What should have Bush done after 9/11?

Question

I hear over and over again the Bush is an idiot and he shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Well then tell me what should have he done instead? Should he have left Saddam in power? Should he have left Iraq as a breeding ground and training center for terrorism? I have heard no alternatives in fighting terrorism from the Democrats. Just shouting for Bush's head, even though they all voted for it.

So far no one can answer my question. Typical for liberals. Nothing intelligent to say. Thank you from proving my point people.

And for all your information, we did go into Afghanistan and we are still there. And if anyone is to blame for 9/11 it's Bill Clinton.

Answer 1

He did exactly what he should have done. I've even got the printed quotes from the Democrat leaders (Clinton's, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy) to prove how much they supported this war initailly. If anyone is interested in reading them I'll be glad to post them.

Answer 2

Pay attention I am only going to tell you one more time::: SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT ATTACK US. Iraq was no threat to the US or our allies. If Bush had pursued Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan/Pakistan, which is where he went, than I would be 100% for any warfare because it is Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization that attacked us on 9/11. The decision to go to war against Hussain was insane. There really was no plan, especially for the end of the war. The simple fact is the Commander-In-Chief and his staff made some egrigious mistakes, wrong decisions and a majority of people in the US and around the world are now well aware of it. People are becoming aware of the fact that we cannot war against an idea, a method such as terrorism. We can war against a country or a particular group of people such as Islamic extremists but a war on terror is not possible. Terrorism is a method of fighting used by people from the beginning of time when they are out gunned and desperate. Bin Laden and Hussein hated each other. Hussein had such a tight grip on his country that no one from Al Qaeda would have been able to enter let alone train, arm, or recruit in Iraq during his regime.

Right or wrong the Islamic radicals see us as infidels on their sacred land. As long as we are there they will employ any and all methods of kicking us out. They don't have the means to attack us at home in huge numbers as propagandists would suggest and people are wising up to that fact.

When people voted for the war they were sold a bunch of lies. Since then we have learned more about the facts and what had really happened. We learned who did and did not attack us. Because of this additional knowledge people have changed their minds. Once supporting the war now they are opposed to it. Have you never changed your mind upon learning new facts or are you so stubborn and pig headed that once you get a sliver of information you react? Reactionaries become fools over and over again. No matter what they react to. Unfortunately most jingoists are reactionaries and therefore fools.

Answer 3

Hind sight is always 20/20. That said, Bush II all but declaired a PAX AMERICANA for the world after 9/11. He used verbage in his speaches that was hopefully intended to incite Muslims to violence. I say 'hopefully' because if that was NOT what he intedded then he truely is as idot! As for just what Bush II should have done lets hit Mr. Peabody's Way-Back-Machine and go back to the end of Gulf War I. The Coalition Forces accomplished the mission of liberating Kuwait, Iraq was virtually eliminated as a military power in the region and all was well with the world. NOT! Bush the Ist (a spook, former head of the CIA and not to be trusted) made a few comments on the TV about that if 'people' in Iraq tried to overthrow Saddam 'we would support them'. Well, the Kurds and Sunnis took the S.O.B. at his word! Bush later said that was not (or who) he meant and so Saddam promptly went about killing them all resulting in the Northern and Southern 'No Fly Zones'. In other words, we interfered with the internal workings of a sovereign nation clearly in violation of the UN Charter. From that moment, everything else we have done or caused to be done, 'right' or 'wrong', was WRONG. That Bush the IInd stood before a joint session of Congress and the people on national TV and LIED about the WMDs, LIED about the Al Queda connection (at least I hope he was lying because if he wasn't that's even MORE scary) to justify Gulf War II was just all that much more WRONG. On the other hand, our actions in Afghanistan were/are justified and correct but we could have and should have done better.....

Answer 4

Not even George Bush is trying to pretend any more that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. That invasion didn't happen until March 2003.

RIGHT after 9/11, Bush did what he should have. But I guess not being able to locate bin Laden got boring, so he decided to stir up a mess in Iraq to try to save face.

These days, a President can call anything a matter of national security, mutter the word "terrorism" and win the love of the uneducated minority in this country.

Answer 5

Bush did what he was supposed to do. Attack Afghanistan. Iraq did not then, and does not now, have anything to do with 9/11. The President has admitted this, but his blind followers continue to spout this lie. It was not then, but is now a breeding ground and training center for terrorism. There have been numerous alternatives and solutions offered. The problem comes when this criminal government refuses to even talk to other countries. The only reason, besides oil, we are in Iraq, is this criminal regime found a way to privatize even nation building, by keeping the military to a bare bones existence, and hiring private contractors to fill the void at 10 times what the military support would have cost. A president who ignores the Constitution, and the laws enacted and signed into law, who now admittedly spies on EVERY American, contrary to the Constitution, who condones torture, contrary to the Geneva Convention, ratified by the congress, and signed into law by the president, should have his head removed from office.

Answer 6

>>>Iraq as a breeding ground and training center for terrorism?<<<

??? You're still using debunked talking points from 2002.

What Bush should have done BEFORE 9/11 is resign and refuse to sign off on the attack. If he really didn't know, he should have resigned in shame. But don't fret, if Lieberman were the veep he would've made 9/11 happen too. To answer your question, I agree, the Dems are crap. To fight the terrorism of 9/11 the first item of business is: identify the perps.
Sorry if I made your brain explode.

Answer 7

Resigned and left the post to somebody competent.

Iraq was NOT a breeding ground for terrorism. As a matter of fact, most of the 9/11 terrorists was from Saudi Arabia. Solution? Invade Iraq and give weapons to the Saudis. Logical, no?

Answer 8

he should focused on afghanistan instead of sreading our troops thin.and neo cons have always wanted to invade iraq,just read the project for the new american century,they tried to convince clinton to do it back in the 90's, 9/11 just gave them the go ahead.

also the highjacker on 9/11 15 out of 15 where from saudi arabia,bin laiden is from sudi arabia,so why not put pressure on saudi arabia oh i forgot they had stocks in bush's oil company and still have stocks in halliburton

Answer 9

The 9/11 was an inside job to start war in the middle east for oil stupid people don't get it

Answer 10

Most of us (who are so disappointed in Bush) believe he should have taken swift action to go after people who did attack us on 9/11 (bin Laden) and NOT a sovereign nation that was unrelated to the 9/11 attack.

Answer 11

What should he have done instead?? He should have gone after the mastermind behind the plan -OBL. All resources should have been placed in Afghan, not Iraq.