats. Alas, 9/11 completely changed and defined his presidency. I still wonder every now and then if Bush would have been a better president (and viewed as such) had 9/11 never occurred. :shrug:

A lot of the bad stuff from Bush was predicted before 9/11.

The Onion article about Bush from jan 2001 got pretty much fullfilled.
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

The neocon, the religious tendencies, "the private sector is the solution to all problems" and "tickle down" ideas were there from the start.

No.

He was still a reagonomics fanatic. Bastard.

No Child Left Behind was a disaster. Medicare Part D was a disaster. He vetoed laws to promote stem cell research and to include sexual orientation under hate laws. He withdrew US support of the Kyoto Protocol.

He was a shit president even you leave aside the foreign policy. Literally the worst the US has seen since the 1920s.

Of course the biggest sin Bush made was making an unrepentant meglomanic psychopath his vice president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

No Child Left Behind was a disaster. Medicare Part D was a disaster. He vetoed laws to promote stem cell research and to include sexual orientation under hate laws. He withdrew US support of the Kyoto Protocol.

He was a turd president even you leave aside the foreign policy. Literally the worst the US has seen since the 1920s.

---

I remember a thread a few years ago suggesting "Don't you wish Bush was still in power?" in regards to Barack Obama. Obama isn't a special or a particularly good president, but by comparison to Bush, he is somewhat of a good direction. There are some really toxic elements in American politics and these fester and grow considerably worse under Republican leadership and interference.

Clinton was actually a relatively good president by American standards and since Hillary is more the brains of that operation, I think Hilary next might be a good call since I can already guess what the Republican candidate will be saying, and it is generally frothing at the mouth with some neo-con warmongering screw-everyone agenda, especially since 'Romney' took a lurch to the far-right during his campaign and he was punished by the Republican echo-chamber as too 'moderate' still ! They won't make that mistake again, going to start seeing some real nutjobs come out the woodwork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I remember a thread a few years ago suggesting "Don't you wish Bush was still in power?" in regards to Barack Obama. Obama isn't a special or a particularly good president, but by comparison to Bush, he is somewhat of a good direction. There are some really toxic elements in American politics and these fester and grow considerably worse under Republican leadership and interference.

---

Obama is mediocre as far as presidents go and everything he will be remembered for happened between 2008 and 2010. American politics is the result of a combination of disenfranchisement and apathy. I have no idea how so many people could utterly fail at being citizens. The worst thing I hear all the time is when people over 50 bring out the phrase "I can't stand all these ultra liberals and ultra conservatives in government" as if Obama and Boehner are either. It shows how little people pay attention to the details and prefer to think of politics in broad strokes. That's what toxic in American politics.

Quote:

---

Clinton was actually a relatively good president by American standards and since Hillary is more the brains of that operation, I think Hilary next might be a good call since I can already guess what the Republican candidate will be saying, and it is generally frothing at the mouth with some neo-con warmongering screw-everyone agenda, especially since 'Romney' took a lurch to the far-right during his campaign and he was punished by the Republican echo-chamber as too 'moderate' still ! They won't make that mistake again, going to start seeing some real nutjobs...

---

Clinton rode on the coattails of the personal computer reaching a mass market, but at least he didn't do anything to hinder that. I don't care for Hilary because I think she will pick all the wrong battles and make the Democrats look foolish and play into the Republican PR machine.

Who knows who the Republican nominee will be. Part of me thinks the Republican primaries can't be as hilarious as the Cain, Bachman, Paul, Perry train wreck of 2012, but I still hope 2016 will give plenty of fodder for the Daily Show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Clinton was actually a relatively good president by American standards and since Hillary is more the brains of that operation, I think Hilary next might be a good call [cut]...

---

President Clinton was the only president in my life time that I somewhat respected and thought rather well of. Sex scandal aside, and starting a war to confuse it all, he was quite capable, and most definitely a gifted individual.

HILLARY Clinton on the other side.... Wow... What a woman.

When it comes to rhetorics, she is sharper than a razor, and she has a HUGE amount of respect internationally... Probably more so than any other living American, Chuck Norris and the astronauts going to the moon aside.

There are quite few women I openly admire, specially in politics. hillary Clinton however is one.



As to Bush... Meh.

I think it's unfair to talk about his pros and cons... As he was simply a puppet without any will of his own. A guy with normal intelligence and normal but rich background who's familys ties got him the job. No more, but also no less.

A tool, in the exact meaning of the word - as well as the popular meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Please explain how Saddam Hussein who was on the Al Qaeda hit list was helping Osama Bin Laden.

Even with the shonkiest of low grade evidence used to justify WMD in Iraq there is still none showing Iraqs involvement in 9/11.

---

I never said that Saddam Hussein was. I know that Bush used 9/11 under false pretenses. What I meant was that Bush wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq without those false pretenses. Hence, I believe that his presidency would've been different had 9/11 never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

I never said that Saddam Hussein was. I know that Bush used 9/11 under false pretenses. What I meant was that Bush wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq without those false pretenses. Hence, I believe that his presidency would've been different had 9/11 never happened.

---

Different yes, but they would probably try to invade anyway. And accept lower popular ratings, since it would be a short war and most things would fix itself quickly as long as Saddam falls. And then the popularity would rise again. If everything goes according to plan, but why shouldn't it?

It was very much a point in the neocon agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Please explain how Saddam Hussein who was on the Al Qaeda hit list was helping Osama Bin Laden.

Even with the shonkiest of low grade evidence used to justify WMD in Iraq there is still none showing Iraqs involvement in 9/11.

---

Quite true. Even at the height of the effort to build support for the attack on Saddam, nobody in the Bush administration was arguing that he'd played a role in the 9-11-01 attacks. Even the Bush administration noted that al-queda had no more than a token presence in Iraq (OBL really thought SH was part of the problem and certainly would have targeted him eventually, any "connection" betweeh AQ and the Hussein's regime was a token to minimize OBL's desire to act immediately against him). The war was sold on Iraq refusing to honor all of the particulars of the agreement at the end of Gulf One and on WMD's -- and the evidence for the latter was never evaluated critically because it was an easy way to get support for a power move that a cadre within the Bush43 admin wanted to do all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

President Clinton was the only president in my life time that I somewhat respected and thought rather well of. Sex scandal aside, and starting a war to confuse it all, he was quite capable, and most definitely a gifted individual.

HILLARY Clinton on the other side.... Wow... What a woman.

When it comes to rhetorics, she is sharper than a razor, and she has a HUGE amount of respect internationally... Probably more so than any other living American, Chuck Norris and the astronauts going to the moon aside.

There are quite few women I openly admire, specially in politics. hillary Clinton however is one.



As to Bush... Meh.

I think it's unfair to talk about his pros and cons... As he was simply a puppet without any will of his own. A guy with normal intelligence and normal but rich background who's familys ties got him the job. No more, but also no less.

A tool, in the exact meaning of the word - as well as the popular meaning.

---

Europe has no votes in the electoral college. If they somehow had had such votes, it is a safe bet that they would be only slightly more likely to end up on the GOP candidate than those of Washington DC.

Europe might have picked Nixon over McGovern....the last GOP guy the Euros truly liked was Ike (prior to Suez at least), who was the quintessential big government Republican.

He made mistakes, but I think I would probably have made the same mstakes if I was in charge, so I don't really have the right to judge him. Let's look at it over 20 years or so.

The Bush family reminds me of the movie Twins with DeVito and Schwarzenegger. Little George is DeVito, Jeb is Arnold. American's are so pro at politics we chose humor for our leader.

Does it really matter?

No matter who sits in the oval office, the yoke around the yeomans neck grows tighter every year.

All good things, I suppose

If 9/11 happened but all the resources were thrown into Afghanistan then Bush would have had far more international support and post presidency good will (which translates into $$$ on the speaking circuit).

It might even be possible that Afghanistan might be on its way to being the next Nepal rather then the next Syria, Somalia or Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

If 9/11 happened but all the resources were thrown into Afghanistan then Bush would have had far more intentional support and post presidency good will (which translates into $$$ on the speaking circuit).

It might even be possible that Afghanistan might be on its way to being the next Nepal rather then the next Syria, Somalia or Iraq.

---

Possible, but still long odds. Shifting it to a Nepal would have required a decades-long occupation and transition to self-governance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

If 9/11 happened but all the resources were thrown into Afghanistan then Bush would have had far more intentional support and post presidency good will (which translates into $$$ on the speaking circuit).

It might even be possible that Afghanistan might be on its way to being the next Nepal rather then the next Syria, Somalia or Iraq.

---

My preference at the time, having accepted that the US needed to take action to demonstrate that it wasn't to be sniped at without consequence, was for a big noise punitive-style strike, followed by leasing out the war to reasonably friendly local agents. If another OBL-type figure arose as a result, it would be unfortunate, but you can't entirely control these things, and shifting funding to another faction would effectively take care of this. Britain never completely had Afghanistan under its control during the Great Game, and I don't see any other foreign power ever doing so either. The USSR probably had the best chance, and we know what happened there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

My preference at the time, having accepted that the US needed to take action to demonstrate that it wasn't to be sniped at without consequence, was for a big noise punitive-style strike, followed by leasing out the war to reasonably friendly local agents. If another OBL-type figure arose as a result, it would be unfortunate, but you can't entirely control these things, and shifting funding to another faction would effectively take care of this. Britain never completely had Afghanistan under its control during the Great Game, and I don't see any other foreign power ever doing so either. The USSR probably had the best chance, and we know what happened there.

---

I think that that was exactly the Bush43 admin goal, but the chap they'd decided to back in the local follow-up to a punitive strike got sui-whacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Possible, but still long odds. Shifting it to a Nepal would have required a decades-long occupation and transition to self-governance.

---

Agreed that's why I said possibly on its way to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

My preference at the time, having accepted that the US needed to take action to demonstrate that it wasn't to be sniped at without consequence, was for a big noise punitive-style strike, followed by leasing out the war to reasonably friendly local agents. If another OBL-type figure arose as a result, it would be unfortunate, but you can't entirely control these things, and shifting funding to another faction would effectively take care of this. Britain never completely had Afghanistan under its control during the Great Game, and I don't see any other foreign power ever doing so either. The USSR probably had the best chance, and we know what happened there.

---

If you read your Kipling you will understand how little control Britain had over Afghanistan. If Bush and Co had looked at history they might have approached Afghanistan in a different manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I think that that was exactly the Bush43 admin goal, but the chap they'd decided to back in the local follow-up to a punitive strike got sui-whacked.

---

Chop sui.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

My preference at the time, having accepted that the US needed to take action to demonstrate that it wasn't to be sniped at without consequence, was for a big noise punitive-style strike, followed by leasing out the war to reasonably friendly local agents. If another OBL-type figure arose as a result, it would be unfortunate, but you can't entirely control these things, and shifting funding to another faction would effectively take care of this. Britain never completely had Afghanistan under its control during the Great Game, and I don't see any other foreign power ever doing so either. The USSR probably had the best chance, and we know what happened there.

---

I thought that invading and occupying Afghanistan was entirely justified at the time, and I still do.

I can understand the reasons behind your suggestion, but experience with Somalia suggests that abandoning a country to anarchy and extremism isn't really in the interest of the region or even the wider world.

The USSR wouldn't have lost Afghanistan if they were the only player in the court, and neither would the Taliban have taken over the country if they hadn't been been supported by Pakistan. If Afghanistan is a "graveyard of empires" or some sort of incurable backwater, then it's largely due to neighbouring countries pissing in the soup and not because of Afghanistan itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I thought that invading and occupying Afghanistan was entirely justified at the time, and I still do.

I can understand the reasons behind your suggestion, but experience with Somalia suggests that abandoning a country to anarchy and extremism isn't really in the interest of the region or even the wider world.

The USSR wouldn't have lost Afghanistan if they were the only player in the court, and neither would the Taliban have taken over the country if they hadn't been been supported by Pakistan. If Afghanistan is a "graveyard of empires" or some sort of incurable backwater, then it's largely due to neighbouring countries pissing in the soup and not because of Afghanistan itself.

---

Somalia is important because it's beside an important sea lane. If it were in the middle of Africa, it wouldn't matter a jot what its people do with their spare time. Afghanistan is in the middle of nowhere, only important to people who care what happens in central Asia (I don't). If your suggestion is that Afghanistan is concludable were it not for meddling outside powers, note who that meddling outside power is. Pakistan is a nuclear state and thus immune to conclusive military action.

Personally, I feel the US had it's chance at coming out of Afghanistan unscathed if we had simply gotten OBL at Tora Bora. His escape turned the military incursion into an occupation. It was all downhill from there.