A lot of peple on here oppose the war and bash President Bush....?

Question

So I'm just curious to know, if you had been president at the time of the 911 attacks, what would you have done differently about the murder of so many people?

Answer 1

OK mis informed. the fact that the democrats were screaming for war when Clinton was in office is not taken into account. look at some of the date of these quotes and tell me if Bush was the boss. now you tell me who was lying first. the problem lies in the fact that Clinton was too scared to take America to war. but the overwhelming democratic support for this war before Bush took office only tells me that he followed the war monger democrats. the Dem's are just pissed off that slick willy was too busy firing his missile to fight a war. but had this war been started by a dem the sentiment would be totally different."One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998."If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998."Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998."He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998."Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998."Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999."There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001."We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002."We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002."Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002."We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002."The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002."I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002."There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002."In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

you people make me sick... Iraq was not JUST about terrorists... Saddam was NOTORIOUS for giving refuge to ANYONE that was anti-west or anyone that would give him money. i.e. terrorists!! but anyways... we went into Iraq for 3 major reasons... to remove a sadistic, oppressive, murderous tyrant that had been a thorn in the side of the world for decades that continually broke treaty laws set aside for him after the Persian Gulf War.... to break up terrorist cells within Iraq's borders and to fight them on their own terf... and to prevent saddam from having/getting means of producing MORE wmd's... he had them, everyone knew it, he used them several times on his own people (Kurds). all of you bafoons will see in due time how important this conflict is...

Answer 2

If I had been president starting at the moment the planes hit the WTC I would have put all the money and resources Bush sent to the middle east into domestic anti-terrorist measures (leaving enough aside to conduct small covert ops against Osama bin Laden). If I had been president since 2000 I would have listened to the numerous intelligence reports warning of an immanent attack from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and prevented 9/11 from happening.

Answer 3

I would have gone into Afghanistan--as we quite properly did.

But not Iraq. They had not attacked us, had no WMD, no ties tothe terrorists.

Instead, I would have focused on finishing off the Taliban al-qQaida while we had the chance, And put the necessary resources into Afghanistan to realy get the country back on it sfeet so that the people would hav esome hop and not have an incentive to support extremists.

I would also have tried to capitalize on the opportunity to make real progress build relations throughout the region. At the time--in the wake of 9/11--we had the support of most of the Arab/Muslim world--including for our invasion of Afghanistan. That was an opportunity that has been squandered--tragically, perhaps the best hope for real peace in the region in decades.

Of course, I don't own stock in Haliburton, so I suppose that does make a difference.

Answer 4

Well, I for one would have gone after the people directly responsible, not their neighbors. I would have done all I can to protect the people of the US. Invading Iraq has not made the US any safer, if anything it has created more enemies of the US. I would have read the President Daily Briefing(PDB) on August 8th 2001 titled "Bid Ladin Determined to Strike in US". But I have an IQ higher than 60 so I would have handled a lot things differently.

Answer 5

I would have continued to seek out and destroy Al Queda in Afghanistan. I sure wouldn't have relegated that to second place to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Noting a President's failings and bad decision making is not bashing, it's being realistic. Since dissent is one of the most precious of our freedoms, it is also our right and our duty to speak out when we see something wrong in our government.

Answer 6

I would have gone into Afghanistan to get Bin Ladin.
I would have gotten Bin Ladin.
I would not have gone into Iraq. I would not have cooked the intelligence. I would not still be fighting that useless war. Saddam kept them in line for all those years, I would have known the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.'
If Iraqis had wanted to overthrow their government as the Kurds did, I would have supported them, as Bush 41 didn't. But I never would have gone into a country without sufficient rebel personnel to run a government if it won.

Answer 7

After 9/11 mr. bush had the support of most of the country. He lied, made up false "intelligence" and created a monster this country will probably never be able to repair.
Isn't it ironic that more have been lost in the war than were lost on 9/11?
Personally, I don't think bush cares about the soldiers that are dying on a daily basis. If he did, he would provide them with the equipment they need and make sure they get the benefits they were promised.

Answer 8

I would have done my best to find out why many Isralies called in that particular day instead of showing up at the WTC's on 9/11. I also would have froze all of their assets as well as others from foreign countries/ and yes even dual citizenships. Would have restricted their travel to from the couch to the bathroom. Tapped their phones, not real true citizens of the United States who have live here all their lives, would have gotten a warrent to do this in the allotted time frame. Demanded immediate santions on these countries too.

Answer 9

I would not treat American lives as more valuable than Iraqis for one.
I would not destroy a country in the name of some "war on terror" and then expect it to just pick up where it left off.
I would examine the reasons Americans were attacked and see if there was anything I could do to change my policies, and I wouldn't have stupid, penny-wise pound-poor homeland security measures.
By the way you don't have to bash Bush to be anti-war. I am usually very respectful towards him and just disagree with his policies.

Answer 10

one: allowed the bin laden family to be questioned prior to quietly slipping them out of the country.
two: required an explanation from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen as to why their countrymen attacked us.
However, if I were president instead of GWB I would not have "cleared the path" that allowed the events of 9/11 to happen. such as closing the investigations into middle easterners taking flying lessons, on 9/10 I would not have rescinded the mil. authority to shoot down commercial carriers that present a real and present danger to America.
If GWB hadn't cooperated with the terrorists so well 9/11 probably wouldn't have occurred.

Answer 11

I would have put a large army into Afghanistan where Bin Laden was and wiped out Al Kahda. I would not have have invaded Iraq which had no part in the 9-11 attack.