What If?

Andrew Sullivan points to The New Republic article playing a what-if game, envisioning a Bush impeachment after he invaded Afghanistan in August 2001. I've said before that I think the focus on what happened before 9/11 is a mistake, and this imagined scenario is probably quite an accurate portrait about what would have really happened. But it also misses the point. I think the country should focus on what happened after 9/11, not before, but those who are asking those questions aren't saying that the U.S. should have invaded Afghanistan. I think they would be more interested in knowing why after specific intelligence talking about planes being hijacked was circulated at the highest levels of government why we couldn't even manage to scramble some fighter jets in time to catch up with commercial airliners that were clearly off-course and out of contact. They would want to know why it wasn't until the second plane hit that the President realized something very very bad was happening, given the general sense of alarm raised in the memos that are now becoming public. Rhetorically compelling, perhaps, but this strawman doesn't hold up to scrutiny as a response to those asking the tough questions.

April 13, 2004 20:09 GMT