Anyone else get the feeling that 9/11 would probably not have happened if we hadn't elected Bush?

[mfs378]

With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

 

[Pabster]

Yeah, for sure. I mean, Al Qaeda never made any threats or killed any Americans prior to GWB.

You might do well to take a history lesson.

 

[mfs378]

You would do well to reread my post.

I'm not saying they wouldn't have tried it. I'm saying the administration would have had a much better chance of stopping it if they actually cared about what they were told, instead of adopting this "we know better don't worry your pretty little head about it" attitude towards the people who warned them/people who dealt with terrorism and the al queda threat.

 

[Craig234]

I think there's a 100% chance the government would have made a far better effort against Al Queda pre-9/11, implementing the war plan Clinton had made, with Richard Clarke still in the cabinet.

Whether they would have prevented it I think is hard to know, "probably" seems too strong a word. But we would have had a government that tried, not one that cared only about enriching its donors from the tax cuts for the wealthy at the nation's expense, the corrupt drug bill for the drug companies, etc.

 

[judasmachine]

weren't they already planning the attack long before bush came into office?

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
weren't they already planning the attack long before bush came into office?

You can't stop them when its just an idea in someone's head. You stop them when they start preparing and start putting their plan into action.

 

[Lemon law]

Even though I dispise GWB and his administration was somewhat asleep at the switch pre 911, I don't
think its fruitful to speculate if some other President could have prevented 911. 911 is history and we have to deal with what is the wise move thereafter.---and its the way the GWB chooses to fight against terror that disturbs me.----Al-Quida is small and is still very small---we did not have to alienate 1.4 billion moslems and the bulk of the world in the process.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even though I dispise GWB and his administration was somewhat asleep at the switch pre 911, I don't
think its fruitful to speculate if some other President could have prevented 911. 911 is history and we have to deal with what is the wise move thereafter.---and its the way the GWB chooses to fight against terror that disturbs me.----Al-Quida is small and is still very small---we did not have to alienate 1.4 billion moslems and the bulk of the world in the process.

Thats all well and good, but there are those who blame the previous administration without taking a hard look at what the current one. Nothing is going to change history, but we should know what the real history is as opposed to what some would like it to be.

 

[Craig234]

Even though I dispise GWB and his administration was somewhat asleep at the switch pre 911, I don't
think its fruitful to speculate if some other President could have prevented 911.

I disagree; I think sometimes it is possible to know. We now know a lot about the info the government had and the activities of the government looking for terrorists, and the terrorists themselves. It is possible sometimes to get a clear answer yes or no to questions like this.

However, in this case, the info I know of is inconclusive as to whether it would have been prevented - but conclusive that a better effort would have been made.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think the odds of averting 9/11 would have been better, but they probably still would have succeeeded. We won't really know until we find out exactly how much the Bush administration knew in advance, and at what level of detail.

What we can predict is that the threat of terrorism today would be far, far lower had we not selected Bush. Gore would have maintained our focus on Afghanistan and al Qaida instead of getting distracted by Iraq ("Oooh, shiny ... errr ... oily!") We would have had a joint, global effort to root out terrorist forces, with broad cooperation from Islamic countires. Al Qaida would not have GWB as their Recruiter in Chief, nor would they have Iraq inflaming anti-U.S. hatred throughout the Islamic world. The world would be a much safer place if Bush were selling used cars somewhere instead of sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[randym431]

SOmething we wonder about. But I still find it strangely amazing how planned, patience focused these people are and how dead set on causing as much harm to Americans as they can. That really worries me. They think different than we do. We go into a war, like Vietnam, and think we can win it in short time. Then when it drags on we do not have the patience to keep it up over the very long term. They do!
I don?t think even calling these terrorist, terrorist, does them justice. That word puts them in a class of someone who hijacks a plane to have demands met, or some one who straps on a bomb and sets it off in a crowd. These guys are far more dangerous.

They have way too much focus, patience and organization (plus a lot of money).

Its not whether or not they will ever have nukes to use against us, its a question of when.

No direct war, like Iraq, is ever going to stop them. Its hard to say what ever will stop them, if thats even possible.
Our only protection is extremely smart and organized leadership in this country to keep us ahead of the game. Bush CERTANILLY does not have what it takes. Nor did Clinton or any president before them, for that matter.

We have to create ways and be very smart in protecting ourselves. I really don?t have a clue how we can ever do this long term.

But the first step is to label them something different than just "terrorist".

Someday they WILL have access to nukes. Either simply by taking the time in learning how to make them, or creating some alliance that will get them to their goal. An alliance that we probably can not even imagine today.

I don?t think calling these guys terrorist is really anything close to the accurate label, considering the amount of destruction that can really cause. With their focus, will power, determination, ability to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, no matter how long it takes should worry every American beyond what we ?think? and ?hope? our government can or will do to protect us.

The fact we missed the so many signs, and 9/11 happen, even with all the warnings we had over all the years leading up to 9/11, shows we are really in the dark, still, today, as what the "smart" thing to do is in keep ahead of these... terrorist (?)

We think of another 9/11 type attack, or poison in the public water supply, bombs in subways. ?They? are thinking of new ways of terror we can probably not imagine.

Thinking we are safe just because we have not been hit again, since this war has started, is in itself just the kind of thinking that will get us hit again, only much harder next time. We have to be smart, very smart, beyond smart.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think there's a 100% chance the government would have made a far better effort against Al Queda pre-9/11, implementing the war plan Clinton had made, with Richard Clarke still in the cabinet.

Whether they would have prevented it I think is hard to know, "probably" seems too strong a word. But we would have had a government that tried, not one that cared only about enriching its donors from the tax cuts for the wealthy at the nation's expense, the corrupt drug bill for the drug companies, etc.

Yeah, just like Clinton and Richard Clarke were able to stop Oklahoma City Bombing and World Trade Center bombing.

 

[Shimmishim]

i'm not a big bush fan... but i'm gonna have to say that even if bush weren't elected, 9/11 woulda happened either way.

it occurred in sept of 2001. it was well planned by the terrorists long before 2001... bush was elected into office january 2001... and it's not like the terrorists knew he'd be elected!

yes he and his administration had 9 months but even if gore had been elected i think IMHO there was no way to stop it...

but i agree with the person that says bush's reaction has been disturbing...

 

[umbrella39]

I am not so sure our government had tips that Oklahoma City Bombing and World Trade Center bombing were imminent so....

 

[kingtas]

911 has been in the making since we were in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that we are going to prevent terrorist attacks, no matter who is in office. You may catch some, but not all of them. It's the nature of the beast.

People may not like GWB or the current administration and that's fine. But to attribute everything that has happened or about to happen is petty.

 

[imported_Tango]

Maybe, but just for an indirect reason. Just before the elections there was an internal struggle both a the CIA and FBI. After Bush was elected many quite important positions at those two agencies were filled by new officiers, and according to some analysts this could have originated a brief gap of governance. When you change the top of the pyramid sometimes the process is not very smooth and you might need quite a long time before going back to business as usual.

Of course we have no reason to think another leadership would have been succesfull at preventing those terror attacks.

 

[1EZduzit]

It wasn't our first terrorist attack and it won't be our last, so I see no sense in pointing fingers.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: judasmachine
weren't they already planning the attack long before bush came into office?

You can't stop them when its just an idea in someone's head. You stop them when they start preparing and start putting their plan into action.

I meant they were already taking flying lessons and stuff by the time W got sworn in, right? It would seem that they were well on their way. I hate Bush as much as any of you, but I think this one would have gone down either way.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: mfs378
With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

Umm Richard Clarke was never demoted. He was transferred to a new posting at his own request and that didn't happen until after 9/11 anyway. Read his book it's in there. 9/11 was in the works and would have happened no matter who was president. The groundwork had been layed long before Bush became president.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
I meant they were already taking flying lessons and stuff by the time W got sworn in, right? It would seem that they were well on their way. I hate Bush as much as any of you, but I think this one would have gone down either way.

I believe there was a warning about people taking flying lessons right around the beginning of Bush's term, and obviously no action was taken. You may be right that it may not have made any difference, but that no one will ever know for sure.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Originally posted by: mfs378
With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

Umm Richard Clarke was never demoted. He was transferred to a new posting at his own request and that didn't happen until after 9/11 anyway. Read his book it's in there. 9/11 was in the works and would have happened no matter who was president. The groundwork had been layed long before Bush became president.

To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop.

Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading. "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed. Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."

It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)

In a further effort to minimize Clarke's importance, a talking-points paper put out by the White House press office states that, contrary to his claims, "Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank." At the same time, the paper denies?again, contrary to the book?that he was demoted: He "continued to be the National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism."

Both arguments are deceptive. Clarke wasn't a Cabinet secretary, but as Clinton's NCC, he ran the "Principals Committee" meetings on counterterrorism, which were attended by Cabinet secretaries. Two NSC senior directors reported to Clarke directly, and he had reviewing power over relevant sections of the federal budget.

Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals' meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.

Clarke probably resented the slight, took it personally. But he also saw it as a downgrading of the issue, a sign that al-Qaida was no longer taken as the urgent threat that the Clinton White House had come to interpret it. (One less-noted aspect of Clarke's book is its detailed description of the major steps that Clinton took to combat terrorism.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2097685/

 

[Hacp]

With comments like "I truly am not that concerned about him(Bin Laden)", I think that the chances of 9/11 happening under AL Gore would have been significantly decreased. Leave it to Bush to be soft on Terror.

 

[Moonbeam]

Until 9/11 Bush's policy was a four year vacation. Remember, Republicans hate government and believe in golf and clearing sage brush as the important things in life.

 

[CaptnKirk]

My observation is that Condoleeza Rice herself may have been the 'choke point' in the breakdown of communications.

She was a filter to remove anything that Bush didn't want to acknowledge.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mfs378
With Richard Clarke being demoted, and Rice giving the CIA people the runaround among other revelations from Woodward's book, doesn't it seem like there is a good chance we would have stopped 9/11 if Bush hadn't taken office? I get that feeling ...

Topic Title: Anyone else get the feeling that 9/11 would probably not have happened if we hadn't elected Bush?

You must be new here, you've heard the Republicans, it's all Clinton's fault.