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

9 answers

0 because the UN would no longer exist it would have been hit with a Jet on 9/12/01

2007-02-11 09:17:49 · answer #1 · answered by pretender59321 6 · 4 4

If Gore had been elected, he would have kept the inspectors in Iraq, on the ground doing their job, just as they were before Bush invaded. Then we would have found out Saddam was all talk, and the war would have been avoided. If Kerry had been elected, it would have had no effect on UN Resolutions, as we already were in Iraq in 2004.

2007-02-11 17:20:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would say more than the UN could count.Remember the UN cant even count the number of rapes commited by the UN unpeace keepers and they cant count the amount of money they gave to Saddam for the oil for food scandal.Thats why Germany and France didnt want to back the war..,they were in bed with them.

2007-02-11 17:20:00 · answer #3 · answered by jnwmom 4 · 2 1

At least 1 per year

17 +8 = 25

2007-02-11 17:27:22 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

200,000. We also would have sent representives of the NYPD to try and arrest bin Laden for 9-11. Saddam, Uday and Qusay would have been celebrating in their rape rooms.

2007-02-11 17:18:18 · answer #5 · answered by Damn Good Dawg 3 · 1 0

The resolutions had NOTHING to do with invading Iraq! If they did, Bush would not have by passed the Security Council, who is the only entity which can authorize an un-provocked attack on another country! The US knew they would never get one!

If Gore or Kerry had been elected we would not be in Iraq as they had nothing to do with Terrorist's or 9/11.

If the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS had of listened to Clinton perhaps 9/11 might have never happened! Please note the date!

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. AP

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
9/11 panel hears from Berger, Tenet
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 1:16 AM EDT (0516 GMT) CNN
A day of drama at the 9/11 Commission
Clarke: 'No sense of urgency'
Tenet admits 9/11 intelligence failings
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.
"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.".
______________________________________________________________________________________
Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

2007-02-11 17:33:36 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1 2

Let's see, now.....Oops! My crystal ball has just burned out. Sorry I can't help you.

What an idiotic question.

2007-02-11 17:17:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The sad thing is and the answer is, we will never know.

2007-02-11 17:19:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

the war would have NEVER HAPPEND
and republicvans would never had the chance to KILL american troops

2007-02-11 17:22:55 · answer #9 · answered by impeachbushnoww 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers