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

[DrPizza]

Ohhhhh, that Bush. I thought you meant the first Bush. And, yeah, if the first Bush hadn't been elected, I think things would have turned out different in the long run. However, that doesn't mean that the long run would have been better; only that it'd have been different.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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 .../

feelings can be very misleading............

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly which Republican said 9-11 was ALL Clinton's fault?
The blame lies across all of our government, not just the President.
If anything blame for 9-11 lies with people in lower ranks for power who took actions that were harmful, such as building the wall between the CIA and FBI that prevented them from sharing information. And the people who were told about Muslims going to flight school, but never even looked into it.

BTW: John Kerry was warned about the security at Logan airport in Boston as being really bad before 9-11 and he did NOTHING at all. I am not blaming Kerry for 9-11, I am just pointing out that there were little signs all over the place that people missed.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly which Republican said 9-11 was ALL Clinton's fault?
The blame lies across all of our government, not just the President.
If anything blame for 9-11 lies with people in lower ranks for power who took actions that were harmful, such as building the wall between the CIA and FBI that prevented them from sharing information. And the people who were told about Muslims going to flight school, but never even looked into it.

BTW: John Kerry was warned about the security at Logan airport in Boston as being really bad before 9-11 and he did NOTHING at all. I am not blaming Kerry for 9-11, I am just pointing out that there were little signs all over the place that people missed.

Most people agree that Bush is soft on terror.

 

[CycloWizard]

Anyone who thinks the government can protect you from the Boogeyman doesn't understand how the Boogeyman works.

 

[Lemon law]

Somewhat the Genius of GWB&co. has been to write a revisionist history of events pre and post 911---and that on GWB's watch it was really Clinton who was asleep at the switch---and that Bush's administration was focused pre-911---when in fact GWB's record was far worse than Clinton's pre 911.

Or that during 911---Bush was focused---he was not--he was reading MY PET GOAT during---and a non-factor thereafter---and the first dicussions iof this administration concerned
using this as an excuse to invade Iraq.

But GWB somehow squeaked into a election decided in his favor by a court--not the people--and started with 49% support---by 911 support was down to 40%---and then it shot up to 90% as we had no choice but to rally around a president--in many ways 911 has made GWB---but we have to still ask---has 911 made GWB into a stateman or just brought out the knee jerk ability in GWB to somehow alienate everyone without getting anything positive done?

Its one thing to be a man of action and another thing to be the keystone cops.

 

[ProfJohn]

So many of you liberals on this board live in some version of Disney?s Fantasy Land where Democrats in power will mean the end of terrorism, balanced budgets and no more congressmen going after under age pages.

Well I have news for you, Democrats were in power and they did nothing to stop any of the above.
1. Clinton was President for 8 years and took no meaningful action to stop terrorism
2. Clinton and Democrats controlled both the Presidency and Congress for 2 years and took NO action to balance the budget.
3. Democrats in charge of congress took NO action when two of their members were caught having SEX with under age people who worked for them

Maybe if you would wake up from you liberal lala land and have more realistic expectations for your leaders you wouldn?t be so upset when they disappoint you as they will ALWAYS do.

Plus if you eliminate all this hatred you have for Bush and Republicans you would have less stress in your lives and will live longer. See, like a good liberal ProfJohn cares about you

BTW: I have low expectations for both Republicans and Democrat leaders. Both sides will always make mistakes, that is a fact of life and we have to live with it. Even someone as great as JFK has his bay of bigs fiasco. FDR had his "four more judges" on the Supreme court attempt and Reagan had the Iran Contra affair. Leaders will always have failures, complaining about it and crossing our fingers and hoping that some day they will become perfect isn't going to work. Learn to live with that fact. I disliked Clinton, but I never came close to the level of hatred for him that I see amongst many of you on the left in this forum.

 

[Forsythe]

"Bin-Laden determined to strike US with aircraft"

I think there's a pretty good chance.

(Don't remember the quote exactly.)

 

[Lemon law]

To Prof. John,

You make two assertions I very much disagree with----

1. Clinton was Pres for eight years and did nothing regarding terrorism.

2. During 1992 to 1994 Clinton did nothing the balance the budget,

So I will take them point by point.

1. Clinton and the intelligence community was basically clueless that Ossama Bin Laden was a terrorist threat until 1994 or 5---but at least Clinton tried--by pegging some cruise missles at him. GWB did nothing pre 911-------and now GWB is absolutely the force that grows terrorism----I would rather have someone who does nothing rather than someone who is so ineffectual in the process of trying to do something that they are counterproductive---and despite your dislike of Clinton---at least he did not do stupid things---and the country prospered.
All GWB does is do really really stupid things.

2. This point has alraedy been covered---it took bi-partisan effort later to balance the budget as the economy grew---but Reagan had us so deep in the Red it took all of the GHB administration and the first half of the Clinton adm. to recover---because like GWB---Reagan had a incredably stupid debt based economy we had to pay back before we could move forward. But with Clinton at the helm and with Bi-partisan republican help---the US recovered---maybe not by incredable smarts---but just by not doing stupid things.

But thats a hell of a comment to make about two fairly decent Presidents---GHB and Bill Clinton---they didn't do stupid things to hurt the economy--and we prospered.

And now GWB does one stupid thing after another after another---financed with three trillion dollars of additional borrowed money. When the borrowed money has to be paid back--there will go the economy.---as it did post Reagan---and perhaps unjustly cost GHB his job.

Now on point three---you may be right---but where is the evidence---or is just another unsubstaniated Republican talking point this week? And how many GOP members did similkar things in the distant past and also escaped punishment---the point is the GOP leaders were warned years ago---and did nothing until the Sh*t hit the fan. And flash news just in from Yahoo new--the Republicans will do nothing to punish Foley.

So Prof John---once again---your feeble attempts at logic fails---and if the initial premises are no good---either are your conclusions.

But you can offer your opinions---or better yet---look out and read the news---the real and not slanted news---and you will see your man GWB is blowing it--everywhere you look. And thats why we patriotic Americans dislike GWB---for the damage he is doing to our Country.

But I do plead guilty to a viseral hate of GWB---but I hope my posts will speed his departure---so I turn my tasks to fighting for a better world.

 

[Pabster]

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

There you go, invoking Clinton! :laugh:

Get your pesky facts out of this thread.

 

[Craig234]

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

Get your pesky facts out of this thread.

Pabster wrong again.

I said Gore *might* have been able to, the odds are hard to say.

You cherry pick two incidents that were not blocked; you fail to cite examples which were blocked by Clinton, like the Milennium bombing of LAX.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 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.

Pretty much.

 

[LunarRay]

Interesting premise.... seems that had Gore won or Kerry in '04 something may have occurred differently.. different players in control may indeed have had a different outcome in the 9/11 attack and the subsequent events to the '04 elections...

But, be that as it may... I'm convinced '00 elections altered the reading of Intel (or the influence what was provided had) and given a different Agenda... life today is very different and non-existent for many... And it always will be..

It is for Americans to now Vote in November one way or another.. but Dang it Vote!!! Even for a Conservative and help others Vote... at least let the majority of eligible voters decide this nations future.. this being elected by less than the majority of eligible voters has got to end.. Let apathy wane and you will see even the Left or Right abiding by the will of the voter more than acting as if the voter does not exist...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Prof. John,

blah blah blah...

But I do plead guilty to a viseral hate of GWB---but I hope my posts will speed his departure---so I turn my tasks to fighting for a better world.

1. Osama declared war on the US in 1995, that gave Clinton 5 years to do something. During that entire 5 years we managed to launch all of 75 cruise missiles at him. During that same time we dropped something on the order of 35,000 bombs on Kosovo. So apparently Clinton thought that Kosovo was worth the military effort, but going after Osama was not. Let me repeat that: Kosovo 35,000 bombs over 2+ months, Osama and al-Qaeda 75 cruise missiles during one single operation.

2. Go here Page 173 and look at Clinton's FY 96 budget, he was planning for budget deficits of $190+ billion for 5 years out. He had NO plan at all to cut spending or balance the budget, it was ONLY after the Republicans took over that he started talking about cutting spending. Remember the famous "era of big government is over" speech? That was in 1996, after Republican were in charge of congress and forced Clinton to change his plans and policies.

3. Here is the evidence 1983 page sex scandal and Mel Reynolds Go there and look, two Democrat congressmen caught having SEX with under aged people, one 16 and one 17. Neither of them was removed from congress.
Read the 1983 one and you will see that Newt wanted congressmen Studds and Crane, a Republican also caught having sex with a minor, kicked OUT of congress, but the House, which was controlled by Democrats, only voted to censure them. Of course during this censure Studds did the newly famous about face on the speaker which earned him a standing ovation.

Is that enough evidence for you? Would you like more? I can provide it I am sure.

Why don't you try finding ANY evidence that Clinton wanted to reduce spending or balance the budget BEFORE the Republicans took over. (Good luck since it is not out there)

And for stupid Clinton tricks, how about getting caught receiving blow jobs in the oval office pantry and ruining you reputation for ETERNITY. History may end up being kind to Bush for Iraq, especially if we win, but history will never forget Bill and the intern.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh, you mean like in 1995? when the WTC was attacked the first time? By radical Islamic terrorist operating completely within our own country?

Or like when Mcveigh and his buddy bought all that fertilizer to make a bomb and blew up Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building?

Yeah, your right I am quite sure that they could have headed it off at the pass better than the GWB administration

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

To say that someone else would have been better able to handle and prevent it should be a reasonable topic of discussion. The OP is asking whether or not someone else could've done a better job and been more likely to prevent it. The answer is categorically yes, there is undoubtedly someone who could have done a better job, the question is whether that person was up for election in 2000.

 

[mc00]

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 ...

as much I dislike bush I have to say it could happen to any president taking offices. I hate to say it we had this coming for long time and we slept on it while there were clues leading to this attacks .. but I do say if would have been another president at least with brains would have handle 9/11 and all this issues happening present time, much better. is 2008 yet?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: 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.

To say that someone else would have been better able to handle and prevent it should be a reasonable topic of discussion. The OP is asking whether or not someone else could've done a better job and been more likely to prevent it. The answer is categorically yes, there is undoubtedly someone who could have done a better job, the question is whether that person was up for election in 2000.

Totally 100% agree. If we had not gotten Bush we would have had Gore and who is to say that he would not have just followed the path Clinton had been following which would not have stopped anything.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster

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

There you go, invoking Clinton! :laugh:

Get your pesky facts out of this thread.

however irrelevant they might be...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Prof. John,

blah blah blah...

But I do plead guilty to a viseral hate of GWB---but I hope my posts will speed his departure---so I turn my tasks to fighting for a better world.

1. Osama declared war on the US in 1995, that gave Clinton 5 years to do something. During that entire 5 years we managed to launch all of 75 cruise missiles at him. During that same time we dropped something on the order of 35,000 bombs on Kosovo. So apparently Clinton thought that Kosovo was worth the military effort, but going after Osama was not. Let me repeat that: Kosovo 35,000 bombs over 2+ months, Osama and al-Qaeda 75 cruise missiles during one single operation.

2. Go here Page 173 and look at Clinton's FY 96 budget, he was planning for budget deficits of $190+ billion for 5 years out. He had NO plan at all to cut spending or balance the budget, it was ONLY after the Republicans took over that he started talking about cutting spending. Remember the famous "era of big government is over" speech? That was in 1996, after Republican were in charge of congress and forced Clinton to change his plans and policies.

3. Here is the evidence 1983 page sex scandal and Mel Reynolds Go there and look, two Democrat congressmen caught having SEX with under aged people, one 16 and one 17. Neither of them was removed from congress.
Read the 1983 one and you will see that Newt wanted congressmen Studds and Crane, a Republican also caught having sex with a minor, kicked OUT of congress, but the House, which was controlled by Democrats, only voted to censure them. Of course during this censure Studds did the newly famous about face on the speaker which earned him a standing ovation.

Is that enough evidence for you? Would you like more? I can provide it I am sure.

Why don't you try finding ANY evidence that Clinton wanted to reduce spending or balance the budget BEFORE the Republicans took over. (Good luck since it is not out there)

And for stupid Clinton tricks, how about getting caught receiving blow jobs in the oval office pantry and ruining you reputation for ETERNITY. History may end up being kind to Bush for Iraq, especially if we win, but history will never forget Bill and the intern.

And its a sad fact that people like you actually care that clinton got a blowjob from an intern, and that your ilk spent 2 years trying to orchestrate a political coup against him. Congrats, i hope you're proud.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: 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.

To say that someone else would have been better able to handle and prevent it should be a reasonable topic of discussion. The OP is asking whether or not someone else could've done a better job and been more likely to prevent it. The answer is categorically yes, there is undoubtedly someone who could have done a better job, the question is whether that person was up for election in 2000.

Totally 100% agree. If we had not gotten Bush we would have had Gore and who is to say that he would not have just followed the path Clinton had been following which would not have stopped anything.

Had he followed clintons path, he would have had a much better chace of foiling it baed on the evidence presented thus far in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: mfs378
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.

Hint: 42 had 8 years, 43 had 8 months. This isn't rocket science.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Wheezer


Oh, you mean like in 1995? when the WTC was attacked the first time? By radical Islamic terrorist operating completely within our own country?

The first WTC bombing occurred on febuary 26th 2003, he was inaugurated jan 20th 2003.

The oklahoma bombing was done bytwo people working independantly and was really beyond the ability of any police organization to prevent.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
And its a sad fact that people like you actually care that clinton got a blowjob from an intern, and that your ilk spent 2 years trying to orchestrate a political coup against him. Congrats, i hope you're proud.

Does that mean you agree with everything else in my post?

Actually I don't care about the blow job, other than the damage it did the reputation of the Presidency.
What I do care is an attempt to subvert our judicial system by the man sworn to uphold such a system. When he LIED under oath and told Monica to lie he was doing more to shred the constitution than ANYTHING Bush has done. "Gee Monica I know I am suppose to uphold the laws and constitution of this country, but if we both lie no one will ever know right?"
Bill Clinton KNEW that lying under oath and telling Monica to lie was a CRIME and he did it anyway.
Meanwhile after 6 years no one has been able to find one PROVEABLE crime that Bush committed.

 

[MAW1082]

I don't think 9/11 would have happened if we had elected someone outside of the democratic and republican parties. If we elected Gore, it still would have almost definitely occurred.