NationStates Jolt Archive

Richard Clarke and the 9/11 commission are accusing the Bush administration of not doing enough to prevent 9/11. However, what if Bush had taken action? The only way to find terrorists is to look for them, and there are many people who would take that as a violation of their fourth amendment rights. There were only two possibilities that I can think of off the bat.

1) Bush looks for--and finds--the terrorists by use of wiretaps and searching their records. However, from the left comes a hail of accusations saying that the first and fourth amendments have ceased to exist. Since no 9/11 occurs, there is little or no support for Bush's actions. Bush is nicknamed Big Brother and despised for the rest of his four years.

2) 9/11. Bush takes action against the terrorists afterwards. In an election year, a former advisor writes a book saying Bush didn't do enough, despite the fact that counterterrorism and intelligence were torn apart by the prior administration.

So, either Bush would be considered "Big Brother" or he would be considered ineffective. He was screwed either way.

Now, as you have heard in my other topics, be fair about the poll. One vote per person, not one vote per nation per person. Spinning the poll doesn't accomplish or prove anything.

well Sept. 11th would have heppened no matter what. The authorities may have been able to delay it, or stop the extent of it, but some type of horrible act would have been committed by al-Queda.

Bush (or whoever would be president) is screwed because if he knew it was going to happen the critics would ask "why wasn't it stopped?" If the president didn't know it was going to happen, the critics would ask "why did you not know about a terrorist plot of this magnitude?"

Sept. 11th would have happened to the US whomever was president, Gore, Bush, or Clinton, as long as Usama bin Laden is free.

I'm very left wing, but even i think they have gone to far. there was 7 threats on the world trade center a day. if the government had acted each time the economy would be in worse shape than it is in now. and what would he have done? stop all airplane flights from july to january? they didnt know a date.

everyone says clinton should have killed bin laden, but how far should we take that? i mean should we kill everyone? thats rediculous. if he had killled bin laden he'd of catched flack for that.

I'm very left wing, but even i think they have gone to far. there was 7 threats on the world trade center a day. if the government had acted each time the economy would be in worse shape than it is in now. and what would he have done? stop all airplane flights from july to january? they didnt know a date
i agree 100%. on sept. 11th, the US was chasing down leads on 40+ al-Quaeda leads. the intel. budget ideally should be able to handle anything that is needed from them, but in reallity that is just not possible.

if the WTC was shut down 7 times a day our economy would have already been in the shitter even without a Sept. 11th.

Bush certainley didn't help when it comes to sept. 11th. Like in the summer of 2001, the Bushies dropped a Clinton initiative to go after international money laundering. The system of of ofshore banks used by Osama bin Laden, and other terrorists, as well as by drug dealers, tax evaders, kleptomaniac dictators, nasty husbands and American Corporations. Plus if Bush hadn't backed out of the 1995 draft accord on a Biological Weapons Convention to rid the world of biological weapons, and wasn't so interested in talks of usin 'tactical nuclear weapons' in Iraq WMD would not have been so much of a problem.

The Patriot Act . . . potential to be a great thing, but has to be drastically changed. Like put the need for 'probable cause' back in, allow the government to keep a lesser extent of these new powers it grants, etc. oh and dont let the Patriot II pass; it has some really ludacris things in it like DNA sampling w/o your knowing . . .

I agree with Reneys. Whoever was president, they'd be damned if they helped to prevent it, and damned if they didn't. But as Rush Limbaugh pointed out, they waited after WWII before opening a commission to investigate why Pearl Harbor happened, so as not to interefere with the war. They probably should've waited a few more years (or at least until Bush gets out of office) to investigate, because I think that, at the rate documents are declassified and such, terrorists are getting a lot of informatiion, and it's hampering the war effort.

Euclid, the war on terror is pretty much over. Iraq really sholdn't be considered part of the war on terror, and Afghanistan is winding down. While the threat of terrorism is still there, we're not doing much about it anymore, internationally speaking.

I'd like to wipe my ASS with The Patriot Act..because John Asscroft is wiping HIS ass with THE CONSTITUION!!!

Hey! That gives me an idea for a novelty item...Patriot Act toilet paper!!

Euclid, the war on terror is pretty much over. Iraq really sholdn't be considered part of the war on terror, and Afghanistan is winding down. While the threat of terrorism is still there, we're not doing much about it anymore, internationally speaking.
Um, it isn't over. bin Laden is still out there, as is the Taliban. A spring offensive is planned (why the military disclosed that is beyond me). There's also work to be done in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. And if you ask me, we should really get more involved in helping the Russians defeat the Chechens. Despite the Russians' shortcomings, the Chechens are terrorizing the Russian people, and have links to al-Qaeda. Some even believe that the Caucasus is where al-Qaeda's regrouping. And why did the US and Russia make sure that recent coup in Georgia went so orderly? Partly because of fear of a Chechenpower grab if a strong leader wasn't found soon.

I actually think that if it weren't for 9/11 then George Bush wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning the upcoming elections and I think he realises this hence the reason why he's been campaigning as a 'war president' and looks like he wants to make the 'war on terror' the main issue in the campaign. His use pictures of the twin towers disaster in election videos to the disgust of some of the families involved is also indicative of this. You notice that the highest approval ratings for George Bush came directly after 9/11, I'm sure the Bush administration also notice this and decided that it was their best hope for re-election.

The "war on terrorism" will never end since you will never stop terrorist attacks solely by force. The West argue that the likes of Al-Qaeda cannot be reasoned with etc, and for some this is true but certainly not for all. Terrorists are bred not born, if you take away some of the driving forces behind the rise of militant Islam and the negative manner in which the west is perceived then you'll be making a step in the right direction.

but how far should we take that? i mean should we kill everyone?
Isn't that what's being done?

i'm gonna leave the middle post

Euclid, the war on terror is pretty much over. Iraq really sholdn't be considered part of the war on terror, and Afghanistan is winding down. While the threat of terrorism is still there, we're not doing much about it anymore, internationally speaking.
Um, it isn't over. bin Laden is still out there, as is the Taliban. A spring offensive is planned (why the military disclosed that is beyond me). There's also work to be done in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. And if you ask me, we should really get more involved in helping the Russians defeat the Chechens. Despite the Russians' shortcomings, the Chechens are terrorizing the Russian people, and have links to al-Qaeda. Some even believe that the Caucasus is where al-Qaeda's regrouping. And why did the US and Russia make sure that recent coup in Georgia went so orderly? Partly because of fear of a Chechenpower grab if a strong leader wasn't found soon.

Your kidding, Bush should help the Russians? They fixed the Chechen election while the Russian's wasn't much better. Their counterterrorist methods make the israeli's look like the green party.

sorry, the whole multiple post thing happened

9/11 would've happened in one way or another, no matter what, it was just a matter of time.

I actually think that if it weren't for 9/11 then George Bush wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning the upcoming elections and I think he realises this hence the reason why he's been campaigning as a 'war president' and looks like he wants to make the 'war on terror' the main issue in the campaign. His use pictures of the twin towers disaster in election videos to the disgust of some of the families involved is also indicative of this. You notice that the highest approval ratings for George Bush came directly after 9/11, I'm sure the Bush administration also notice this and decided that it was their best hope for re-election.

The "war on terrorism" will never end since you will never stop terrorist attacks solely by force. The West argue that the likes of Al-Qaeda cannot be reasoned with etc, and for some this is true but certainly not for all. Terrorists are bred not born, if you take away some of the driving forces behind the rise of militant Islam and the negative manner in which the west is perceived then you'll be making a step in the right direction.
I agree and disagree.

I agree because i see the "war on terrorism" turning into a War on Drugs kind of thing, with no real enemy, and only "battles" won but the war will never.

I disagree because Bush would not have to campaign as a War President if it weren't for Sept. 11th, but the economy (except for the .com bubble bust) would not be in the kind of shape it is now.