Fighting Fit

Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

March 6, 2007

Does a terrorist care who’s in the White House?

Democrat fantasies about foreign policy

David Aaronovitch

One of the hardest things to is to realise that your fantasies are just that — fantasies. And before we all get too excited let me clarify that I’m not talking here about imagining Hillary Clinton dressed in Highway Patrol leathers and swinging a night-stick, or any such run-of-the-mill sexual reverie. I’m talking about what we imagine without clear evidence to be true, such as the causes of our illnesses or what might have happened if it hadn’t been for X or Y.

Over in America there’s one of those silly, confected media rows going on at the moment, concerning the HBO chat-show host Bill Maher. Maher was having what passes on these programmes for a conversation after last week’s bomb at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Said Maher: “I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.” The transcript then reads “(applause)”. And later on: “I’m just saying if he did die . . . more people would live. That’s a fact.” This packs so many imponderables into one statement that, whatever else it is, it’s not a fact. And whatever else it is not, it is a fantasy.

But far more indicative than Maher’s brutal counter-factual was the semi-editorial written in last week’s New Yorker magazine by its influential editor, David Remnick. The New Yorker is, of course, predisposed towards liberalism and the Democrats, but it is usually intelligently predisposed and people take notice of it.

Remnick was asking himself the “worse than painful” question of just how different things might have been had Al Gore been declared the winner. The question is painful because the answer, according to Remnick, is that things would have been infinitely better. This is partially because Gore was a paragon, being variously — in Remnick’s eyes — humorous, intelligent, honest, principled, patient and possessed of good judgment.

But the difference is mostly down to the perception that Gore’s decisions would have been a complete contrast to Bush’s. The strongest argument here concerns how climate change might have been handled, but it is in the area of foreign policy that fantasy really asserts itself.

It is grudgingly conceded that though Gore and Clinton were supposedly “far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism” than was Bush, even so 9/11 would have been “likely not avoided”. One ought to recall here that the long-planned attack came only eight months after the change of Administration, so Remnick’s concession is otiose. But then he asks: “Can anyone seriously doubt” that a Gore Administration would have successfully and necessarily invaded Afghanistan, but avoided a “mistaken and misbegotten” invasion of Iraq?

Well, yes, of course anyone seriously could. The contention is that, in the conditions of 2001-02, Gore would never have opted to invade Iraq, choosing to handle things in some unspecified alternative fashion. This may be true. He might have said — as Barack Obama did — that Saddam was no imminent threat, or that he disagreed with the Director of the CIA’s “slam-dunk case”, and that a continuation or intensification of sanctions — despite their widespread international flouting — was the best way of enforcing UN resolutions. That Cruise missiles would have figured somewhere seems, in light of the history of the Clinton Administration, fairly likely.

The problem is that we can’t know, and I am somewhat jaundiced by the memory of all those predossier British Conservatives in late 2001 and 2002 pressing for action over Iraq, and now saying: “What me, guv? No, I was misled.” As a liberal I can understand how the unpleasant battle against the American Right can colour one’s judgment. The second media outrage of the week was the right-wing pundit Anne Coulter’s quip that the boyish Democratic hopeful John Edwards was a “faggot”. But hurt liberal feelings about such things are beside the point. What’s been happening isn’t about this Right-Left battle of insults. George W. Bush didn’t come into office saying “I must intervene in world affairs more than Bill Clinton”; he was inaugurated promising the polar opposite. Then the twin towers fell, and so did the scales.

The resulting “neocon” analysis went something like this: 9/11 was an emanation of an ideology that had grown in conditions of dictatorship and failure in the Middle East. For any of us anywhere to be safe, the conditions themselves had to be changed. One of the consequences of this was Bush’s abandonment of the Kissingerian idea of promoting friendly dictatorships. In the meantime, what had be prevented at all costs was the coincidence of terrorism and WMD.

Now, you can argue that this analysis can be applied more or less intelligently. But what you can’t find is a leading Democrat who seriously questions it. Let me take you back to Obama, circa autumn 2004 on Iran. “The big question is going to be,” Obama said, “if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to take military action? . . . Launching some missile strikes is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he admitted. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.” Err, no.

And the next year: “Right now rogue states and despotic regimes are looking to begin or accelerate their own nuclear programmes . . . As we speak, members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations are aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction, which I think all of us believe they would use without hesitation.” So, what would President Obama do to counter these threats? He’d like — in principle — to do more diplomacy, of course.

But if that talk doesn’t get anywhere, or if measures such as sanctions are blocked? Abstractions are an assistance to fantasy; reality rains on the gaudiest parade. For a Republican or Democrat they’re the same problems and they didn’t go away because you elected a new president.

At the Hay Festival Aaronovitch said: "Further investigation into Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq is pointless. It is time to move on." This war crimes apologist who used his Guardian column to abuse anybody who suggested that the war was an act of idiocy promoted by serial liars, seems to have forgotten something. In April 2003, he said of the WMDs that were the supposed reason for war: "If nothing is eventually found, I - as a supporter of the war - will never believe another thing that I am told by our government, or that of the US ever again. And, more to the point, neither will anyone else. Those weapons had better be there somewhere"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,945551,00.html

Until he faces up to his total failure of judgement with regard to the Iraq war, I will not take his meanderings any more seriously than those of the war criminal who started it in the first place, nor his bleating that it's all okay, because he 'acted in good faith'.

Jon Latimer, Ferryside, Carmarthenshire

While its fun to fantasize how things might have been different, when one considers what was going on in 2001-2002 - the only conclusion is nothing would have been different. In the shadow of 09-11 - Gore would have had to taken a tough stand against Saddam's intransigence on weapons inspectors and adhering to the cease-fire agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War.

Gore would have repeated the same arguments used by Clinton, Albright, and himself in previous years to justify action against Iraq. (Many of the same arguments used by Bush BTW). While much of the information used to justify the war may have been proven wrong - at the time this was not known (Bush was wrong he didn't lie.) Hoping Saddam would not share any WMD with terrorist groups to gain regional influence because he was not a faithful muslim was a weak argument to justify leaving him alone.

The sad fact is the confluence of event in 2001-2002 would have led us to the same point we are now.

CGS, Centreville, Virginia USA

Excellent vision from across the pond, Tim. Thanks! Think any of our Leftist media outlets will let you give them a dose of reality?

Dave Flaat, panama city beach, Florida, USA

Tim, it is quite frightening the similarities between right-wing, neo-con Americans such as your self and the Islamists you preclaim to be fighting. You both see everyone else who dosent see the world from your point of view, as being as dangerous groups of people hell bent on destroying the world, who should be wiped of the face of the planet in a wholesale fashion. Also the total disregard of scientific fact (e.g. evolution) is another similarity between yourselves and the muslim fanatics. Wake up and smell the coffee, your both as bad as each other!

SK, London, UK

Again, wonderful discourse, both British and American, on this subject! I remain greatly appreciative of the privilege of reading the editorials and comments you make available.

Elizabeth, Scottsdale, AZ

My, Tim, you are a frightning individual. And an ill-informed one too.

Starling, Lancaster,

I fear you miss the primary reason that terrorists care if Democrats are in the White House: they (Democrat and mullahs) want the same thing--the destruction of Western Civilization. Why do you think that Democrats (and Labour)were always lockstep with Stalin, and Castro, and Khomeni, and Saddam, and Chavez et cetera? Thus, these terrorists will attack without regard to whose in the White House, but they will know that their chances of success will be greater if a political and philosophical ally is president. (Incidentally, that answers the question of whether Gore would have invaded Iraq. He would not have since it was the most logical (even if not ultimately successful) next step in the war on terror.)

Tim, Flower Mound, Texas

A wake up call for all Americans...does anyone remember the 70's and waiting in line for gas? Wait till you have to use your Suburban for a house...that is what is going to happen if the next President doesn't keep the fire burning in Iraq! The jihadis are waiting for the US to leave Iraq so they can do 2 things: 1. control oil, 2. fly to America and do their suicide bombings here. They hate America - period!

K. Martin, Woburn, MA

Of course terrorists care who is in the Whitehouse. If the Dems win in 2008, they know that they will be able to attack the US and suffer no consequences. When we are attacked, the Dem's response will be "Why do they hate us? What did WE do to deserve this attack?" A commision will be put together to examine these questions and billions of taxpayer dollars will be sent to the Middle East to "buy" their love. The terrorist nations were openly rooting for the Party of Appeasement in the recent elections.

John Carter, Cool, CA

Al Gore had no motives to invade Iraq; George Bush did. In the opening months of his administration there were several discussions on how to rid Iraq of Saddam. This was pre-9/11 and is written about in three seperate books that were published since then by White House insiders. Revenge for daddy, 'finishing the job', whatever the motive was, it was obviously present in W's mind prior to 9/11 and not in Al Gore's. Oh yeah, did anyone forgot that there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? :)

Jack, Lisle, USA

Anne Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot”? Is that a bad thing? I thought there was nothing wrong with being a faggot? I thought homosexuality was just fine with everyone and that it was polygamy that was held in disgust. Then again, here are 77 derogatory slang terms and expressions for homosexual and none for polygamists. What does that tell us?

Doug Forbes, Wheeling, USA

""I can tell you with great confidence that my fellow Americans do not give a hoot what Europeans and the British say about our policies""
>>

I can tell you with great confidence that my fellow Britons do not give a hoot what Americans say about our inquisitive, analytical interest in news, current affairs and international politics.

Matt, Guildford,

David,
I enjoyed your article. I wish more of the discourse here in the US had the tone of your writing. You say you're a liberal, and I lean towards conservative, but this is one area we can agree upon. The terrorists don't care about us and our way of life, and we should stand united and with one voice -we will defeat you, we will fight you in the fields, in the cities, we will pay any price, bear any burden to defeat the jihadists and their supporters. But we don't get that. No, we get partisan bickering and political posturing. And it seems that 60% of the American public is dumb enough to believe the nonsense fed to them by the partisan media. What a shame. I fear for my childrens' future.

Gary, Warner Robins, USA / GA

I can tell you with great confidence that my fellow Americans do not give a hoot what Europeans and the British say about our policies, especially when it comes to war. We're always the ones who do the heavy lifting. The next time Europe comes calling for help on one of its periodic bloodbaths, most Americans would be more than willing to let you carry the can for a change.

Judith Willms, Omaha, NE, US

Henry, How can "history confirm" that Iran with nuclear weapons isn't as much of a threat as the U.S.A., given that Iran has yet to acquire nuclear weapons? This 'reactionary capitalist oligarchy'., whatever its faults, has possessed, yet not aggressively used, nuclear weapons for the last 62 years. And you think the Iranians are more trustworthy than this? And you say the Americans need a 'more rational perspective'!

keith, Middlesbrough, U.K.

Pandora's boxes, one nuclear and the other 'post colonian', are open, there is little point in thinking otherwise. The comment “They voted Gore? Then I guess I won’t bother.” sums it up, would you rather they did or didn't have nukes ? If you are dum enough to believe that there are virgins waiting for you if you blow yourself up, do you want to give him/her a bigger bomb ?

John, Lincoln, England

> 'The resulting “neocon” analysis went something like this: 9/11 was an emanation of an ideology that had grown in conditions of dictatorship and failure in the Middle East. For any of us anywhere to be safe, the conditions themselves had to be changed.'

The Middle East is large and diverse, and the selection of Iraq as an opponent was not inevitable. Is there a single neocon who doesn't privately wish that the US had tackled Iran's real nuclear programme, instead of Iraq's imaginary one?

Our gravest problem is that the countries (other than Afghanistan) whose citizens are most closely linked to the ideology of Al Qaeda are notionally our allies: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

James Kennett, Worcester, UK

You are right David, and on this note, leave terrorism, the environment, climate change, etc., behind, the biggest threats humanity faces today are the lack of accountability and the inhability of independent, rational thought.

G. Hoffmann, Bergen, Norway

Islamo-Facism must be defeated. It may take generations, but in the end the world will be a much better place. Whether it's Gore or Bush or McCain or Clinton, it doesn't matter. Not one of these politicians would've allowed any chance for Saddam to supply WMD to the jihadis. What they say on the campaign trail is one thing. What they do in office is and will be another.

Howard, NY, NY

The arguments over Gore are academic, but to say the Democrats wouldn't have acted differently on the basis of what they have said since that non-event - as though that fact in itself and the subsequent (pre- and post-9/11) policies of the Bush administration did not signify in themselves a lurch to the Right in American politics, that will ineviatbly drag the unprincipled along with them (Mr Aaronovitch knows this process intimately, I believe) - is chop-logic to say the least.

To use an analogy with which I'm sure Mr Aaronovitch will be familiar - the fact that Napoleon came to occupy the place he did prevents any other from doing so and obscures the fact that someone else may have gone on to play the same, or at least a similar role, albeit in a different fashion.

David Moran, Liverpool,

Count me as one American who accepts the premise that had Al Gore not been cheated in the Florida election count, and the Supreme Court not ordered that the recount be stopped, a President Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Has Mr. Aaronovitch forgotton just how the books were cooked? Has he forgotton how MI6 stated in writing how policy was forming the intelligence rather than intelligence forming policy? Mr. Aaronovitch must be unaware how a cabal around the presidency including Mr. Feith and others not only ignored dissent within the CIA but silenced those voices. Can anyone reasonable think a President Gore would have conducted his office in the same way? I think not.

John, Seattle, USA

Any people with common sense would say that Sadam was not a threat to America in the years 2001 or 2002. If America was shrewd they should have utilised him as he was not religious fanatic. Based on testimonies of various people on9/11, one could say President Bush had plans of attacking Iraq irrespective of 9/11. 9/11 gave him strength to act unilaterally. What his internal motive whether Oil or Islamic extremism to be debated.
I was astonished if America could utilise Mushraf to get rid of Taliban /Al-queda why Bush did not utilise Saddam/Arafat.
Al Gore for that matter any other American President would have acted differently in Iraq. Even if you desired Saddam to be removed He should have finished Afghanistan first.
President Bush in his last two years of office may do some good things .a s he does not have to fight another election

Viswanath, Watford, UK

A vote for Hillary or Obama, or even Rudy or John, doesn’t change the regime in Pyongyang or Khartoum, or make the next jihadi tooling himself up right now for that magic moment, think to himself: “They voted Gore? Then I guess I won’t bother.”

It very well could. Recall President Carters "diplomatic" tactics regarding the Iranian hostage crisis 3 decades ago, and ensuing failed military attempt at rescue. Presidential candidate Ronald Regan made no attempt to color in his campaign the fact he would go in and "bring our countrymen home". His hand was barely off the bible and the hostages were released, unconditionally. Perception can have a profound effect...

Timm Morrison, Arlington, USA/WA

David Aaronovitch start with the logical truism that counterfactual propositions have no truth-value. In other words, given a counterfactual protasis, any apodosis is equally valid or invalid. With that in mind, it is rather preposterous for him to claim that if Gore were president (counterfactual), he would have pursued similar policies to Bush. The depths to which supporters of the Iraq invasion would stoop has no bounds.

Violet Foley, Princes Risborough, UK

RE: elixelx. . Maybe a proper job of fighting Al Qaeda, would have resulted in not focusing on Iraq, maybe Osama would be in Jail, and the Taleban, not on the verge of winning the initative in Afghanistan. Iraq was a policy sucess for Bin Laden. Whether you support the war in Iraq, you must admit that it has been a shocking failure. Only the terrorists can now benefit. Britain has been beaten out of the South. As regards "neo-con( read Jewish!)", if any faith drives them, it is Christianity, and the only belief is arrogance. It is good that Saddam is dead, but will the state of Iraq be next for the Gallow. If America wants to win in Iraq, it should have a proper surge in Iraq, with a uplift to the 500,000 troops that US generals initally asked for. The analogy of Iraq as a new born baby, is disturbing, given that so many children have been killed in this conflict and that so many more will die, as a result of this botched invasion.

DannyS, Dublin, Ireland

This article is a pathetic neocon apology by a Brit neocon in the pay of a publisher who is also a neocon. The iraq situation was a complete con job from day one in which the intel was cooked to meet the politically determined decision to invade. as for the fellow travelling British Tories lamely following whateve is the conventional wisdom of the moment in washington, the words of contempt fail me. The same goes for the rest of the bought and paid-for British establishment with its pavovian pro American stance and inability to think for itself .

oldasiahand, manila, Philippines

Sadly, the idea that 9/11 pushed Bush into taking a hard- line stance is incorrect. Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, has documented that invading Iraq was on the agenda of the very first National Security Council meeting 10 days after the inauguration. "Going after Saddam was topic 'A' eight months before Sept. 11. "

Baxter Lindsay, Preverenges, Switzerland

Aaronovitch forgets that people are not pounding Bush for what he did in Afghanistan, but for his invasion of Iraq.
Iraq was not even remotely connected to Al-queda and infact it is one of the very few secular dictatorships at that time. But he invaded Iraq on pretense of religious fundamentalism and viola...what happened, Afghanistan got neglected, Taleban is resurgent, Al-queda and other terrosists found a cause to fight for and a battle ground in Iraq.
Aaronovitch tries to jumble the facts and make us to believe that people are either opposing or supporting Bush's foreign policy. But for me his War in afghanistan OK, war in Iraq NOT OK.

Ratnakar, Hampshire, UK

> George W. Bush didn’t come into office saying “I must intervene in world affairs more
> than Bill Clinton”; he was inaugurated promising the polar opposite.

Maybe not, but well before 9/11 he first picked a pointless fight with China over that spy plane (and lost), and then pulled the US out of treaties limiting the development of chemical (or was it biological?) weapons. His intervention in world affairs was to treat the rest of the world with contempt. Without 9/11, that would have been a problem. With it, it became a disaster.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Excellent point all around from Mr. Aaronovitch. As for Mr. Edwards - that insult was more about Ms. Coulter's self-aggrandizment than it is Edwards. I confess to having called Mr. Edwards a 'pretty-boy' but did not intend casting aspersions on his sexuality (if they are aspersions - what is wrong with being gay?). No, I personally find Mr. Edwards callow and fallow - and don't fancy seeing an ambulance-chaser in the White House.

I believe Ms Coulter was casting aspersions, BTW - the term she used was similar to calling a right-winger a National Socialist.

Don, London, UK

"Maybe we're inspiring new recruits. That's no surprise. Any successful campaign would. We'll kill all of them, too" -George Booth, Biloxi, MS

Your lack of empathy personifies the typical Gun-toting American right. Essentially, this is a war between two religous fundamentalist groups, and the UK which, though fundamentally a Christian country, has a secular Government had no business in Iraq.

Pete, Cov,

The Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998 during Clinton's and Gore's Administration. http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm.

This suggests that it's a little rose tinted to take the view that Gore would not have touched an Iraq invasion with a barge pole.

MM, London,

Before the invasion of Iraq Al Qaeda was non existent in that country, indeed the Baathists being ideologically opposed to Al Qaeda and vice versa. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of the religious and social composition of Iraq understood that.

In came the neo cons, all bluster and no brains. Eyes taken off Afghanistan, Iraq invaded and now teeming with Al Qaeda and with the Shi'ites in power. Shi'ites of course tend to look at Iran for spiritual guidance. So in one fell swoop two of the most dangerous and anti west idealogies (Al Qaeda and the Mullahs of Iran) have been given a new lease of life and an entire oil rich country to use as their battleground. Well done neo cons.

jawed, London, United Kingdom

David, you must know the story of the two talmudic students discussing the relative power of their mentor Rabbis: "If my Reb told that wall to fall down, it would" says one. "And if my Reb told that wall NOT to fall down", says the other, "it WOULDN'T". The point being, that in the second case you can never know!
The Liberal left loonies throughout the world have blamed the neo-con( read Jewish!) coterie around GWB as spoiling for a fight from the day they "stole" the 2000 election from Al Gore! It just happened to be poor Afghanistan and then poor Iraq in the firing line.
Can you imagine a world in 2007 where Saddam was STILL in power, his misbegotten sons STILL terrorising their people, Al Qaeda STILL rampant, and the UN STILL insisting that sanctions would work if only given time???
Iraq is in the process of being born; some infants die at childbirth; let's make sure that Iraq gets all the love and care needed to make it and keep it safe. Let's not abort!

elixelx, elx, spain

al gore made his views on iraq perfectly clear in a speech given on 23rd september 2002. see the following link: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

jim poyser (uk), manchester,

The problem is rather that no one wants to admit to the fact that having a reactionary capitalist oligarchy in possession of nuclear weapons is as bad as any. I don’t see Iran in possession of nuclear weapons as being as much a threat as the USA, and history confirms this opinion. We need a more diplomatic view. America, with huge forces threatening everyone all the time, goes charging round the world invading anyone at the drop of a hat on the excuse that they are a present or future threat, yet when on a completely exceptional occasion they themselves get a bit of their own medicine they go berserk. Unless and until America can acquire a more rational perspective it isn’t going to make much difference who is in the White House.

Henry Percy, London, UK

In my earlier post, I asserted that President Bush had demanded intelligence that linked Saddam to the twin towers just days after that tragedy. Sorry, I should have provided some evidence. Here it is.

The report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) describes the testimony of Richard Clarke, who was the White House’s counterterrorism chief at the time of 9/11, (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm):

‘Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Sad-dam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way." While he believed the details of Clarke's account to be incorrect, President Bush acknowledged that he might well have spoken to Clarke at some point, asking him about Iraq.’

Peteran, London,

II have exchanged views with David about the invasion of Iraq for all the years it has been a live issue. We share an anti-Saddam past (going back over 25 years) but we disagree about the war.

I do agree with David, however, about the redundancy of 'what-if' or 'if-only' analyses of histories that never actually took place. I would rather contribute to debate that seeks a progressive and hopeful way forward through the most difficult period of my fifty years on the planet. It seems to me the world is complex enough in its real form.

I'm about as opposed to Dick Cheney's world view as I can imagine but I truly don't want to subscribe to poisonous polemics based on the arithmetic of his death and my life's too short to speculate now on what might have happened four years ago in Iraq if something different had happened six years ago in Florida. That's the politics of luxurious delusion.

Don't those of us with opinions for or against the war need to engage with questions such as those David poses? In the real world, what do we do now and next?

Dougie, Sydney, Australia

If Aaronovitch likes Gore, he's welcome to him. Please take him off our hands.

Yeah sure, Gore'd done things differently. He'd made Clitonesque empty threats of retribution.

No, I'm not a Republican, but I am of the religious Right, albeit Catholic rather than Protestant. And a two tours Viet-Nam veteran wary of the Democrats' gutlessness in the face of the militant Islamist threat.

Dave Livingston, El Paso County, Colorado, USA

Why do you use Obama's statements to prove that Gore would not have acted differently to Bush? Thats absurd.

While the extent of the difference may have been exaggerated by liberal media, it is undeniably true (although not mentioned in this article) that Gore supported the invasion of Afghanistan (indeed, would any sane man have opposed it?). It was a necessary response to the horror of 9/11.

However, invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, although Bush/Cheney worked very hard to put the two together. They succeeded to the point that many Americans still think Hussein was involved in 9/11. However, Gore was not one of those fooled, and it is obvious that if he was President he would not have started war on a second front.

Would he have solved global warming? No, congress would have slowed him enormously. But Iraq would not be the mess it is now, if Gore had become President.

Jonathan, Sydney, Australia

The issue of contention is a leader's reaction towards terrorist attacks and not what the terrorists may or may not do if there is a different leader.

Afghanistan was one thing but wasn't Iraq a bit much.There was no known link between the attacks on 9/11 and Iraq. So they had to raise a new issue, possession of weapons of mass destruction, which is there somewhere.

AN, Bangkok, Thailand

Wayne Sanderson, Perle didn't serve in the Bush Administration and saying so doesn't make it so. The only real Administration neocons were Wolfowitz and Feith but it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who drove policy in the absence of an intellectually self-confident president. And they are no neocons.

Tim, London,

The usual apologia. You keep insisting there is a single source of terror against which this war on terror is aimed. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, why not sling in North Korea. All the same, eh? Make it simple! That's what Dubya does. Except it is not simple. These are all different problems, and they need different solutions. Afganistan needed invading, to promote our security. Iraq did not - for the same reason. And, wholly contrary to your latest attempt to weasel out of the appalling errors of judgement you made in supporting Bush and Blair on their superficial quest, Gore did NOT make the error of lumping all these problems in the same box. Nor did Schroeder, Chirac, Annan, Blix etc etc

Mod, London,

I wonder if Aaronovitch still believes that the invasion of
Iraq was a good idea. We have a situation where terrorists
can perfect their techniques using young poor American
soldiers as targets. Where Iraq has become a failed state
and where there is a likliehood of a Middle East wide
conflict involving Shia and Sunni dominated countries.

John, London,

When watching the Oscars last Sunday I had to wonder what it would be like here in the US if Gore's presidency hadn't been stolen away from him in that oh-so intelligent state of Florida. Being a "green" minded person I seriously doubt that he would have us constantly on our knees to the controllers of our much needed oil. Never mind Democrat or Republican, I do believe Gore would not have snubbed Prince Charles at the White House in regard to the Kyoto Accord as did Bush. (He probably had it mixed up with a karaoke act.) I do believe Gore would have shown the respect and discipline of character and temperment that was due to the UN and NOT have charged into Afghanistan or Iraq like a bull in heat. Some say he was carrying on the war that his father never finished; a personal vendetta if you wish. Do terrorists care that Bush is at the helm? I doubt it. The real reason (supposedly) that the Twin Towers were targeted had nothing to do with Bush, but more about the fact that the US backs Israel, so to the terrorists we are in bed with their enemy. After all, didn't the US (Papa Bush) finance Hussein years ago? What skulduggery went on there that our taxes paid for? Now on to 2008 and the next chuckle-head.

Jillian Cunningham, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Are we sure this guy is a liberal? He doesn't *sound* stupid.

BTW, since the point of war is to kill the enemy, I think Iraq was a much better choice than Afghanistan. I don't think we could have gotten this many to show up and die there. Maybe we're inspiring new recruits. That's no surprise. Any successful campaign would. We'll kill all of them, too.

George Booth, Biloxi, MS

Aaronovitch wants us to believe that just because President Bush promised before he took office to be a domestic leader that we should believe it as 'truth' that somehow events overshadowed his intentions.

I think he gets confused by his fantasies about Ann Coulter, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

All we have to do is look at the pre- 9/11 transcripts in which the Bush administration made it very clear that they fully intended to wage aggressive acts against Iraq even as early as the republican convention in the summer of 2000.
By the time of the tragedy of 9/11, a war plan had been drawn up.
These are facts, Mr. Aaronovitch and you need to look at them instead of creating your fantasies about how Al Gore would have not acted.

John Tredway, Venice, Florida

First, a nod of agreement towards the comment from John Quiggan. Then, you would also have thought that Aaronovitch would know, and therefore should have mentioned, that the neo-conservative movement, which had been pushing for the invasion of Iraq since the early '90s, dominated the relevant positions in the Bush Administration - names like Wolfowitz and Perle are best known, but there were many more. They came into the administration largely thanks to Rumsfeld and Cheney.

None of these people would have served in a Gore Administration, thereby diminishing the chances of an invasion of Iraq to well below zilch. Gore, ordering a pre-emptive invasion without UN backing? Now that's what I call a fantasy!

Wayne Sanderson, Brisbane, Australia

This is a truthful and accurate analysis. It is amazing that the media has remade Bush into a man who had always intended to have the US intervene militarily on some crusade... Bush made his position clear from day one- he would be more domestically focused.

9/11 left him (and any would-have-been US President in his position) with only one option in the minds of Americans following such a brutal attack- thank the Taliban in kind.

JL, London, UK

Umm, you would think that in 750 words, Aaronovitch would have found space to mention that Gore did in fact support the invasion of Afghanistan and oppose the invasion of Iraq.

If Aaronovitch wants to argue that Gore would have acted differently in office, he needs something more than the sneers he offers here.

John Quiggin, Brisbane, Australia

Give this guy a pay raise

Dugald Craig, Clitheroe, UK

Also in David Aaronovitch

Psychotic terrorists in search of a grievance

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

David Aaronovitch

David Aaronovitch is a writer, broadcaster and commentator on international politics and the media. He writes for The Times Comment page on Tuesdays. He has previously written for The Guardian, The Observer and The Independent, winning numerous accolades, including Columnist of the Year 2003 and the 2001 Orwell prize for journalism. He has appeared on the satirical TV current affairs programme Have I Got News For You and made radio broadcasts on historical topics