English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Whenever I tell my republican friends that had Gore been president, 9/11 may have been prevented, they laugh and say "How? Would he have flown there and grabbed the planes with his hands?

Sarcasm aside, why do they believe it was inevitable?

Had Gore been president, I have no doubt he would've met face to face with his Anti Terrorism Expert, who tried for 9 months to warn Bush of Al Qaeda's plan to hijack planes. Or would he have played hide & seek and gone on vacation like Bush did?

After the meetings, I have no doubt that the airliners would've been warned and told to re-enforce their doors. Remember these terrorists just broke down the weak cockpit doors without much effort. And possibly air marshals might've been instituted. The airport security would most certainly have been hightened.

Since FBI already had files on these hijackers and even knew that some of them attended flying schools, they may have put surveillance on them 24/7.

2006-08-03 06:30:26 · 10 answers · asked by STEWIE 6 in Politics & Government Government

What does 1987 have to do with anything? NO ONE knew who Osama was back then... except the Reagan administration, who CREATED, TRAINED AND ARMED him to fight the Soviets.

So you're telling me Gore of 2000 still didn't know who Osama was?????

2006-08-03 06:44:16 · update #1

So what did Clinton do when he was repeated warned that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes? Oh, right, he wasn't. But Bush was... for 9 months.

2006-08-03 06:47:55 · update #2

Well, if I were president and my anti-terrorism expert told me Al qaeda was planning to crash planes in to WTC, I would've done something. Now if some 5th grader I've never met told me that then I might have ignored him.

2006-08-03 06:49:46 · update #3

Terrorists using planes as missiles is nothing new. There's even a movie about it called Executive Decision, which was filmed in the mid 90s. There are also terrorist experts who have written of such possibilities well before then.

What's new is a president being warned about it repeatedly and not doing anything about it.

2006-08-03 06:52:55 · update #4

No, as incompetent as Bush was before 9/11, I have no doubt that he had nothing to do with the supposed "exploding of WTC."

Read this and put the conspiracy theory to rest:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

2006-08-03 06:55:49 · update #5

10 answers

Sure it could have been prevented. It was known for YEARS that Al Queada was planning something. Osama didn't just dream this plan up when Bush took office. So in a way, Gore HAD a chance to change the course of things by being the VP and he didn't.

Bush was in office for 8 months before 9/11. Clinton had been in office for 8 years.

2006-08-03 06:38:15 · answer #1 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 1 0

No, I seriously doubt Gore would have done anything.
read this:::::

It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir," continued Ollie.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.


By the way, that senator was Al Gore!

Also:

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."

However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.

Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.


This is why liberals are so hated. You aren't reading the responses are you? This plan took years to formulate, they had to send people to flight school, you don't just learn to fly an airliner in a day. I'm sure the Clinton admin had a heads up also, I really don't think the Bush admin would have been able to stop this plan, that was probably Al Qaeda's #1 priority at the time.

2006-08-03 06:38:01 · answer #2 · answered by evillyn 6 · 0 0

9/11 was NOT preventable. Hindsight being 20/20, everyone and their brother claims that they could have prevented it. In all actuality, if someone came up to you and said that terrorists were going to hijack and slam planes into buildings, you would have laughed. Don't even try to say that you won't. You would have.

I wrote a report in high school that got me in trouble because I claimed that terrorists, both foreign and domestic, would strike the U.S. within the next 5-10 years. People laughed at me when I gave it. lo and behold, almost 3 years later, Al Qaeda bombed the WTC. Then there was also OKC. I wasn't an expert, I just did my research. I studied their beliefs. It was a no brainer. But even I would have had trouble buying into terrorists using airplanes as missiles.

2006-08-03 06:47:52 · answer #3 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0 0

The first thing you have to ask yourself, is who did it?
Pictures of the plane parts recovered at the Pentagon do not match any of the supposed planes that did it!!!
It is an impossibility for the World Trade Center to colapse the way it did, except if it was done with explosives. The main structure beams were sheared off at the base!! Many explosive specialists have examined it minutely, and have all agreed that it was a detonation that took the buildings down,,,
Read and investigate it, and don't except what the Government controlled Media wants you to believe...
There are many places to check it out!! So check it out!!

2006-08-03 06:52:36 · answer #4 · answered by rev8track 2 · 0 0

600 thousand Iraqi lives? You each and every person is a scream. of direction you're maximum in all likelihood suited concerning to the vice president. after all, now no longer a ingredient has changed with the aid of fact 1994. Hillary continues to be to be pushing socialism in wellbeing care. The left continues to be making up lies approximately Rush. Congressman William Jefferson (D) maintains to be stealing earnings Louisiana. Democrats nonetheless decide for to strengthen taxes. I did hear that some thing blew up in manhattan. could no longer have been properly worth going to warfare over although.

2016-10-01 10:38:25 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

G'day,

Thank you for your question.

I think that your question is premised on wishful thinking. Al-Queda had launched previous attacks on America during Bill Clinton's administration.

On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, along with Sumedh Gawai and three other Islamist leaders co-signed and issued a fatwa (binding religious edict) under the banner of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders (al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin) declaring:

[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.

1998 was also the year of the first major terrorist attack reliably attributed to al-Qaeda: the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa, which resulted in upward of 300 deaths. The Clinton administration took no effective action.

During World War II, Americans from both parties put partisanship aside and decided to win the war.

It is time Americans of all stripes put aside partisanship and took the threat of terrorism seriously.

Regards

Regards

2006-08-03 17:34:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This is personal not partisan. hence a Republican is like anybody else. There are no beliefs or procedures that ties this event to a party. anyway prevention of such things is a big issue, and if you succeed in preventing something you would have never asked that question.

2006-08-03 06:39:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

During Ollie North's persecution, Gore didn't know who Osama was or how to pronounce his name. The man was definitely NOT on top of things. We are lucky that he was not at the helm then.\

While its suspicious that every Jew was absent that day, only a ridiculous twinkie would think the gov was complicit.

2006-08-03 06:36:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Having foreknowledge of a crime and failing to act in order to prevent it is crime in and of itself.

2006-08-04 06:33:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I believe the government was complicit.

2006-08-03 06:36:36 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers