I do believe if another, more serious minded person was President in the 9 months leading up to Sept 11, 2001, he would have listened to the warnings his intel apparatus was giving him and taken the steps necessary to prevent the attacks.
However, had Bush been taking care of business in Washington DC instead of on vacation in Texas, almost 3,000 American citizens would be alive today. And we would not be either in Iraq OR Afghanistan.
2007-11-05 08:59:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
4⤋
That is an interesting question. The White House had ample intelligence that Al Qieda was planning to attack the US. They knew Al Qieda wanted to fly plans in to the World Trade Center. They know approximately when. John Ashcroft stopped using commercial airlines because he thought it was "too dangerous". Rather than up the security at airports, adding air marshalls or even arresting the people that the government knew about, the US government did nothing. Bush even ordered security lowered at airports because it was governmental interference with businesses. It was, in fact, publically stated that this administration was going to focus on normal crime rather than what Trent Lott called "A phoney issue" - terrorism.
Bill Clinton submitted a proposal to fight terrorism. The Republican Congress and George Bush killed it. On 9/12, George Bush sent a slightly modified version of Clinton proposals to Congress which passed it. It forms the bulk of the Patriot Act.
As much as George Bush compares 9/11 to his winning the lottery, George Bush cannot take credit for it all by himself. The Republican Congress played a large roll also. Given a Congress and a President who cared enough to keep us safe, say a Democratic Congress and Democratic President, it is unlikely that 9/11 would have occured. Of course, no one could have reduced the odds to zero.
At least a Democrat, knowing what was going to happen, would not have stayed on vacation and would not have gone comotose after being told that the US was under attack. And then, once out of his/her stupor, would not have spent another 30 minutes doing a photo op for the cameras, joking and kidding with reports, while knowing that Americans were dying in New York.
2007-11-05 09:20:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by buffytou 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think it still may have happened, but the response would have been different.
However, if Gore had been president, he would have pressed on in the hunt for bin Laden...even while he was being impeached.
Impeachment is the magic bullet for Republicans now. When Hillary wins in 2008, and the economy is rolling and things are so much better, the Repubs wil make character the main issue in the 2010 midterm elections. Sadly, the people will forget 2.75 a gallon under Bush, will put Repubs in the majority in Congress, and she will be Impeached by spring 2011. The Repubs won't make the mistake of waiting for a 2nd term to impeach a Clinton this time.
2007-11-05 09:00:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Of course, it's impossible to say for sure. But, if you accept the evidence that the Bush administration ignored warnings of the imminent terrorist attack and that the same administration was looking from it's first day for any rationale to support an invasion of Iraq it becomes difficult to see how 9/11 or something like it could have been avoided.
2007-11-05 09:10:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by socrates 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, I think it is probable that this hideousness would still have happened. There is substantial evidence that the attack was planned as far back as 1996. However, with a better president maybe our reaction would have been less horrific. I don't know. Our government seems to be perfectly capable of committing moronic atrocities even without Bush. There is also some evidence that the FBI and other security divisions of our government had some warning of 9/11 and chose to live down to their reputations and ignore it, and that they would have done so with or without Bush - tough to evaluate the accuracy of the various allegations amid the blizzard of bogus information and conspiracy theories.
See links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#_note-21
2007-11-05 13:47:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Here's what's so funny about the lunatic left's way of thinking. You clowns piss and moan NOW about the security measures Bush is taking to defend this country. I can't even imagine the whining and crying you leftist loones would have engaged in if he would have done this PRIOR to 9/11. You guys would be calling the ACLU because Bush was not letting muslims fly on airplanes, or were being racially profiled at airports, or refused entry into the country, or deported out of the country. It's proof once again that you clowns aren't concerned about this country...only your obsessed hatred with Bush. You guys are classic..
2007-11-05 09:10:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
His ignoring of the warnings was only part of the problem. The other part was the US intelligence community's long-standing territorial disputes and refusals to work together in terms of sharing information. Even if Bush had paid attention to the warnings, without anyone able to connect the dots with the information that had been gathered pre-9/11, it would have been difficult to prevent the attack.
2007-11-05 09:08:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
No. What evidence do you have to support that viewpoint? The radical Islamists who attacked us on 9/11 made several attacks against the US during Clinton's administration; they attacked the Twin Towers, the USS Cole, and two of our embassies in Africa prior to the 9/11 attacks.
I agree that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if Gore had been president.
2007-11-05 09:06:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Shane 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
it would have happened but possably different. See Israel was aware that we were getting a terroist attack and therefore they contacted the US, but everyone ignored them (Israelis). maybe a different president wouldnt but all I know is that is wasn't only up to the president since there are people like the General and other people. Should we still be in war is the better question. Hundres of billions of dollars go on this war every year ... and because of the war needing for money our insurence is being cut, there are thousands of really sick kids, parents, family members, friends that dont have insurence because we need for billions of dollars for the war, and how knows if that money is really going to the war since i know people that went to Iraq and they dont get half the things they need, meanwhile the generals get to go places that they buy specificaly for them to go relax... this counrty is crazy... and u poeople think we have political power but we dont. There are 5 major companies that own all the radio stations, tv channels, EVERYTHING that can brain wash us to believe wat they want.... Disney is one of them and u know wat ... the toys Disney makes is made from little boys and girls (Child Labor), want to know how much money they make 10 cents a week in Tawian I believe. Dont ever think or judge this counrty cuz nothing is like it seems... go get a college book out and do ur research ...if we piss off the right people this counrty will be in the ground in less than seconds
2007-11-05 09:12:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sabba 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
Dumbya has screwed up everything he has EVER touched. And there is still the matter of the 8-6-01 PDB which he deigned either not to read (yeah a challenge for him) or act on... AND that is to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't a WTC attack perp. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2007-11-05 09:16:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by rhino9joe 5
·
1⤊
1⤋