A lot of people like Don are making pretty much a full-time career of carping on how badly George Bush has been running things in foreign policy.

Just for fun, I'd like to hear from you people some alternatives.

If Bush is such a blithering incompetent, please tell me what a SMART President would have done about:

Iraq (long and proven history of pursuing WMD, up to and including nuclear, using WMD, invading neighboring nations, and supporting terrorism)

North Korea (developing nuclear weapons, proven history of selling weapons of all kinds to anyone with the cash)

Iran (developing nuclear weapons, supports terrorism)

Syria (supports terrorism)

Afghanistan (home base of the Taliban and the terror group responsible for the WTC attack)

...and the rest. We already have seen what Clinton did, but that's water under the bridge.

Okay, you've got President Al Gore, it's September 12, 2001, and the World Trade Center is burning ruins.

Now what?

Have some fun with this. Anyone else feel free to dive in.

For the record, this kind of question usually gets squat from the complainers, although sometimes some mumbling about the "U.N. doing something" can be heard. The modern Chamberlains are convinced that we have succeeded if we can get a monster's signature on a piece of paper. The monsters laugh their asses off at this. Like I pointed out elsewhere, to them, "negotiations" are just another weapon in their arsenals. And the cheapest one, to boot.