HERE'S A TOSS UP FOR ALL YOU DEMS. What would you have done about 9/11 and Iraq differently?

Question

If don't know of a better way to have handled it then please be quiet about Bush's problems, no he isn't perfect but he is president of our country, and hey you've got the benifit of hindsight.

FYI- Iraq was a primary terrorist training ground and hideout, thus the 9/11 connection.

Secondly, we did go after Osama and he's dead, if he wasn't he'd have made 100% sure he was seen by a verifiable source anywhere, not on tape of doubtful quality.

Answer 1

Hey look, there's a good list of liberal douchebags below my "best answer". The truth is the democratic party has no answers on how to fight the war on terror. If Al Gore was President on 9/11, our response would have been to fire a few cruise missiles at an empty terrorist camp. If John Kerry was elected President in 2004, we would have cut and run from Iraq long ago. If a democrat is elected President in'08, we are all screwed...

Answer 2

You skipped a step.

If Clinton or Gore had been President, 9/11 may have never happened. It did not happen on their watch.

And, remember - the very first thing that Clinton did, as he was leaving the White House and Bush was moving in, was to tell Bush that the single greatest threat to the safety of the American people was Osama Bin-Laden. He had his staff stress to Bush’s staff that this was the most important thing Bush needed to know now that he was President.

And, they would not have abandoned the Israel – Palestinian issue.

And, they would have paid attention to the August 6, 2001 President's Daily Briefing Memo (PDBM – [that Bush ignored]) warning that OBL was planning an attack inside the United States - and that he might use airplanes – and that the targets would be politically important (DC) and major metropolitan centers (NYC).

Then, bomb AQ to nothing (the way he did Saddam Hussein’s bio- and chemical weapons facilities (over Republican crying and whining).

Then, rebuild Afghanistan into a true showplace where the whole world could see, by example, that America’s good intentions could produce good deeds, because we really were the good guys.

The only thing that could, or would, have stopped Clinton or Gore would have been the self-serving Republican Congress that only cares about its own power and wealth and could not care less about what happens to America or the American people.

That is why the Republican leadership does not care that they have lost Afghanistan, are losing the war in Iraq, are losing the war on terror, have stripped the United States of the enormous international respect and admiration earned during the Bush I and Clinton presidencies, and squandered all of the good will and empathy that came from all around the world (including Syria and Iran) following 9/11.


Hey Scott B =

FYI - There was no connection, no training camps, - there were NO terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded. In fact, Hussein hated AQ before we did. He did not hide al-Zargawi - he tried to have him arrested.

Read the reports from your own Republican Congress for crying out loud. They admit: no terrorists, no connection, no WMD, no threat.

If you don't like what the leadership of majority party is saying - then vote the bums out of office - but don't put words in their mouths and lie for them.




Hey cash (brain-poor) Cobra -

Yeah, we saw how well it worked out - within a month, 4 people were arrested, they went on trial that September, the trial lasted 6 months - and they were all convicted - IDIOT

This is an especially-sleazy repub argument. The attack occurred only weeks after Clinton took office (after 12 years of repub Presidents). He catches the people who did it - yet it is somehow his fault - yeah, right.

Quit hurting yourself.

Answer 3

i'm not a dem, but the answer seems pretty obvious. nobody really criticized the handling of the invasion of afghanistan, so dems would have done that the same. as for iraq, they would not have invaded. there isn't much talk about what exactly would have been done in place of invasion in the case of iraq, but its not hard to see that military pressure, allowing the UN inspectors to continue their work, and monitoring for human rights violations would have been both a cheaper and more ethical alternative. keeping soldiers in the area to ensure cooperation with inspections (as was going on at the time) and human rights compliance would have been a fraction of the cost of the occupation. It also would have allowed for more focus to be put on osama bin laden. This is what dems have been saying.

right now there is the benefit of hindsight. but that doesn't justify recklessness in the past. even without the benefit of hindsight it was obvious that the war was illegal. the motive was to allow inspectors to search for weapons, and iraq allowed this. yet the invasion happened anyway. the ties to al-qiada were even shakier, and concerns about human rights violations could have been addressed much the way the WMDs were - inspecting. people didn't need the benefit of hindsight to criticize the drive to war back then. it was widely recognized even then that the president was rushing into a war on false pretenses, calling for inspections then invading even after inspections were allowed.

it is too obvious how things could have been better handled: allowing the inspectors to continue their search for weapons. this is the sensible position even without the benefit of hindsight. bush is the president, and for that reason his actions and decisions need to come under the highest degree of scrutiny. when he starts a war that by all accounts of the time was illegal and later turns out to have been based on completely mistaken premises, he should come under a lot of criticism. war is a very serious deicision, and the fact that he was doing something illegal doesn't need the benefit of hindsight to recognize.

regarding your additions: haven't you heard about the senate report that concluded that iraq had no connection to al-qaida? iraq was not a terrorist training ground or hideout, and this is according to a bipartisan report from our own government.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-airaqreport09sep09,0,5782579.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld

"Secondly, we did go after Osama and he's dead, if he wasn't he'd have made 100% sure he was seen by a verifiable source anywhere, not on tape of doubtful quality." - how do you conclude this?! osama has made references on his tapes to recent events and the CIA has concluded that the tapes were authentic. that seems to be evidence enough. why would he make sure to be seen by a "verifiable" source? so the US could kill him? this is the most ridiculous thing i have heard in a long time.

Answer 4

First of all as a Republican and an American you are so wrong to even suggest that citizens not voice any DISSENT against the president. Here is a quote from a republican president for you to remember what your duty as a citizen is.....
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
-Teddy Roosevelt

That being said, this is what I would have done after 9/11.
I would have shut the borders down first and foremost. Then with the money that has been spent on this war I would have purchased every American a hybrid car (and still have a few billion left over) to keep down the dependence on oil. This act would also have saved over 2500 valuable military lives. Then I would have covert operations to hunt down Bin Laden and al-queda.

Answer 5

I would of sruged it off and not start a war. It makes no sence to kill more innocent people in retaliation for those that went to heaven in 9/11 but perhaps people don't know that as I do.
However, I must understand just because I am not allowed to church services or beleive in God or Heaven or read Bible or Koran because I met him in person when I was three years old when my mother was taken to Heaven before I even knew who God was...I went on to do this one and that one and Northern Ireland and Vietnam and Federal HMO legislation input and caused Republican President Bush to say, "I know how to make you freer" and "We need to ring the Liberty Bell" and "The System doesn't work." So I tried like mad before 9/11 and I will keep on trying. And "In God We Trust" is off of money.
But perhaps others don't know that they simply flew away and one day...a long long time from now....we will get to see them again.
Thanks for the question...Parker Action Hero at age 10 when I came so close to dying while saving my first life. I call it cursed not blessed. YA want to know what he looks like?

Answer 6

Why invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, Im not a dem but I disagree with the fool we have running this great country. Wheres Bin Laden? Why is the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan, when we KNOW they were directly connected to 9-11. NorthKorea definatly has WMD's why were they not attacked? I could write a book about what I would have done differently.

Answer 7

Well I will not criticize the handling of 9/11 because I was just really glad it wasn't me calling the shots that day. That had to be tough. And as for Iraq how I would have handled it differently is that it would have never happened at all. Iraq was done based on lies and that is wrong no matter how you look at it.

Answer 8

First of all, I wouldn't have piddled away the good will that we had with many nations of the world at that time and the squandered opportunities as a result of that. Second, I would not have lied to the American people about WMD in Iraq and sending soldiers to die on false pretenses.

Yes, he is the President, but the aforementioned issues are representative of a person lacking leadership, character, and intelligence.

Answer 9

well, i said then that iraq wasn't connected to al-qaeda and has no wmds, and now i'm vinidicated. sure saddam was a terrible despot, but not our problem, at least not then, there were greater threats, other countries that we know have access to nuclear facilities. and of course going into afghanistan was the right thing to do, but if we hadn't split our focus, we would have made even more progress than we have.

Answer 10

oh thats easy, Clinton got and had a meeting with the bozo to tell him Al khida was the leading threat. The counter terrorism head requested a cabinet level meeting with the Bozo for immediately 9 months later Bozo finally said yes. While Bozo was on vacation he got three reports warning him of imminent attack the last being a day before.
Bozo had the CIA and The FBI fighting two of the hi jackers we known al kihida remember and used their correct names to book on to the flight , but Bozos' crusade against big government reduce the liaison to such a level the CIA and the FBI were not communication, this of course is just like the reduction in FEMA from a cabinet level post and killed more Americans in New Orleans

***************************************
It is interesting in that in the post 9/11 meeting Bush wanted to hit Iraq first, when Powel pointed out that Iraq didnt actauly have anything to do with it he was told Iraq has better targets

Bush is a bozo