I was thinking about this today, as Al Gore did win the popular vote and lost because of how the Electoral College works. So people like to blame 9/11 on Bush, and Fahrenheit 9/11 really tried to make it look like Bush. I remember when the movie, "The road to 9/11" came out, Clinton was having a fit that it showed the problems with 9/11 started while he was in office. Yet, as the public, feed by the media. It seems that a lot of people feel Bush did this 9/11 thing, or at least allowed it. So I wonder, do people think that if Al Gore was elected and not Bush, would 9/11 have still happened?
If Al Gore was elected in 2000, would 9/11 happened?
by free2beme 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abandoned
Impossible to say, but I don't think we would have been so quick to squander away the good will we garnered from nearly all the world. Not to knock conservatives or piss them off or anything, but Bush isn't an honest man. He isn't guided by moral principles. He is very much like the gb of the wt. He's convinced he's right so anything goes as long as he carries out his plans.
-
jwfacts
9/11 was a long time in the planning, so would likely have happened anyway. What would have been different is the response. Gore may have invaded Afganhistan, but definitely not Iraq. Bush did not invade Iraq because of 9/11, he did it for a personal vendetta.
-
restrangled
:Like jwfacts pointed out, 9/11 was planned out years before. Remember they tried to bring the world trade center down years before in 1993 with a rental truck loaded with explosives. 9/11 was their second attempt at the same target.
r's hubby
-
free2beme
What I was wondering, was it a managing style as people present, that lead to it, or the power of the hatred towards our country. I am not a big fan of Bush, I admit that, but I also voted for him twice, and I admit that too. I just do not see where it was any more one man who caused that, then it was one man who actually carried it out. Now, starting the war in Iraq, whole different thought there.
-
Dark Knight
I think 9/11 probably wouldn't not have happened. Bush undid a lot of the good work Clinton had done in the middle east.
-
Abaddon
911 would still 95% probable under Gore or any other President.
The game was in play as far as the bad guys went, there's no reason to believe another President would have achieved inter-departmental reform in time to have the inter-departmental synergy neccesary to have stopped it in planning phase, and it's unlikely ny action by another President wouldhave lead to a cancellation of the plan.
I do agree Gore would have gone into Afghanistan, but not Iraq, unless it was a far different justification, UN sanction, and constellation of allies.
-
restrangled
What I was wondering, was it a managing style as people present, that lead to it, or the power of the hatred towards our country. I am not a big fan of Bush, I admit that, but I also voted for him twice, and I admit that too. I just do not see where it was any more one man who caused that, then it was one man who actually carried it out. Now, starting the war in Iraq, whole different thought there.
What was presented by Christiane Amanpour of CNN in the special "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" wee a few main points.
Bin Laden having been born Saudi, felt strongly that the Arab world should solve their own problems. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama Bin Laden went to the Saudi government and offered to bring his "army" over from Afghanistan to extract Iraq from Kuwait. The Saudi government blew him off and he never forgave them because they:
a) Allowed US troops to use "sacred" Saudi soil as one of their bases of operation for the 1st gulf war.
b) Allowed the US to set up a permanent presence in the region.
He knew what would happen if the US became involved. The US policy always has been, wherever we have conflicts we leave established bases. Examples are Japan, Germany and Korea.
On a side note, kind of the irony, is that Rumsfeld was initially brought in by Bush to downsize the military in terms of overseas bases, and convert to a more rapid response force. That policy started before 9/11 and includes reducing the precence in Europe dramatically. Rumsfeld was picked for his business accumen, not his military accumen.
Back to Bin Laden, so it essentially started when the Arab world cooperated with the UN to allow the US set up bases in the Arab countries to extract Iraq from Kuwait. There is and always will be a deep divide in the Arab world. The US presence just aggravated it and continues to do so. It is interesting that Bin Laden being born in Saudi Arabia and having a vendetta towards the Saudi government used mostly Saudi Arabia nationals to carry out 9/11.We in turn did nothing to punish Saudi Arabia because they are an allie despite being part our disfunctional family.
So the US president who was at the helm when Bin Laden turned his sights toward the US was actually Bush Sr.
Bush Sr. didn't want to get Hussein out when we had the chance because he didn't want to turn world opinion against us by overstepping our initial mission which was to simply get Iraq out of Kuwait. Isn't it ironic that Bush in an effort to right what he thought was an error in judgement by his father Bush Sr. could not have screwed things up more in present day Iraq.
Bin Laden always said that he just wants the US military presence out of the Arab countries. My way of thinking, says that if we were not there, then he would focus on his energy on regime change within the moderate Arab countries, not launching attacks in America 5000 miles away. I don't buy the arguement that when we leave, they will follow....the Arab world always has and always will be divided. If we step aside, they will concentrate on each other, not us.
Of course if any of the presidents from Ford to Bush had really done the right thing, and weaned us from our dependence on foreign oil, then we wouldn't be embroiled in this mess. If we were energy independent like Brazil, then I doubt that we would be there at all. We would just let them fight it out, which eventually is what will probably happen anyway. There are more than enough oil reserves untapped in the US. The problem is the cost of getting to them. But in light of what our dependence on foreign oil has cost, maybe we should have bitten the bullet like Brazil. Just an opinion.
Below is the link to the transcript for Amanpours special
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/23/cp.01.html
r's hubby
-
bavman
If Gore had been elected 9/11 may have still happened however his response would have been much different. He would have been focused on bringing the perp to justice by going into Afghanistan and not get sidetracked by going off to an adventure in Iraq. He would not have spread fear to the American people but instead sanity. He would have been serious about security without invading people's personal lives. Our national debt would still be shrinking and the victims of Katrina would be getting appropriate help. (SIGH)
-
nvrgnbk
No disrespect meant towards conservatives but Bush is delusional. He believed himself to be Cyrus when he attempted to conquer Babylon (Iraq). Seriously.