If Bush did all of that, and we had the reaction we did, Bush would have been an unsung hero. A misunderstood giant of america who over 3000 people owe their lives.
But he didn't and 3000 people are dead. Not saying that 9/11 was all his fault with that statement either. There's enough blame to go around. But blame, he deserves.
Also, Easterbrook, the guy who wrote that fiction, takes everything too far. He goes to the entire other end of the spectrum. There was plenty of evidence against the 9/11 hijackers to at least deport all of them. Learning to fly jets and specifically declining learning how to land them is more than just highly suspicious behavior. Our own FBI recognized this. That, plus positive associations with Al Qaeda is enough to deport. And that is probrably what would have happened. They would be forever flagged, and an alert government would (should) be doing more extensive background checks to keep those types of people from entering.
We wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan outright without providing credible evidence. At least, a calm and intelligent president wouldn't. That the mistake Bush made over Iraq. So of course the world would be right to condemn it. There may have only been enough evidence to place stiffling sanctions against Afghanistan. And I would take that any day over a justified war with them because of 3000 dead americans.
About the only thing that Easterbrook gets right is Kerry being elected President. Bush came into office an unpopular president. The only thing that ever bounced his polling was military actions and without 9/11 he would have remained a sub 50% president. And that means a changeover.
Last edited by Superbelt; 04-12-2004 at 04:11 AM..
|