>>With the benefit of hindsight, I think Bush was correct in choosing to take the war to the enemy but wrong in believing that Saddam was more dangerous than Osama. I believe psychologists will conclude that Bush Jr. had a personal type problem with daddy's decision not to press on to Baghdad in 1991, but that history will judge daddy's choice was wise.
>>
>>I think Bush Jr's most tragic weakness was his dogmatic type of thinking.
>>
>>I know it's a popular belief that Bush wanted to "finish what his daddy started". Maybe there's some truth to that - but there's a far more important issue - after 9/11, we attacked the wrong country that began with the letters "IRA..." My biggest criticism on Bush is that while we're fighting over there instead of here, he didn't do ENOUGH.
>>
>>Saddam and Osama were both dangerous, just on different scales. Hussein's fate was certainly just.
>
>Afghanistan has also deteriorated while we have been distracted (and spread thin) in Iraq. At one point the Taliban were on the run and in danger of becoming a spent force. Now they probably control as much of the country as they ever did. I read in the paper the other day that the enlightened young men of the Taliban have been throwing acid in the faces of girls who have the temerity to attend school. (And all-girls schools at that).

An article on Al Jazeera is interesting. It clearly blames Bush and Karsai:

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/thebushlegacy/2008/12/200812218331286715.html

According to some older women, education and medical care were better (and much safer) during the Soviet years. Education is available now to all, but it is certainly not safe to try to take advantage of it.

The article is actually very well done IMHO. There are places in the article where the emphasis not necessarily directly on Bush or Karsai but international oversight and forces, but the heading of the article of course focuses on Bush and the effects of the actions in Afghanistan under his tenure.