Could you imagine what would have happened if we had invaded Afghanistan before 9-11.
We would not have been able to stop the 9-11 plot anyway. That was well developed outside of Afghanistan, and going to happen.
All the terrorists would have to say was that 9-11 was in response our invading Afghanistan,and they would get world wide approval.
The blame America first crowd in this country and around the world would have had a field day saying we brought it on ourselves by invading Afghanistan. -
We were saved from a major PR blunder by our own incompetence. -Tom
Although I agree we would have suffered a PR setback, I don't think such considerations should deter our political leadership from taking the necessary actions to protect our citizens at home and abroad. That's the mantra of the Clintonistas like Alrbight and Berger, i.e., we didn't have the support from abroad or domestically to take such actions.
In his testimony before the Commission, Rumsfeld said we would have taken action against the Taliban and AQ even if 9/11 did not happen. The comprehensive strategy and plan to deal with AQ was signed on September 10. The Bush administration did not want to retaliate for the USS Cole using the pinprick of missiles launched at training camps. Clinton had 4 months to respond to the USS Cole and did nothing because the proof was not definitive that AQ did it, which is laughable given the prior attacks. Besides, the embassy bombings were sufficient enough.
From a practical and logistical standpoint, it would have been very difficult for the Bush Administration to act immediately on taking office. Anyone who has worked in the federal government during a change in administrations knows that it takes 4 to 5 months to transition to the new team. The fact that we were able to respond so quickly after 9/11 is testimony to the fact that a plan was already in place and just needed to be implemented. That is the Bush legacy.