Why give him leeway on the “armed conflicts of the day”?
Afghanistan - we went in a year after he took office. 7 years later we were still there without the mission accomplished, bleeding men and money all the way, handing the war to Obama to mismanage similarly. For comparison’s sake, World War 2 took us less than 4 years to wrap up from the date we entered.
Iraq - we went in on the basis of blatant lies single-sourced from a compromised individual. Trillions of dollars, fourteen years, and many dead & wounded later, we’re still there, and somehow ISIS controls a large chunk of the country despite our massive military presence.
Those are GWB’s “armed conflicts of the day”: perfidy and incompetence culminating in epic failure and unmitigated disaster for the American people.
If you’re giving him a pass on that I’d have to seriously question your values and judgment.
Many of the people who complain about the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan are often the same people who would have complained the loudest if nothing had been done. (not necessarily saying you are one of them)
I’ve thought it through and I think we did the right thing even if it didn’t turn out as hoped. I am not one of those who think we should have carpet bombed Iraq or Afghanistan or dropped nuclear weapons on them.
People who know me understand my values and judgment and largely respect them in these matters, so that counts for something to me.
I understand and respect your opinion, thoughtomator, I just don’t agree with it.