W M from Canada writes: E. Biggs from Canada writes: "Say what you will about Bush, none of them want to push him too far and they know it." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, E. Biggs, I realize that you are not expressing unqualified support for Bush (at least I hope you aren't), but even your qualified support rings hollow. 9/11 happened with Bush in the White House, thousands of US troops have been killed with him in the White House. Iran is supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents and starting a nuclear program, despite his being in the White House. North Korea restarted its nuclear program with Bush in the White House, only suspended due to pressure from China and is still playing games. But most importantly, Bush has wrecked the US's domestic economy and destroyed its standing in the world; something that Al Caeda could never have dreamed of doing without his help. Having people think you are crazy is overrated. Think back to Reagan and Gorbachev. Clearly, it was not fear of Gorbachev that pursuaded Reagan to work with him, but the belief that he was not a hair-triggered fool that made him seem like a worthwhile partner. And then there is the really big problem with this idea - people who fear that someone may go off half cocked may tread softly, but they may also overestimate the danger and or figure that he will invent a pretext to attack either way. In that case, they may push harder and even innitiate an attack in order to get a kick in, before it is too late. Moreover, in a world where the most likely sources of danger are small groups of fanatics, egged on by other messianic fanatics, but acting mostly on their own, the real issue isn't the effect Bush has on foreign governments, but the fact that he and Cheney have turned themselve into the principle, if unwitting, assets of terrorist recruiters and the principle agents of harm to the US.

• Posted 02/05/08 at 2:01 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

W M from Canada writes: E. Biggs, whether or not the attacks were the result of past US policy, your contention that fear of Bush deters attacks flies in the face of the fact that 9/11 occured almost a year after he was elected. Moreover, you are being too generous to Bush and too hard on the intelligence community. The latter certainly deserves criticism, but more for allowing themselves to be pushed to tell the Bush Admin what it wanted to hear than for misleading it. And, contrary to what you appear to believe, there was a great deal of scepticism from experts inside the US and abroad and, in start contrast to the coallition put together for the first Gulf War, the UK was the only large contributor to the coallition in 2003. You may also recall that the UN weapons inspectors repeatedly stated that they had found no evidence of WMD or large scale WMD programs and stated that an attack was premature. As you know, they were proved right and what was left of the weapons programs had been dismantled after Clinton authorized airstrikes in the late 90s after evidence arose that the programs were still active. In Bob Woodward's book published well before the invasion, he makes clear that Douglas Feith was put into the Pentagon by the Bush Admin specifically to change the tone of intelligence reporting from providing objective information to actively building a case for invasion. He was sent there, because the Bush Admin was frustrated by the Pentagon's "excessive" objectivity. It is also worth nothing that Woodward had been given unparalleled access by the Bush Admin and his book was lauded by it (i.e., it wasn't a partisan hatchet job). Keep in mind, also, that well before the invasion, Joseph Wilson had exposed the Niger yellowcake story as a fraud and no credible evidence of cooperation between Al Caeda and Saddam has ever been found, before or since. In fact, expert opinion and all available evidence suggested hostility between Saddam and Al Caeda.

• Posted 02/05/08 at 2:43 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment