Diversionary because the problem with the Islamists didn't originate in Afghanistan; because most of the 9/11 perps were Saudis. It's easier to show force in Iraq and Afghanistan than deal with the profound clash of religious cultures and civilizations. While brave Americans were fighting--with indifferent success but at considerable cost in blood and treasdure--in two theaters of war in the Middle East, our President was winking at Wahhabism and permitting thousands of mosques teaching hostile doctrine to be built around America. I know you don't want to hear this, but try refuting it.
Why do you think Bush was elected? Because a lot of voters were fed up with the liberalism represented by Clinton and those around him, less the economics--though they should have been--than a host of other issues that voters recognized, if only intuitively, were changing America in ways they didn't approve of. Bush was viewed as moderate to conservative. Ten years later: all the stuff that Bush was elected to at least blunt has become fully ripe in Obama and Obamaism.
"Diversionary because the problem with the Islamists didn't originate in Afghanistan; because most of the 9/11 perps were Saudis." Well, I suppose this is true.
Many were Saudis. I've heard this before.
But, do you really expect that we should have attacked Saudi Arabia? Or that doing so would have been justified? Were those "Saudis" acting as agents of, or on behalf of, Saudi Arabia?
Clearly, no, they were not. Therefore attacking S.A. would never have been justified.
The terrorists may have been Saudis. They may also have been Yemenis, or Iraqis, of Turks, or Brazilians, or Klingons (this is intended as sarcasm and is not intended to impugn all Klingons as terrorists). Despite their soveirign heritage the 9/11 terrs were acting on behalf of Al Qaeda, and thus we must deal with AQ.
"It's easier to show force in Iraq and Afghanistan than deal with the profound clash of religious cultures and civilizations." I am not sure I know what
THIS means. Lots of cultures and religions have "clashed" that always was and always will be. A'stan was a necessary war and it remains so. AQ remains a threat; weakened, perhaps, diminished, maybe. But that small part of Islam that wants us exterminated must still be dealt with. And A'stan is part of the problem, and now Pakistan is also part of the problem ..... and no I have no easy answer for that. Well, I do. Just not one that the powers that be would ever accept as reasonable, despite how many American lives might be saved.
"While brave Americans were fighting--with indifferent success but at considerable cost in blood and treasdure--in two theaters of war in the Middle East, our President was winking at Wahhabism and permitting thousands of mosques teaching hostile doctrine to be built around America. I know you don't want to hear this, but try refuting it."I suppose you would expect him to have sent the 82nd Airborne into American mosques after our own wahabists? Wow, that would have gone over so well with many in the civil rights arena --- even those in conservative circles.
The lefties would whine about American Einsatzgruppen busting into sacred religious centers and the conservatives would scream over the extinction of Posse Comitatus.
Even FBI scrutiny of these places has come under serious scrutiny ... unfortunatly.
The president is not all-powerful. And despite the characterization foisted on Dubya, he was never Americanishe Hitler.
"Bush was viewed as moderate to conservative. Ten years later: all the stuff that Bush was elected to at least blunt has become fully ripe in Obama and Obamaism."Huh? Obama was elected because , in the midst of a serious economic downturn, people were sick & tired of Bush and wanted the "hopey-changey" stuff -- and got it.
Bush was never a true conservative. He was never a leader in the conservative field, he was a republican. Nothing really more than that. He grew government light prior to 2006 and didn't fight the libs hard enough after the demorats took over. Obama is of a
wholly DIFFERENT ilk. He is a leftie, a Keynesian, a
nominal socialist, who if anything has been forced to temper his ideology by realpolitik concerns.