Just 2 weeks to go before 9/11 anniversary and they STILL.....

[emad]

...call the CIA HQ "The George Bush Centre for Intelligence"?
...refuse to discuss bush sr/cheney dodgy dealings re UTAH money launderers in the 1970s and 1980s?
...ditto above, replace bush sr/cheney with clinton/gore?
...stall on admitting they could have busted aldrich ames & bob hanssen way earlier?
...think margaret thatcher and ronald reagan kicked the commies out of the old ussr?
...allow fundraising for the princess diana memorial fund?
etc etc etc
real question is, do you honestly think it would have been any different if Gore had been elected in 2000???

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. If Gore was president, there would have been no 911

Bush dropped the ball to help his Saudi business partners. He belongs in prison.

[chesley]

4. Now that's a valid opinion,

but you have no facts to back it up.

[bryant69]

2. Yes. Yes I Do.

At this point to say that President Bush and Gore would have acted exactly the same is to engage in foolishness of the highest order. President Gore would not have squandered the good will we acquired on September 11th in a headlong rush to war based on faulty intelligence and fantasies of nucular bombs.

He would not have emptied out the budget and plunged us in a space of three years to record deficits.

I'm not under the illusion that Gore (or any Democrat) would be a perfect president, but he'd be a damn sight better than the one we got.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[chesley]

5. Global goodwill

and $5 will buy you a latte. Bush has numerous faults as a president, but at least deferring to the French is not one of them.

[maggrwaggr]

28. deferring to the French?

Are you asking to get flamed?

The French didn't want to join us in our little mass-murder and pillage campaign in Iraq.

They were smarter than the US was, history has already proved it.

[K-W]

56. Revisionist Histroy

At no point was it a matter or defferring to the French. We asked the UN to approve us going into a completely unwarrented war. We wanted them to defer to us.

[SharonAnn]

20. Gore would not have ignored the Feb 2001 Hart-Rudman report

and he would not have told the FBI to back-of the Saudi connection, etc.

Remember, Bush had as his priorities protecting his friends and cutting their taxes. That's where ALL his attention went. And when he was exposed to something he didn't like (like the Hart Rudman report) he just ignored it.

[linazelle]

51. Bingo....Nor would he have retracted the security measures

in place on bin Laden or gone on vacation in the wake of the highest security threat in recent history...nor would he have failed to at least shore up airline security based on the nature of the warnings...

BUSH PLAYED WTC VICTIMS PAID

[Rainbowreflect]

3. I honestly do not believe 9-11 would have happened with President

Gore in the white house. Because Gore would have implimented his security measures with the airlines & would have continued & probably expanded the anti-terrorist programs started under Clinton/Gore.
If by chance it had happened under Gore, the repubs would have screamed for his head & there would have been a complete investigation. President Gore also would not have taken us to war in Iraq.

[chesley]

6. What security measures would Gore

have instituted? How would they restrict our freedoms, or not? Would they have been effective? C'mon, give with the details.

[qb]

9. The measures in the Clinton plan that Condi Rice conveniently

brushed off her desk and into the wastebasket.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0520/p01s03-uspo.html

[chesley]

12. Having reviewed your link

I still can't see that it guaranteed there would have been no 9/11. There may yet be another one. Neither Bush nor Clinton nor Gore nor you nor me is omnipotent. We cannot keep a finger in every pie. what we can try to do is the best that we can.

[maggrwaggr]

29. And you think Bush is doing "the best we can?"

Give me a fucking break. Right now any terrorist in a row boat can knock planes out of the sky taking off from LAX.

Do you feel safer?

Bush is an idiot and has done nothing but make matters worse for terrorism.

Plus there's ample evidence that he's protecting the Saudis, and the leader of Pakistan, by making deals rather than actually going after the source of terrorism.

Plus, he's exploiting 9/11 to invade Iraq, which is something he's wanted to do for years.

What are you doing at DU, dude?

[chesley]

43. I don't know if

Bush is doing the best that we can. I know approaching the problem of terrorism judicailly is somewhat worse that doing nothing at all. I am interested in any actions that can be taken against this. As for feeling safer, I never, personally felt unsafe. If there is a terrorsit attack where I am there isn't OFT that I can do about. So I don't let it worry me. I do however, worry about people that live in large cities, the most likely targets.

Look, there is nothing we can do to make the world perfectly safe. We just have to try. But some plans are better than others, and "capturing and trying and convicting" the terrorists is among the very worst, in my opinion, of course.

As to what I am doing, here, I agree with some of the positions taken, I disagree with others. I find some interesting links posted, thank you all very much. I like to hear and try to understand how other people think, but I will think for myself, even if I come to the wrong conclusions. I am not, contrary to popular opinion, a Republican; I'm not a Democrat, either. I am an independent with anarchic tendencies. But most of all, I am an American. by that statement, I do not intend to impugn the patriotism of anybody on this board. I am only saying that I would put the welfare of my country above that of any party, or person. But what does that welfare consist of. Right now, in my opinion, of course, it depends on fighting terrorism. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is my opinion.

[Clark Can WIN]

7. This is what I want to know

Where the hell is Osama Bin Laughin, Osama Bin Forgotten?

He must be THRILLED with our current "War on terrorism" It certainly couldn't be going any better for him could it.

[chesley]

8. Good question.

Are you prepared for the USA to invade Pakistan to find him? I thought we were all against war on this board. Other than that, we know that he no longer really wants to be a martyr, don't we, or he would have pulled his head out of his ass, where he is hiding, so that we kill help him do it.

[HootieMcBoob]

11. after the first wtc bombing

at the beginning of President Clinton's first term. The people who did the bombing were found, tried and convicted. That's a whole lot more than we can say this time around.

[chesley]

13. So 9/11 never really happened?

Is that what you are saying? the fellows behind the 1st WTC center bombing are in prison, so 3000, or whatever the final number is, peopel are still alive?

YOu have to cut the HEAD off the snake to kill it. Knocking a few scales off its hide just won't do. The HEAD of the snake is the terrorist sponsoring states. One by one they have to be converted to the light, or consigned to the darkness. Makes no difference to me, but it might to them.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[never cry wolf]

35. yeah, terrorist sponsoring states like

saudi arabia. oops, i forgot, the bin laden family bailed out georgie boy in his failed business venture.

[chesley]

46. going after

Saudi Arabia would be good. Iran, Syria, the list goes on and on. Bush may be the anti-Christ, but he not omnipotent. so taking one bite at a time out of Islamic terror makes sense to me. Maybe the other terrorist-sponsoring states will get the message and save us a lot of trouble. But if not, are you seriously suggesting that we should declare war on the entire Mid-East at one time. Then we really might be in a "quagmire", or whatever the dessert equivalent is.

Bashing Bush is good fun, but a lot of people on this board will bash him whatever he does. I think a better idea is to take whatever he is doing right, if anything, and co-opt it. Be better at it than he is. Then the war, which remains GWB's strength, will be taken out of the equation, and progressive issues can be discussed.

[Rex]

54. But George Bush said Osama Bin Laden was

"irrelevant", that he didn't matter anymore. Maybe you should email the Bush Regime with your "cut off the head" idea; it appears that it's not shared among the WH policy makers.

[maggrwaggr]

30. you're starting to piss me off here

I, for one, would be 100% for an invading force of American military to do exactly that.

That's why I'm so pissed off at Bush. If 9/11 was really caused by Osama Bin Laden, WHY DIDN'T we invade Pakistan, why DON'T we have half a million troops looking under every fucking ROCK in northern Pakistan.

Can you answer ME that?

Don't generalize, pal. Don't think because we're democrats we're all tofu-eating pacificts.

What pisses us off about Bush is he's KILLING THE WRONG PEOPLE. And he KNOWS IT.

[chesley]

37. Actually I agree with you

There's lots more places that need a little corrective action. I don't think all of you are tofu-eating pacifsts. But the enemy is militant Islam. There were plenty of connections between Iraq and terrorism even if there are or were none between Saddam and 9/11. Bringing Osama to justice is important, but preventing another 9/11 is infinitely more important. I don't think Bush will succeed in this. I think there will be another 9/11. But I think there would be another 9/11 under a Democratic president, too. Nobody has the perfect plan, and there are too many variables.

That being said, the worst possible strategy is to treat this like a mugging and try to go to the courts. Forget US courts, how would the ICC capture Osama??

[K-W]

57. I definately disagreee

Having our soldiers run ruffshod over the world trying to hunt down one man would be absolutely stupid. Running ruffshod over the world is what gives osama his recruits. Further destablizing the region in an effort to get one man is not good policy in the slightest.

[linazelle]

52. Are you prepared to be wrong...again...if he's not in Pakistan????

Give me a break.

[gratuitous]

10. If Gore had been president

I don't think the September 11 attacks would have happened. Whoever carried out those attacks carefully calibrated George W. Bush, his abilities and resources, and his likely responses, and figured they could do attack America and get away with it. So far, they seem to be 100% accurate.

However, if they had carried out the attacks under a President Gore, I think Gore would have done precisely what his mentor, Bill Clinton, did when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City: He would have identified the planners and surviving perpetrators, built a case against them, tried them in open court, convicted them, and sentenced them to the maximum penalty under law.

I don't think Gore would have done any of the following: He wouldn't have pushed through an anti-American obscenity hideously misnamed the USA PATRIOT Act. He wouldn't have skirted the authority of the law and acted above the law in housing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. He wouldn't have engaged proxies to carry out torture of suspects.

[chesley]

14. I am very afraid

that you are correct. except that he would never have captured the terrorists, tried them in court or convicted them. If, by a special miralce, he had, they would have been out in 20 years, 10 for good behavior. WE ARE AT WAR. They would have attacked again and again. It is just my opinion, of course, but there would have been 3-5 9/11s by now if President Gore had done this. ACtually, though, I have a lot higher respect for his intelligence than that. HE may not have done what GWB has done, but he would have done something effective. No US president could politically survive the strategy you have outlined.

[gratuitous]

15. You certainly have a lot of excuses

But no explanations. You accuse others of unsupported forecasts, and yet indulge in it yourself. You claim without foundation that "No US president could politically survive" if they had captured, tried, and convicted the terrorist perpetrators of September 11.

Your "logic" is wanting. Your conjectures are meaningless and unsupported, and your conclusions are similarly flawed. Perhaps you would be happier posting at a website where facts, logic and coherent arguments aren't as highly prized as they are here. I can suggest one or two.

[chesley]

23. You are correct

I cannot support my assertations about what might have happened. But I can support them at least as well as you can support yours about what may have happened. Note also, that I did not say that '"No US president could politically survive" if they had captured, tried, and convicted the terrorist perpetrators of September 11.' I said no president could survive the strategy. That's because I don't think they could have captured the perpetrators. If it's this hard with the whole US militarty trying, think how hard it would be for a few FBI agents to catch them. Gimme a break. I'm expressing an opinion, the same as you. You do not know what President gore would have done; neither do I. But I know the strategy of bringing terrorists to trial is sadly lacking in effectiveness.

Furthermmore, I have been on this site, and have found that logic, facts, and coherent arguments are no more, and no less, prevalent than on other sites. So if you think I'm out of line, alert the moderator.

[arcane1]

19. can you back up those assertions?

or is this a bash-anyone-but-Bush trip?

[chesley]

24. I have a lot

of disagreements about the way that Bush is taking the country. But I like the idea of taking war to our enemies instead of lawyers.

[Catherine Vincent]

25. Chesley

You voted for Bush didn't you? And don't lie!

[chesley]

26. How would you tell

if I was lying? I could have voted for Bush, I could have voted for Gore, or Buchanan, or Nader. Or I could have done what I almost did and said, "A pox on all their houses." What I will be doing is voting for Joe Leiberman in the Democratic primary, unless he has dropped out by then.

You may notice, that I haven't taken a contrary view about any subject on this board, except the war on terror, including I/P issues, a few comments about guns and violence, and a thread about SUVs. I need mine.

[Catherine Vincent]

27. Uh, no I haven't noticed.

Your posts on this thread speaks for itself. And it tells me you're a bush* supporter posing on this board.

[chesley]

36. What it should tell you

is that 9/11 was important to me, and changed my thinking about a lot of things. I have a brother, sister-in-law, and niece in New York, and my sister-in-law worked very close to the WTC. So I got no time for BS about it. These people are our enemies. I think the eventual Democratic nominee will come much closer to Bush's position after the nomination than anybody suspects now, or regardless of his domestic policies he will not be elected. It would be a shame.

There are many parts of Bush's war policy that I disagree with. But not the fact that he is fighting a war. If that makes me a Repug, well, you're entitled to your opinion, even when you are wrong.

[K-W]

58. Well, until you can get your emotions under control

and think rationally about these issues, perhaps you shouldnt be discussing them.

Basically waht you are saying is 911 made you mad, so you are happy that the US is attacking someone for revenge. Thats rather assinine.

Did the war in afghanistan make us any safer?
Did the war in Iraq, a nation with pretty much no connection whatsoever with 9/11 make us any safer?

These wars make absolutely no sense. And if 911 is truely your concern you should hate these wars, as they have done nothing but make us more hated by those who would attack us, and squandered our opportunity to work within the international community to truely fight terrorists networks.

"I am mad, so I like war" isnt a very reasoned approach.

[chesley]

60. Yes

the war in Afghanistan made us safer. Yes, the war in Iraq made us safer. We must kill the terrorist before they kill us.

[varun]

62. Chelsey, I support you

I am a democrat, but not a peacenik.

THe reason, I am opposed to Bush is because he is in bed with the terrorists states (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).

The Democratic candidate needs to point out that Bush foreign policy is not working.

[chesley]

63. That is a legitimate criticism

of the Bush administration

[maggrwaggr]

32. WHOO HOOO!!!! WE GOT ONE!!!

I know this post will be deleted, but I love it when these guys come snarling up out of the woodwork with their backwards logic and faulty intelligence!

It's almost fun when they pop up. BAM!

[DealsGapRider]

16. What about....

...the considerable evidence that suggests that the 9/11 attacks were being planned for more than two years before they actually occurred? Some of these guys were in flight schools long before Bush was elected. Are you saying that the terrorists began preparations for the attack in 1999, but they would have suspended their plans had Gore been elected? That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[gratuitous]

17. Yup

I'm saying that the perpetrators took the measure of George W. Bush, including his total ineffectiveness in dealing with the downing of the spy plane by the Chinese, his administration's abject apology to the Chinese, and the necessity of enlisting the Russians to recover the remaining pieces of the aircraft, and decided that this was someone they could take advantage of.

After Clinton's Justice Department tossed the WTC perpetrators in the jug, sentenced McVeigh to death, and snuffed the plans of the millennium terrorists, Al Qaeda knew better than to mess with a Democratic president, and would have been content with overseas terrorist activities under a President Gore. Lil George was ripe for the picking, and September 11 happened.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

21. We'll never know now, will we?

And as far as "asinine" goes, my friend, you might review the DU rules. I don't know if you're accustomed to posting at another less-moderated website, but personal attacks are discouraged here.

I will continue to assert that the terrorists know us, our personnel and our culture a lot better than we know theirs. As for the Khobar Towers affair, our good friends the Saudis put the kibosh on any further action in that regard. The embassy bombings were met with the same forthright action and resolve, and though Clinton missed getting Osama bin Laden by an hour or so (amid hysterical accusations of wagging the dog from know-nothing Republicans in Congress), you'll notice that no further attacks on American soil or on landed American interests happened during his tenure.

The USS Cole was attacked in October 2000, in a hostile port where the captain of the ship didn't take routine security precautions, which is hardly an indictment of Clinton. But perhaps you're saying that Clinton, during the last lame duck couple of months of his term should have done something (anything?) to lash out at perpetrators known, suspected or unknown. Well, the results of that sort of action, taken over and over by President Bush, show the folly of that sort of approach: Hundreds of dead military personnel; thousands of civilian dead, maimed, and devastated; and Saddam and bin Laden still at large.

Great track record for the Republican strategy of unfocused rage. I'll take the Democratic solution any day of the week.

[DealsGapRider]

22. Okay...

I didn't make a personal attack. I said, "I think your post is asinine." I did not say I thought you were asinine.

Please review DU rules: "If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, "your facts are wrong," but it is not appropriate to say "you are a liar."

And I still think your MESSAGE is asinine. You said, "Al Qaeda knew better than to mess with a Democratic president..." That's just ridiculous. Al Qaeda launched attacks on the US -- on our soil and abroad -- throughout Clinton's presidency, from the first WTC bombing to the USS Cole. You can argue whether Clinton's responses were appropriate or not, but obviously al Qaeda makes no distinction between attacking Americans during Democratic or Republican administrations.

And you said, "you'll notice that no further attacks on American soil or on landed American interests happened during his tenure." I'm fighting the urge not to laugh here. "Landed American interests"? You're basically saying, hey, except for that bombing that killed 17 American service members, there were no terrorist attacks on America during the last part of Clinton's term. BFD. Do you think that might have more to do with the fact that al Qaeda is well known for engaging in major attacks every 1-2 years than with their fear of Clinton? They attacked us in 1998, waited until 2000 before doing it again and then waited until 2001 to attack us yet again. This is part of a pattern that was uninterrupted by anything our government did in the 1990s.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. You Are Leaving Out An Important Factor

The two year planning cycle is not as relevant to the decision to go forward with the attacks as is the conditions of the time.

Bush and his thugs had alienated most of the world with negation of treaties, tough talk, cowboy diplomacy, and "America First" rhetoric.

By the time of Sept. 2001, the terrorists had reason to believe that the rest of the world hated America the way they did. They miscalculated, collossally, and missed the difference between irritation and hatred.

But, had Bush and his gang not been pissing on allies and foes alike, the terrorists very well may have still been planning, not executing the attacks.

That's not a certainty. But, it is a possibility that needs to be factored into the equation.
The Professor

[DealsGapRider]

38. I don't understand your logic

Before Bush came along, throughout the 1990s, al Qaeda continually attacked the United States. This occurred while Clinton was President and before Bush launched his systematic campaign to alienate the international community. Beginning in 1999, and possibly before, the 9/11 hijackers began training for the attacks. Then Bush came along.

By what logic can you suggest that the 9/11 hijackers would have either aborted their plans or delayed them? It's not like they showed any restraint about killing Americans BEFORE Bush and Co. came along.

You wrote, "had Bush and his gang not been pissing on allies and foes alike, the terrorists very well may have still been planning, not executing the attacks."

So what? Does that mean that they simply would have taken a little longer to plan the attacks than they ultimately did, and that they sped up their plans because they saw an opportunity to capitalize on global resentment of the US? Either way, they would have attacked us.

[chesley]

47. You probably don't want my help

on this one. But I find it ridiculous to assert, as some have, that 9/11 happened because the US withdrew from Kyoto, or from the ICC, or pissed off the French, whose naational passtime seems to be being pissed off at the USA.

9/11 happened because Osama and his ilk thought that they could get away with it due to decades of getting away with it. This goes back at least to Jimmy Carter, maybe further, and includes the Reagan and Bush 1 presidencies, and william Jefferson Clinton's presidency. Not one of these men took the threat seriously enough, or did anything effective about it.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. I've Read Your Other Posts

Your opinion is not valuable enough to me to consider anything deeper than this post.
The Professor

On 2nd Thought: You need to read more carefully. I never stated that pulling out of Kyoto was the reason. I said it was a contributing factor to the al Qaeda belief that the rest of the world hated the U.S. in the same way they did. If you bothered to read carefully and think critically, you would have figured that out for yourself. Instead, you put words into my head and attribute something to me that i never wrote.

Take some classes and learn how to study and think will you, please? And turn off Limbaugh for at least 15 minutes each midday.
The Professor (Again)

[chesley]

55. What kind

of "professor" are you? Do you have a PhD? What's it in? My guess would be English, or something artsy. Maybe a social science of some kind? My Ph.D. is in metallurgy. I've had all the classes that I ever want to take. But I do read a lot: history, philosophy, theology (all religions), popular science, especially anthropology, and, of course, in my specialty, the real stuff. Books, too. Not just webboards.

So don't tell me how intelligent and well-read you are. It may be true, but I remain unimpressed. By the way, I don't listen to Limbaugh.

[linazelle]

53. You say 911 happened because Osama thought they could get away

with it. That's probably because Bush intentionally reduced the security and intelligence activities directly aimed at bin Laden in 2001. It's highly likely that we may have had even more specific intelligence than the overwhelming evidence that flooded in two months in advance of 911 had he not done this. This could have averted the disaster altogether. Bush's withdrawal of security on bin Laden in 2001 should be investigated. It's atrocious.

[chesley]

61. I said

they thought they could get away with it because of a long, long history of actually getting away with it. Democratic presidents were as much to blame as Republican ones.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. You Don't Understand My Logic

No kidding!

The grand attack of September 11th was clearly al Qaeda's coup de grace. They had never attempted anything on so grand a scale before or since.

This was supposed to be the knockout blow. They miscalculated the sympathy for their cause vs. that the U.S. would get for such an attack. The good will blew the opposite direction of what they had assumed.

These "attacks" you claim al Qaeda perpertrated during the Clinton years could be compared to 9/11, how? The symbolism is clear for 9/11. The scale is obvious. The simultaneity was symbolic in & of itself.

The reason why you don't follow my logic, is that you're not using any and appear incapable of identifying it.
The Professor

[Wetzelbill]

39. Exactly

The big difference between Gore and Bush is in how they would respond to an attack. I,personally, believe that if Gore were president 9-11 would not have happened. He did an extensive report on airline security in 1997 and I see no reason to believe that he would have ignored the substantial warnings in the months leading up to 9-11, but, in all honesty, we genuinely will never know beyond speculation. (the report: http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html)

Gore does have a history in dealing with terrorist attacks while serving as VP under Clinton. I believe it would be accurate to say he would have responded as Clinton did, just as Gratuitous stated. Bush, however, is surrounded by ideologues. As Governor of Texas, and as President, he has shown an indifference to governance. The man likes to be a politican, yet he is so uninterested in policy that nearly everything his administration conceives is staff driven. In his case, you have a man with significant political skill-face it, the guy is affable-, but who is malleable to the point of being a figurehead. If you look at the history of Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and the rest of the "Wolfpack," a pattern emerges. They all have a major history of advocating political violence to further U.S. economic and ideological interests in the world. Any terrorist who did his homework would be able to figure out the likely response, which would be to attack Iraq, per PNAC aspirations, no matter who or what was behind the catalyst event. Either way, a major terror threat or action would be the catalyst to take out Saddam and then to fight subsequent theater wars in the Middle East. In order to fight theater wars, the ideologues need an excuse, so, in this case, an alive Osama bin Laden and functioning al-qaeda, makes a pertinent reason to preemptively invade countries. Thus, getting away with an attack under Bush was pretty much assured. Under Gore the rate of success goes down significantly. Bush ideologues would use it for a preconceived agenda, while Gore would have veritably went after the heart of al-qaeda. That to me is the biggest difference.

[dennis4868]

34. It is my understanding that...

Gore, while he was vice president of the united states, was the toughest hawk in the Clinton white house regarding going after and killing Bin Laden and his thugs. Plus, Gore submitted a report to the congress to pass tougher and more protective procedures for airline safety.....many of the things we are doing now to protect airplane passengers were in Gore's report to congress back in 1999 but the Repubs laughed at him and trashed his report. I have read in many places that Gore would drive Clinton nuts about keeping an even closer eye on Bin Laden and his movements which Clinton only followed through half way according to many reports.

There is no question in my mind that is Gore was given a CIA report that Bush git back in August of 2001 he would not have ignored it. He would have acted on it by informing the FAA and all the airlines, would have gone to congress to pass laws to protect passangers and their safety, etc...HE WAS DOING ALL OF THIS EVEN BEFORE 911 for crying out loud.

[Wetzelbill]

40. Well yeah

Ray McGovern said the name of that August 6th briefing was "bin Laden determined to strike the U.S." and that the term "hijacking" was used. Not to mention, when WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef was captured in Pakistan back in '95 he talked about plans to hijack planes and crash them into symbolic targets like the WTC and Pentagon. France stopped one such attempt on the Eiffel Tower in the '90's, so this all wasn't some foreign concept of a potential threat. The Bush strategy for reacting to all this information was to take a vacation in Texas and have the whole cabinet stay away from DC and stop flying commercially. Since then they did nothing, but use 9-11 for anything but a fight against fundamenalist political violence. If that isn't a serious grounds for impeachment, I don't know what would be.

[DealsGapRider]

41. I'm getting tired of this Gore would have saved us bullshit

If the US government knew as early as 1995 that Islamic terrorists were planning on using hijacked commercial aircraft to attack targets in the United States, how can you blame Bush alone for failing to take steps to prevent such an atrocity? I keep reading these posts about how Gore was focused on airline security and how he would have done this or that to prevent 9/11 if he had become President. Jesus Christ. If this information was known in 1995 or 1996, what the hell was stopping the Clinton Administration from taking steps to reinforce cockpit doors, improve security screenings at airports, etc? Not a goddamned thing. I'll grant you that Bush didn't do nearly enough to prepare for a terrorist attack in the 8 months he was in office before 9/11, but he should not be the sole focus of our blame.

See below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/09/26_failed.html

"1996-2001. The CIA learned in 1996 that al Qaeda was planning to used aircraft to attack US targets, including the Trade Center and Pentagon, and had identified several of the terrorists actually involved, but these persons were allowed into the U.S., despite (or because of) their known ties to terrorist planners. FBI field agents, meanwhile, were investigating suspected terrorists enrolled in flight schools, but these findings were ignored in Washington. In 1996, after the Philippine police had discovered the 'Bojinka' plot, US officials began investigating al Qaeda terrorist suspects who were training in U.S. flight schools. "Since 1996, the FBI had been developing evidence that international terrorists were using US flight schools to learn to fly jumbo jets. A foiled plot in Manila to blow up U.S. airliners and later court testimony by an associate of bin Laden had touched off FBI inquiries at several schools, officials say." (Washington Post, Steve Fairnaru and James Grimaldi 9-23-2001) "

[Wetzelbill]

42. It's funny that you say that

because Republicans blocked a few different counterterrorism bills when Clinton was in office, including some attempts at shoring up airline and plane safety. Nobody can conclusively say, Gore would have saved us, however, the current situation would be much better all around if he were in office, instead of Bush. That is nearly inarguable. Look at the records. Gore would not have gone so far astray as the current administration has. No way. It doesn't add up.

[DealsGapRider]

45. Of course things would be better if Gore were in office.

That's not the point I was making. I just don't think it's logical to suggest that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had Gore become President instead of Bush. That's all I'm saying.

Also, do you have information on the airline security bills that were blocked by the Repubs? I would like to see that for my own edification.

[Wetzelbill]

50. sure

check out some of
these.http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/pearly/htmls/bill-terrorism.html

[chesley]

44. Ouch!

I didn't think anyone else would make this point.

[K-W]

59. I dont think there

is any reason to debate whether 911 would have happened during a gore presidency. There are too many unkowns in that. Ofc if you are a LIHOP or a MIHOP person you may think that, but since niether of those stances are yet very substantiated there is no good reason to believe this attack couldnt have been pulled off if gore were president.

The important point is that after 911, Gore would not have used the tragedy to push a radical militant foriegn policy and a radical domestic agenda, both of which were planned well before 911. He would have done his best as a president to asses what the best move to actually fix our problems was and taken it.