I think it's funny to see everyone who opposed our actions in Iraq now try to jump on Bush for not being hard enough on terrorism 230 days into his presidency. I remember bringing this up on SR too, but no one wanted to go out on any limbs then. But now, here it is, Bush may have not heeded the advice of an advisor. He may have had evidence that 9.11 was being planned and he may have been able to stop it.

Well, what evidence did he have? Was it eyewitness evidence; did he have someone deep inside al Queda that could verify the plan? Was it cross-checked against other sources? What evidence could he possibly have had that, upon attacking al Queda, deep in Afghanistan (a sovereign nation, under no UN sanctions, a threat to no one), wouldn't have thrown every person who admonished Bush for attacking Iraq into a tizzy?

But he didn't do anything, did he? That's not commendable either, is it? Because 3000 people died. He should have taken action, regardless of the information he had. He was advised that something should be done; he should have done it. Even though Richard Clarke was recommending air strikes on al Queda bases - a clear violation of international law.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It sure does make it easy to condemn though, doesn't it? Funny.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup