What could Bush have done to prevent 9/11 ?

I think, given the myriad of warnings recieved every day by the C in C--if he'd acted on all of them--we'd all be locked in our homes under armed guard.

I do think I'd have reviewed airline safety measures--done some sort of controlled practice 'hijacking', since that was mentioned--but that would have prepared us for a highjacking--which would completely be the wrong set of responses to a plane-used-as-missle scenario.

In short, I think there was nothing that could have been done by Bush and Co to prevent it--but if someone had possessed the foresight to disentangle the CIA and FBI, that could have made a difference, possibly.

One point: If the US citizenry, at least it's more liberal contingent, are complaining about the Patriot Act AFTER 911; we never would have stood for some of the safety/security measures if Bush had tried to enact them PRE-911. Hitler accusations would have abounded, and if these strident security measures had foiled an attack--no one would have given him credit.

0 Replies

Thank you Cerealkiller. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

You agree with everybody who has testified before the 9/11 commission and everybody who has been involved hands on with that investigation except a couple of attack dogs who are ordered to try to discredit the current administration.

Lord I'll be glad when the election is over so will get back to focusing on how to prevent another 9/11 instead of trying to hang GWB for the first one.

0 Replies

I think a very fair criticism of Bush is the fact that he was so focussed on Iraq *before* 9/11.

You are probably right that 9/11 would have still happened even if responding to the terrorist threats was the top priority of the Bush administration.

But the fact the Bush administration could have taken this threat more seriously, but was distracted by other priorities.

What is unforgivable is is that Bush was so focussed on Iraq *after* 9/11. Rather than focussing on fighting terrorism, he used 9/11 as an excuse to do what he already wanted to do.

Rather than fighting terrorism, we are spending billions of dollars creating new terrorists.

I will be glad when this election is over so we can *start* focusing on how to prevent another 9/11 instead of trying to use the first one to justify an outrageous foreign policy blunder.

0 Replies

That's what the 9/11 Commission is efforting to find out. Their report is due in July, 2004.'

Personally, I would've liked to have seen the Bush team focus at least a little on al-Qaida and UBL instead of their pre-9/11 desire to pay homage to Saint Reagan with Star Wars.

But, they didn't and rest, as they say, is history.

0 Replies

ebrown, whether the administration was correct or wrong to focus on Iraq is indeed a legitimate debate. It is one I would like to have objectively and using reason, common sense, and a spirit of fairness rather than the current oneupmanship of partisan bickering evident on the airways, in the newspapers, and in this forum. Maybe that can happen after the November election though frankly, I am not encouraged.

0 Replies

Yes, they should have created the Patriot act as soon as they were inaugerated. Also, armed guards in the hotels and armed pilots on every flight.

I am sure this would have went over like gangbusters in the pre-9/11 world.

0 Replies

There has been plenty of intellectual debate here on the war Foxfyre. Your tactic is to simply dismiss it all as partisan. When your arguments get debunked you just don the mantle of non-partisan superiority. It's a way of using teh porr arguments to ignore the good ones.

0 Replies

Thinking of Craven's previous comment, I must say it is nearly impossible to get a Bush Basher to cop to the logistical fact--

--that if you hate the Patriot Act--you would have hated any security measures posed by Bush pre-911 multiplied by a million.

They saw the towers fall--and still decry the PA. Yet, they accuse Bush of not doing enough...

The way I see it-- you can't have it both ways, legitimately.

This illegitimate complaining is (or seems to be) Foxfyre's focus. And I agree.

0 Replies

I haven't seen much, if any, intellectual debate free of innuendo, insults, and partisanship related to Iraq or George W. Bush or 9/11 Craven. This thread is about as close to that as we've gotten. If you know of some other recent strings re Bush, Iraq, and 9/11 where impartiality and thoughtfulness is the watchword, however, please refer me. I would like to be reassured.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I will be glad when this election is over so we can *start* focusing on how to prevent another 9/11 instead of trying to use the first one to justify an outrageous foreign policy blunder.

Under the heading of focusing on preventing another 9/11, we certainly want to prevent a WMD 9/11, since the casualty levels associated would be incomparably higher than 9/11/2001. I think it's irrefutable that historically WMD have come within the grasp of more and smaller countries and groups as time goes by. If the historical trend continues, and someday many, many people have bio and nuclear weapons, including terrorists, it seems that it will not be that hard for our enemies to smuggle one into the US, perhaps in pieces, and use it against us, occasioning casualty figures like we've never seen before. If we keep 99 attempts out, but let one succeed, we lose anyway. As we focus on preventing another 9/11, how can we make ourselves secure against the WMD 9/11 scenario?

0 Replies

He might or might not have prevented 9/11, but there were several things that the Bush administration should have done to lengthen the odds. First given that there were know to be terrorist cell in the US heads should have been knocked at CIA/FBI to get coordinated tracking and location of known or suspected terrorist in the US. This might not have stopped all hijackings but might have disrupted their plans
Second given the know interest terrorists had in airplanes, the air marshal program should have been beefed up and more flights covered. Again not a 100% guarantee of prevention but it would have made things more difficult.All these steps required was awareness and concern, both of which were in short supply in the Bush administration before 9/11.

0 Replies

The time to do those things were during the Clinton administration.

Since Clinton dropped the ball, I guess the work fell to Bush.

Again. The few things that might have been done probably wouldn't have prevented the tragedies.

0 Replies

The scariest thing now are the rumors of nuclear 'suitcase' bombs that may or may not be in the hands of terrorists. Or the possibility that the terrorists may be very close to having these. The way I understand it, the bombs would be quite small and easily transported.

Some have suggested the Patriot Act goes too far in giving the government the right to sniff around looking for clues. These new cameras that can see through clothing have been criticized as an invasion of privacy. Vigorous efforts by the INS to identify and deport illegals are denounced as racial profiling.

So what do you guys think? Taking more risks is preferable to giving up more privacy? Where would you tell the current administration to draw the line to ensure that another 9/11 doesn't happen?

0 Replies

...SEE THROUGH CLOTHING...!!!?
Where are these cameras?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The scariest thing now are the rumors of nuclear 'suitcase' bombs that may or may not be in the hands of terrorists. Or the possibility that the terrorists may be very close to having these. The way I understand it, the bombs would be quite small and easily transported.

The bioweapon technology is probably both easier to achieve technically, and the weapon components easier to conceal. Just because anthrax and smallpox get most of the news doesn't mean that someone won't eventually weaponize some even more unpleasant disease like a hemorrhagic fever. It's very hard to see how a group determined to smuggle something like this in could be reliably stopped.

0 Replies

Bush could have consulted with the man who's job it was to combat terrorism, Richard Clarke, and seriously planned anti-terrorism stragies. Instead, Bush ignored Clarke and became obsessed with Iraq—for whatever reason, unknown to us and possibly to Bush himself. His actions suggest at the very least that he is a man who has reached his level of imcompetence and is completely over his head in the office of the presidency.

To not accept responsibility for the defensive failure of 9/11 as Clarke did, Bush is saying that he won't be responsible for future attacks. The endless color alerts are simply a way for the administration to cover its ass should another attack occur.

Bush's attack on Iraq was misplaced agression and most assuredly will increase terrorism and strenghten Al Queda, to wit, Bush has done exactly what Osama Bin Laden hoped he would do. Bush has motivated Middle East terrorists more that Bin Laden could ever have hoped to do.

0 Replies

A hands-accross the world approach would be nice. Everyone joins hands and walks around the world. Whoever finds Osama gets to plug him.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I haven't seen much, if any, intellectual debate free of innuendo, insults, and partisanship related to Iraq or George W. Bush or 9/11 Craven.

Within those debates are plenty of people who avoid it. You usually do, but even you yourself slip up. Heck today you used the ad hominem of implying that a member is 12 years old.

In the free speech thread by Fedral Joe gave you some very civil and informed rebuttals, at which point you begged off using the other poor arguments as the excuse.

You are right that there are few political debates free of incivility, but you seem to tend to ignore the civil intellectual arguments and use the incivil ones as the scapoegoat for this.

Sofia wrote:

Thinking of Craven's previous comment, I must say it is nearly impossible to get a Bush Basher to cop to the logistical fact--

--that if you hate the Patriot Act--you would have hated any security measures posed by Bush pre-911 multiplied by a million.

They saw the towers fall--and still decry the PA. Yet, they accuse Bush of not doing enough...

The way I see it-- you can't have it both ways, legitimately.

This illegitimate complaining is (or seems to be) Foxfyre's focus. And I agree.

Sofia,

I'm no fan of Bush. But I don't think he can be held responsible for preventing 9/11. You won't find me in that chorus (though I admit that for the other reasons I dislike his presidency I do hope that the chorus erodes some of his political capital).

And there have been plenty of liberals here who have the same position. Many of us aren't into the pin 9/11 on Bush game.

0 Replies

Well, if my Counterterrorism guy had been at the job for over eight years, and AQ was still running around free--I might want another opinion, too.

0 Replies

What could Bush have done to prevent 9/11 ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know