Greg Easterbrook: An Alternative History

[basso]

greg's not typically known as a Bush or Republican supporter.

http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1545

--
AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY:
Washington, april 9, 2004.

A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill."

When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.

When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression."

Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."

The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."

Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened."

Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.

[Ankich]

The flaw in the point Easterbrook is trying to make is that a pre-9/11 campaign against al-Qaeda probably would have involved black ops, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure (in other words, all the ways of fighting terrorism that actually work), as opposed to an all-out toppling of foreign governments.

[basso]

Originally posted by Ankich The flaw in the point Easterbrook is trying to make is that a pre-9/11 campaign against al-Qaeda probably would have involved black ops, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure (in other words, all the ways of fighting terrorism that actually work), as opposed to an all-out toppling of foreign governments.

really, how did they work for the clinton administration?

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by basso really, how did they work for the clinton administration?

We will never know as those efforts were hamstrung by the GOP controlled congress.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso really, how did they work for the clinton administration?

They do work, and they did work. (Read Richard Clarke's book on the number of successful "snatch" operations post 93). The problem in the Clinton Administration is that the DoD and CIA were too reluctant/unable to do them in large part, apparently the Operations directorate of the CIA was to worried about a screw up to risk anything, and the DoD's plans involved Powell doctrine approaches (overwhelming force). Now, Clinton should have pushed back harder, no question, but most observers in the time have him very gung ho about such things.

[meh]

Originally posted by andymoon We will never know as those efforts were hamstrung by the GOP controlled congress.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this is an area where the congress doesn't have much of a say in things. How did they manage to hamstrung Clinton on terrorism?

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by meh Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this is an area where the congress doesn't have much of a say in things. How did they manage to hamstrung Clinton on terrorism?

By refusing funds for anti terrorism work, by concentrating on the Lewinsky witch hunt rather than keeping their eyes on the important balls (pun intended), and for doing everything they could to oppose everything Clinton did or tried to do out of partisan rancor.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by meh Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this is an area where the congress doesn't have much of a say in things. How did they manage to hamstrung Clinton on terrorism?

They blocked/watered down the omnibus C/T spending bill back in 95 or 96 (the NRA lobbied hard against it.)

[meh]

Originally posted by andymoon By refusing funds for anti terrorism work, by concentrating on the Lewinsky witch hunt rather than keeping their eyes on the important balls (pun intended), and for doing everything they could to oppose everything Clinton did or tried to do out of partisan rancor.

Surely there was enough funding for the FBI/CIA for operations Clinton wanted if he had really set his mind to getting these things. If he really thought it was a priority, he could've bargained with the GOP on that issue over others. What I'm trying to say is, I don't think Clinton realized the true ability of al-qeada either.

You are probably right on the whole Lewinsky debacle though. I totally forgot about that(short memory I guess). That probably did keep the administration off of their real work.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by meh Surely there was enough funding for the FBI/CIA for operations Clinton wanted if he had really set his mind to getting these things. If he really thought it was a priority, he could've bargained with the GOP on that issue over others. What I'm trying to say is, I don't think Clinton realized the true ability of al-qeada either.

Clinton did more to fight terrorism than any president had to that point. If anyone is responsible for hindering his efforts, it was the GOP congress that stood in his way on everything just because he was there and they hated him (still do). Even to this day, they try to pin everything they can on Clinton to the point of making ridiculous arguments.

[DaDakota]

Another haves versus have nots argument.

Ho hum.

DD

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by DaDakota Another haves versus have nots argument. Ho hum. DD

Another witless post...or was it just in the wrong thread?

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by SamFisher Another witless post...or was it just in the wrong thread?

Sam,

I guess your answer to someone who does not share your views is to call them names.

How very small of you.

Now go back to working for the man, while I will go back to being the man.


DD

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by DaDakota Sam, I guess your answer to someone who does not share your views is to call them names. How very small of you. Now go back to working for the man, while I will go back to being the man. DD

I'm not really sure what your view is, other than knowing that any geopolitical analysis can be boiled down into 3 sentences or less. "Haves vs. have nots?" yeah, right....that makes sense.

Go back to coding. That suits your abilities better.

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by SamFisher I'm not really sure what your view is, other than knowing that any geopolitical analysis can be boiled down into 3 sentences or less. "Haves vs. have nots?" yeah, right....that makes sense. Go back to coding. That suits your abilities better.

I see, so you feel that you are superior in your geopolitical views?

And what do you base this on, your world travel? Or is it just an opinion like everyone else has on here?

Of course if it does not fit the mold of what your opinion is, than I guess it can not possibly be the right one, huh?

My original point was a sarcastic remark that describes a ton of the threads here, where the Dems accuse the Repubs, and the Repubs accuse the dems.

Not much really gets accomplished in them and it always seems to boil down to a "haves vs have nots" debate.

Do you disagree that the Repubs are a party of the "haves" and the dems are primarily a party for the "have nots"?

Oh sure, it is a black and white view, and a clear generalization, but so are most of the posts about this argument.

Coding...LOL, CEO's don't code any more....we post on BBS's, now go away or I shall track down your IP and call your boss and tell him to see how much time his employee is wasting on here.



DD

[Invisible Fan]

So Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rummy stay in a post Dubya administration? Sounds like an accurate protrayal...

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by Invisible Fan So Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rummy stay in a post Dubya administration? Sounds like an accurate protrayal...

Those are the 3 main reasons I am voting for Kerry.

DD

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by andymoon By refusing funds for anti terrorism work, by concentrating on the Lewinsky witch hunt rather than keeping their eyes on the important balls (pun intended), and for doing everything they could to oppose everything Clinton did or tried to do out of partisan rancor.

Yeah, right. Clinton did nothing on terrorism of substance except lob a few cruise missiles somewhere and feel the victims' pain. We can't afford another do-nothing pansy president like Kerry would be. Liberals have always been on the wrong side of history and are clearly on the wrong side now.

[Ankich]

Originally posted by basso really, how did they work for the clinton administration?

The Clinton administration stopped a hell of a lot more terrorist attacks than actually got through.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by bamaslammer Yeah, right. Clinton did nothing on terrorism of substance except lob a few cruise missiles somewhere and feel the victims' pain. We can't afford another do-nothing pansy president like Kerry would be. Liberals have always been on the wrong side of history and are clearly on the wrong side now.

You forgot to mention stopped the attempted destruction of LAX by terrorists. You also forgot that he put out an assassination order on Bin Laden.