So is this the $20 version of saying "It's Bush's Fault"?
I think so. Later in the article, he comes up with this gem:
“Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out.” We sense the “consummation” of the American Empire occurred with the leadership handoff from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush.”
The guy doesn't even mention the nation crippling trillion dollar debts that 0bama is racking up right now.
Plus the guy is from Glasgow in Scotland (albeit he is a professor at Harvard), which makes me a bit suspicious of his motives. The British in general, and the Scots in particular, are notorious Bush haters.
Nevertheless, I am wondering if this is just another professor engaging in yet another random academic exercise, or he really is worth listening to. I think I have seen this guy on Fox once before in the last 4 weeks. I remember thinking he was a pretty confident, bodering on arrogant, fellow.
So is this the $20 version of saying "It's Bush's Fault"?
Actually, I think it comes closer to acknowledging Bush's prescience.
Faced with an assault by an implacable and nebulous enemy, Bush recognized that the U.S. was on the verge of decline, in large part due to economic factors set in place by Democrat legislation which drew from public coffers for the purpose of distributing benefits (a benefit, in governmentese, is the larval version of an entitlement).
He recognized that the correlation of forces could not continue to the level of advantage the U.S. had, but necessarily would decline. That created an urgency to act, which he manned up to do.
Sure, it became unpopular -- largely because the Democrats need history to reflect the ascendance of their ideas, which ultimately it will not do.
Was there a little spin on the info put to the public to garner support for the war? Probably. But democracies generally will not invest blood and fortune in pre-emptive wars, even when they need to be fought.
Even 0 has recognized the importance of settling some version of democratic government in the region. Bush was smart enough to get the Iraq one mostly finished, so that the one generally supported by Democrats (because they thought it the most minor and ultimately "walk-awayable" would remain.