For all the Bush bashers out there!?

Question

September 11, 2001 is a day that many of us will remember. If was shortly after, as I recall, that Bush decided to go into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight terrorism. Since then, his approval rating has significanlty decreased, and I've seen more Bush bashers here on Answers, than I have on all of CNN and CBS combined.

My question for you is this: what would YOU have done differently if you were Commander in Chief? How would you have handled the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?

Please give honest answers.

I'm not wanting to get into a political debate with you. I'd just like to know what you would have done differently.

Answer 1

I would have had a proper investigation into Sept 11th, established clearly who was responsible then gone after them and them only.

I would have sacked the spastic Americans who allowed untrained pilots to hijack then fly planes into airspace that should have been the best defended in the World (not once but twice in the case of the towers - twice!!!) and I would have caught Osama and his crew.

However, if I as president had faked sept 11th to give me an excuse to attack the middle east and steal their oil then I'd be pretty much pleased with myself around now.

Answer 2

First some undeniable facts
SAUDI HIJACKERS attacked America Not Iraqi
George Bush being a coward and friends with the Saudi's attacks a beaten and broken Iraq under the lie there are WMD's (Why doesn't he invade North Korea they have nukes the willingness and ability to use them, Attack Iran!)

When no WMD's were found he quietly has his administration admit it then uses the lie that Iraq sponsored Al Quaeda

When no Al Quaeda are found he uses the lie he is spreading democracy, However Iraqi's don't want homosexual marriges, drug addicted uneducated children,
uncontrolled crime and American corporations plundering their countries resources. While theirs is not a perfect society it has been around longer than ours and works for them.

That under pressure from the world to withdraw troops Bush now claims Iraq would fall into a civil war, Except the problem is Iraq IS IN A CIVIL WAR!

That people are being raped and killed in other parts of the world but since they have no oil we are not interested.

I would freeze the assets of the Saudi's who financed the hijackers, and not let them fly out the next day, I would send my elite units to hunt down and destroy the terrorists,
I would send cruise missiles to destroy their training camps and If I were truly concerned with terrorism instead of seeking a political platform I would have sealed our borders the next day!

George Bush is a liar! There is no war on terrorism there is a war for oil and presidential popularity and even that is failing, Gas is at an all time high and his ratings are at an all time low, How is that for failure?

33% approval rating suggests to me 1/3 or more of his supporters now realize he is a liar and the final 1/3 are like you die hard supporters with no realistic concern for or expectation of the truth!

Answer 3

Actually, there was overwhelming support and empathy across the world for Bush and USA when 9/11 happened. The support and empathy was still there when the troops went to Afghanistan.

For some strange reason, instead of addressing the root cause of 9/11, which is obviously, Osama bin Ladin, Bush decided to shift the war on terrorism to Iraq and the (now mythical) WMDs threat there. This was in view of protests from many countries that diplomacy should've should been pursued first, but, Bush decided to make a unilateral move against Iraq.

Five years since 9/11, the single one person most responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Ladin, is still free.

So in answer to your question: Bush should've gone after OBL. (Bear in mind that the recent attempt foiled last week in London was another attempt attributed to al -Qaida, which is associated with OBL)

Answer 4

I would have really addressed the real culprits the Saudis and the Bin Ladens, I would have never locked down our airspace, yet let them all fly home.

I would not have engaged in Iraq, containment worked since 1991, Hussein was bad, but not a threat. I would have went after the real trouble makers, the Iranians.

I would have told it like it is to Pakistan, stop harboring fugitives and selling nuclear technology. Thats what I would have done different.

Besides not sidestepping the constitution or imposing changes like the patriot act which is an excuse to erode our liberties. I would have gotten a new VP cause the old chronies Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are bad news!

Answer 5

For starters I would have been doing my job, reading reports and not spent so much time on vacation. You can go back and check the records for pre 9/11/01. He did not go to Iraq for any other reason then the oil there were no WMD and no one there connected to Al Queda at that time. It was all BS what don't you understand? When he went looking into Afghanistan to fight terrorists when they finally were close he sends the top of line soldiers to Iraq for the invasion Did he ever try talking to the Muslims and see why we have problems with them? When is he going to stop kissing Saudi Arabia's butt since most of the terrorists came from that country. Please help me make sense of anything he has done.

Answer 6

I support Bush, but to be honest, I would have waited on Iraq. I mean, yeah, Israel's intelligence was accurate... that is, when it was given to the US during Clinton's term. By the time Bush waged war on Afghanistan, all the WMDs had been moved to Damascus, and from there, who knows. Something should've been done during Clinton's era 'bout it, when the info was still fresh and new.

But, knowing Saddam, he would've done something stupid soon enough anyway, and *then* would've been a good time for action.

But, as to 9-11... assuming we all haven't been duped in some giant conspiracy theory... there wasn't a whole lot of options available... it was either "ramp up security, and take out the baddies where we find them", or "sit on our thumbs, and deal with the loss of untold lives".

As to going to the UN... sure, a handful of countries helped us out... the rest of the UN sat on their thumbs and said, "We share in your loss, but won't offer our troops to help you fight Al-Qaida".

Answer 7

I would've checked and double checked the intelligence sources that said they had found WMDs. If I was going to take a country into war, I'd want to make certain that we got our facts straight.

And as for how I would've handled the terrorist attacks, I would have sent the military straight after Osama Bin Laden (the "mastermind") and his pals, and worried about Saddam Hussein later.

Answer 8

1) would not have lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
2) would have given Rummy the boot long ago
3) would have listened to Powell, he being the General and all, not a chicken hawk like Rummy and Cheney.
4) would have chased binLauden through Tora Bora personally if I had to, not farmed it out to warlords I didn't trust.
5) would have tried to learn some more nuanced reason for the anger in the Muslim world something other than "they hate our freedoms" but you remember
"I don't do nuance." --George W. Bush to Sen. Joseph Biden, as quoted in Time, Feb. 15, 2004

Answer 9

Gone after the terrorist organization from which the hijackers came and the country that harbored them, for which there is no link to Iraq.

Answer 10

By realizing that terrorsim affects everyone, to get a coalisiton of world forces to help combat it.

Committing the forces intelligently to get the best results and not go into Iraq because "that man tried to kill my daddy."