Bush takes a lot of criticism for his actions in the middle east and though he does deserve it but?

Question

Do you think that no matter which president was in office would have been crtized for his actions, after 9/11 there was a right path to be taken but no one really knew what it was

Answer 1

To some extent but an extremely liberal press makes everything seem worse & that blame is placed firmly at the White House.
The media never mentions that both houses of Congress voted to begin this war. They do not remind people that 95*% of the people including most of those who now say they never supported the war or Bush had complete support for them.

Just because the war did not end in the tidy quick manner they wanted & dreamed of, does not mean it was not & is not necessary. 9/11 was real, no stupid conspiracy - people died on US soil at the hands of terrorist. Citizens have short memories & little patriotism these days.

Answer 2

No, I don't think any other President would have had the same problems. An honest or smart President would not have gotten involved with Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Remember how the world responded to us when we invaded Afghanistan? We were victims, and the support poured in from all over the world. Even places like France, China, Russia felt we were justified in our actions against the Taliban. All it would have taken to have maintained that goodwill was to take the logical and sensible approach and finish the job in Afghanistan and be honest about our intentions. Had Bush and his cronies not lied about Iraq, and then refused to admit their lies, then things would be different. The fact is that you are wrong. The "right path" WAS known. The entire world and 49% of the United States stood up and said so, but Bush ignored it. The invasion of Iraq was never justified. It was never explained. They didn't have WMDs. There was NO evidence that they had anything to do with 9/11, and Bush has even admitted this. There was little evidence that they had anything to do with terrorism at all, apart from what they did to the Kurds in the 1980s and the Shiites after the first Gulf War. But guess what? If we were going to invade every country that killed people within their own borders, we would have to invade China and Russia, amongst dozens of other countries. It is pretty obvious, and always was obvious, that terrorism had little to do with Bush's decision to invade Iraq. It is not like no one stood up and said so. Just too many people were too dumb to pay attention. All that said, had just about any other person who ran in 2000 had been election, that invasion of Iraq never would have happened, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We might even have resolved the Afghanistan conflict, which is still going on, because our forces and efforts and money would be concentrated there. Where is Osama bin Laden? Perhaps we'll find out if when we have a different captain at the helm.

Answer 3

No, but he should have gone into Syria or Iran instead of Iraq, but there are reasons to go into Iraq so that no 2 of those 3 countries could band together against the mission. So going into Iraq split the region.

Any President will be criticized for any military action they take. It has been happening since this country began.

P.S. There is a war on terrorism, not a war on 9/11. Why can't people understand that? The forces launching the attacks in Iraq now are terrorists on a Jihad. Don't people understand that? Iraq had ties to terrorists. Big picture people. Big picture.

Answer 4

The right path would have been to get the guy who organized the crash into our towers by any means neccessary, not to turn our guns to Iraq. The claim that Iraq terrorist emerged and had to be put down is not true. While Saddam Hussein was a monster, of that we can all agree, terrorism didn't exsist while he was in power. His tactic was if someone destroyed something of his in a town, the entire town was killed to make sure the culprit was punished. This is an extreme tactic, but it worked.

Now that Saddam is out of power, terrorist have emerged. We silenced a lion and let loose a pack of hyenas.

Bush should have made a strict demand to the country that was harbouring Osama Bin Ladan. "Give me the man, or I will not hold any of my might back in the search for him." This result may not have been smiled upon by the United Nations, but we would have gotten our results and this war would never have been fought.

This war has done more damage for our countries international look than a strong verbal ultimatum ever would have.

Answer 5

Yeah, they even would have criticized David Palmer from 24--even though he acted perfectly in the face of fictional foreign threats. Sombody always whines about something. But I almost think any other presidential nominee from either side of the aisle could have done better in public opinion--Bush really made a mess of things.

A friend of mine asked me--what if Bush and Co. never tried to pretend there were WMDs or terrorist links in Iraq--and simply said that Hussein is a tyrant we need to get rid of, and admitted that we are choosing to go after him (rather than worse leaders in other parts of the world) because of our interest in oil and other strategic reasons. He might have got just as much support and maybe more. I mostly hate the war because I feel we were lied to about the circumstances and rushed into an invasion. A little more carrot and stick, a little time and effort to get the rest of the world on board (and the rest of our country on board too), and a little more honesty, and it may have been a different story, at least in public opinion.

Answer 6

The Middle East has been in turmoil for thousands of years. The Bible says that animosity will always exist between the Arabs (Abraham first son) and the Jews (Abraham's 2nd son). There will never be peace for this region. It is a futile effort. We will never be able to stop the tide of Muslim terrorists but we must always do our best. Any president who thinks they can appease them will discover their mistake. Bush has the courage to stand by his convictions even though it is not a popular idea. I have talked to many soldiers and they express the feeling that they are proud to defend America by being in the Middle East. Many of them sign up for additional tours. I feel that if America's best will stand behind him then so will I.

Answer 7

people say a "wise" president would have known what to do after 9/11, yeah what would he have done, they have no answer to that. and the first step to fighting terrorism is spreading democracy to countries that were save havens for terrorists such as Iraq. All you liberals think Bush is stupid and did the wrong thing with the invasion of Iraq, how would you fight terrorism?

Answer 8

Iraq was not the right path. Before the war Bush was saying Sadam has deadly weapons and if he gave them up he could STAY. Now Bush is making himself out to be some great guy for getting rid of him even though hw never posed any threat. Spot the inconsistency. The worst president ever, dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

Answer 9

I doubt another president would have chosen a war on Iraq as a solution to the problem. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Declaring war is never the first course of action a country should take. Declaring war on a country that had nothing to do with the attack is just plain stupid.

Answer 10

Bush manipulated intelligence and deceived the American people into supporting a war we didn't need to fight. He put his own interests and that of corporations ahead of the national interest. He continues to do that with his refusal to get out despite advice from his own generals that this is Vietnam all over again. I'd say that deserves criticism.