9/11: What would a Dem have done?

[greyhound]

www.nationalreview.com


November 03, 2003, 8:07 a.m.


I've said it before, but, since I'm more convinced of it than ever, I'll say it again: The principal Republican theme of '04 should be, The times are too crucial to allow the Democratic party in office. The challenge is too severe. Our enemies are too wicked and persistent. Decisions to be made are too hard (and in some cases risky). The spine required is too great.


Sure, in 1992, with the Cold War over, after about 45 years, Americans thought they could give themselves a breather with a slick, draft-dodging, all-promising Democrat from the New Class. And in the 1990s we had our holiday from history. But times are tough now — the "world" is back — and the Democrats aren't ready for prime time. There's a global war on terror to wage, for heaven's sake. Zell Miller, in endorsing Bush, said he had "a little Churchill in him." That may strike some as extreme, but look at the Democratic presidential candidates — and the Democrats' leaders in Congress — and see if you can detect any.

A lot of us have said, since 9/11, that if the Democrats had had power — executive power — they would have treated that day, primarily, as a "legal incident" (much like the World Trade Center bombing of 1993). This allegation might seem unduly harsh, unfair. But I give you a couple of quotes collected by Morton Kondracke, and then disseminated by Bushies.

From Wesley Clark: "[After September 11, America] should have immediately gone to the United Nations, developed a legal definition of terrorism — and indicted Osama bin Laden." And from John Kerry: "This war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation."

All the Democrats say — and most people assume — that a Democratic president (Gore, say) would have "done" Afghanistan: would have gone to war to ruin the Taliban and attack al Qaeda. I'm not so sure. But, fortunately, we'll never know. Andrew Cuomo's words (which I recently discussed) are all too apt: The Democrats blew the "seminal" moment of the age, providing no leadership, blind to the exigencies of the new environment.

At a recent debate, Wesley Clark said, "President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today."

A man who would make a kindergarten comment like this has no business being president — and no business being a general (a retired one, maybe). Note, too, that "Instead" — despicable.

Personally, I think Gore would have "done" Afghanistan and that would have been the end of it. All this hollering by the Democrats about "We don't have Osama" and "The real enemy is Saudi Arabia" is just a way to bash Bush. If Gore was President, the Dems would care less about Osama or Saudi Arabia, their main goal after 9/11 would be to get "back to normal" as quickly as possible.

 

[OF]

they would have treated that day, primarily, as a "legal incident"

The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Clinton, the dems hero and deity-in-human-form, did exactly that when the towers were attacked the first time. There is no reason to suspect they would have done anything else on 9/11.

The quote from Clark makes me want to gag. Go the UN and get an indictment? Traitor!

- Gabe

 

[Jonesy9]

Bush as Churchillian is laughable and an insult to churchill LOL!


I disagree with you on Saudi Arabia. Wahabbic Islamism is the core problem and SA is the primary funding source of Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps a Dem might not have had as many close personal and business ties to the Royal house of Saud as Bush and would have been able to be more effective against them.

The GOP also would never have let a Dem president get away with closing our bases and pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Bush may be able to prop up the royals for a few more years but the royals will not crackdown hard enough on the fundamentalists to justify such appeasement of terrorists. I still think that was a huge mistake on our part.

 

[Mike Irwin]

According to some here, a Democrat would have personally flown, a la Superman, to NYC in the blink of an eye to catch the planes before they crashed into the WTC...

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I think we would have dropped a load of bombs on Afghanistan and then fired cruise missles every few weeks as satellite intel turned up targets.

We also would have continued sending bombs and missles into Iraq. The entire Arab world would view the U.S. as faceless cowards who bomb their children from far-away when attacked. The bombs would have little real affect on the power base in either country.

Many more innocent individuals in Iraq and Afghanistan would be affected by collateral damage than are affected negatively by our current ground forces. Elaborate torture would continue in Iraq and subjugation and murder of women would continue in Afghanistan. Young men in border countries and from all over the world would flock to both countries to join the cause and become part of the powerful elite. There would be no rebuilding by US forces in either country. There also would be no journalists sitting in Iraqi hotel bars ready to run out and film the bombings.

The UN would have placed two or three more sanctions on Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN, France, Russia and Germany would still have nice big fat supply contracts selling computers, cars, building materials, electronics, consulting, etc. to Saddam under the "Food for Oil" program.

Saddam would still be paying $50K to suicide bombers' families. This bounty would likely extend to bombings in the US and Europe.

Domestically, we would probably have more attacks. Some of which would be carried out by those affected by our bombing campaigns.

Al Gore would be chastizing us daily for hating Arabs and Muslims. The FBI would be running around investigating domestic fundamental Christian religious extremists ("all fundamental religions lead to violence" don't 'cha know). All of us law-abiding US citizens would be carrying USA Citizen ID cards -- tracked by a database "donated" but maintained by Larry Ellison and Oracle. Your ID card number would suddenly be required everywhere from check-cashing to buying fertilizer to crossing state lines.

To bring the topic on home to THR, there would movements afoot to use codes on these cards to track "reasonable" federal licensing for firearms ownership. Possibly incited by a domestic terrorist attack using firearms insted of boxcutters.

 

[Lightsped]

I like the following quote:

"I've said it before, but, since I'm more convinced of it than ever, I'll say it again: The principal Republican theme of '04 should be, The times are too crucial to allow the Democratic party in office. The challenge is too severe. Our enemies are too wicked and persistent. Decisions to be made are too hard (and in some cases risky). The spine required is too great."

 

[Joe Demko]

We don't know because a Democrat wasn't in office. The majority of the responses so far are just what right-wingers like to think a Democrat would have done.
What we do know is what a particular Republican did. Some of it was okay. An awful lot of it wasn't.

 

[foghornl]

Supposing for a minute that Al Bore was in charge, he would still be wringing his hands, trying to "understand" why we were attacked, how to appease the Islamic World, and offering apologies for being the Great Satanic Infidel of The West.***




***In My Humble Opnion, Your Mileage Will Vary.

 

[Obiwan]

We would still be a big fat complacent target

What we have acheived is sending a clear message that we won't just sit on our hands if attacked.

 

[Augustwest]

"President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today."

I have about as much use for the Dems as I do for the Republicans. That said, the quote above makes a ton of sense to me.

 

[DaveB]

Next we need a "could spyderman beat superman" thread.

db

 

[MPFreeman]

I remember thinking that a new set of gun laws was about to be upon us in the most severe form. If a "D" was in the White House, it would be illegal today to own an unregistered gun.

 

[w4rma]

Bush's 9.11 security failure would never have happened under a President Gore, IMHO.

Here are a few stories about Clinton's attempts to combat terrorist forces and the brick walls he ran up against:

April 24, 1995 The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the “counter-terrorism†proposals suggested by President Clinton Sunday evening threatened to repeat the mistakes of the past and erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty.
…
http://www.aclu.org/news/n042495.html

April 18, 1996 Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism . . . The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.
…
http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

July 30, 1996 Paris -- A Fact Sheet from the July 30 ministerial meeting of the P-8 (the industrialized nations of the world plus Russia) notes that President Clinton for three years has led an international campaign to combat terrorism in concert with the P-8 as well as with allies in the Middle East and elsewhere . . . Following is the official text of the Fact Sheet.
…
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/p8_facta.htm

July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess . . . But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures . . . Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.
…
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

August 25, 1998 The August 20 bombing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist bases in Afghanistan and the alleged bin Laden-funded chemical weapons production facility in Khartoum, was a decisive and appropriate U.S. response to the atrocities in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and President Bill Clinton should be commended.
…
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/schenker.htm

March 21, 2000 US President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he would take up with Pakistan military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf the issue of terrorism in the Kashmir valley.
…
http://www.indiainfo.com/news/2000/03/21/clin

March 22, 2000 Clinton is pushing General Musharraf to use his influence with Afghanistan's leaders—the Taliban—to bring Bin Laden to trial . . . Even if Musharraf could convince the Taliban to give Bin Laden up, there is an abundance of anger, frustration and weapons in the region, left over from the Afghan war, when thousands of extremists came together to bring a superpower to its knees . . . That militant network has built up in this region over two decades of conflict. The president believes America must get deeply involved in South Asia to crack the terrorist problem, a process Clinton continues throughout this week.
…
http://www.kdka.com/now/story/0,1597,1747

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62725-2001Dec18

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

http://www9.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm

http://online.securityfocus.com/news/201

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/01/page-a-01-23.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61219-2001Oct2


And don't forget how GW stopped ongoing terrorist investigations:

FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
…
They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to “back off†from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

“There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.â€
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their “black sheepâ€.

Hart-Rudman
Not only did Clinton's actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber headed off on his way to the celebration in Seattle), but much more occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~ only to be scuttled by the Bushistas:

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
by Jake Tapper

Sept. 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- They went to great pains not to sound as though they were telling the president “We told you so.â€

But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.
…
Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. “Frankly, the White House shut it down,†Hart says. “The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day.â€

“We predicted it,†Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. “We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.â€
…
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

The Gore Commission
also known as the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm

Here is what seems to have happened to the recomendations of the Gore Commission:
We begin our news with a quote: “The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.â€

If you think that comes from a recent Bush White House report, guess again. In the summer of 1996, shortly after the crash of TWA flight 800, President Clinton asked Vice President Al Gore to chair a commission on improving air transportation safety. As a result, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, commonly known as the Gore Commission, conducted an in-depth analysis of the U.S. commercial airlines' safeguards against terrorist attacks. In its final report, which is what I quoted from a moment ago, the Gore Commission found that security measures used by U.S. airlines were extremely inadequate, and made over 50 recommendations to improve security.

What happened? Well, the Gore Commission demanded tougher airline security, but airlines and conservatives said no. Specifically, the airline industry dismissed the threat of terrorists, and attacked the commission. Indeed, the day after the final report was published, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association fought back with a legislative action of their own that claimed the Gore Commission existed simply to thwart the will of the Republican Congress.

And conservative ideologues rejected the proposal on “cost-effectiveness†grounds. OK, so how much are 6,000 lives worth - not to mention the dollar value placed on the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon, an economic recession, and America's security?
http://www.d28dems.org/pspeak/psE85.htm

For instance, the commission, headed by then-Vice President Al Gore, wanted airlines to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems to detect potential terrorists.
http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312052.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.co...cgi?az=show_thread&om=25100&forum=DCForumID35

I think that what Shrub is doing is *creating* terrorism and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people and whole families.
Before 9.11:
Bush defunds international organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling to poor women.
Bush postures over North Korea.
Bush pulls out of the Kyoto treaty.
Bush makes a gaffe over Taiwan/China policy.
Bush returns the world to a Cold War-level arms race.
Bush rejects a protocol to enforce germ warfare treaty.
Bush denies Africans AIDS drugs through international aid agency.
Bush isolates United States in denying support for Kyoto treaty.
Bush officially rejects germ warfare treaty protocol.
Bush announces that the United States will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Bush skips an international conference on racism.
After 9.11:
Bush tries to end arms sanctions.
Bush proposes trying suspected terrorists with military tribunals.
Bush abandons ABM treaty.
Bush plans to store--rather than destroy--nuclear weapons slated for reduction.
Bush invents the “axis of evil.â€
Bush tries to limit Congressional probes of September 11 terrorist attacks.
Bush releases his laughable global warming plan.
Bush makes the possibility of using nuclear weapons much more likely.
Bush lifts restrictions on aid to Colombia.
http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

The center of Shrub Inc's rhetoric (and actions) in their anti-terrorism campaign has been to turn the grey areas into either bright white or dark black. “Axis of evilâ€, “With us or against usâ€, “Good verus evilâ€. Their rhetoric can be easily manipulated by savy hawks in order to justify war or an escalation in their current war against another group of people.

For example, Sharon's recent speech sounded alot to me like one of Shrub's speeches with references to bin Laden replaced with references to Arafat.

Also, lets not forget that Shrub has NOTHING substantial (he hasn't even tried!) to decrease the suicide bomber attacks on Israeli innocents. Nothing. Contrast this misadminstration to the Clinton/Gore administration where Arafat was THE foreign leader who *most* visited the White House.

Also, I should mention that Clinton managed to help Palistine and Isreal come closer than anytime in the past 30 years to a permanent peace treaty between their people. And look what Shrub Inc. did to try to undermine this:

…
In 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton were meeting at Camp David, Perle made news when he warned Barak not to let Vice President Al Gore become involved in the peace summit, for fear it would boost Gore's election prospects. He also told Barak to “walk away†from a peace plan if it left the thorny issue of a divided Jerusalem unresolved. Working as an advisor to candidate Bush, Perle warned Barak he would urge the Texas governor to condemn any peace plan that gave the PLO a foothold in Jerusalem. The Bush campaign quickly distanced itself from Perle's remarks.
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/index.html

Anger at peace talks 'meddling'
Political scandal in US as Bush advisers tell Israelis to be ready to walk out of Camp David negotiations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,342857,00.html

You’re Invited to the War Party (“Bush at War†book review)
By Georgie Anne Geyer
Ever since his Watergate revelations, which helped evict a president and change the United States for all time, for better or worse Bob Woodward has stood as the major force in a new genre of journalism. He talks, wheedles, and, using government officials’ personal ambitions and dreams of political eternity, implicitly threatens his way into the often closed corridors of power—there, he is a master at getting a certain number of figures who try their best to remain aloof and unknown to tell their stories. The proposition, understood if not explicitly spoken, is that this book, as his former ones, will tell the story—you miss out on leave on this journalistic port, fellow, you miss the whole historic ship!
…
First of all, Bush at War is really about the decision-making process in the upper levels of the Bush administration—the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon—from the exact morning of Sept. 11th. It begins with a profoundly worried George Tenet, head of the CIA and, from all of the space he gets in the book, obviously one of Woodward’s best and favored sources. That very morning, Tenet is wondering about when Osama bin Laden, whom he has been desperately tracking, will strike the U.S. Then “it†happens—and from then onward, the book delineates day-by-day, and sometimes hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute—what supposedly went on in meeting after meeting. From all accounts that I know of, Woodward’s interpretations are exactly right; it is the quotes that are so bothersome.
…
Another time, he says to Woodward, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.â€

At still another point after the Afghan war has started, the president says to his staff, “Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.†And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whm Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.†Whew.
http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/geyer7.html

 

[ojibweindian]

Gore would have crapped his pants. Afterwards, he would have fantasized about what it would really be like to be an Alpha male. Finally, he would have cried because, in his heart, he knew he would always be a wuss.

 

[DaveB]

Afterwards, he would have fantasized about what it would really be like to be an Alpha male.

If dubya is an alpha male (by your measure), we're all in really big trouble.

db

 

[ojibweindian]

We've been in a lot of trouble since FDR.

 

[Mark Tyson]

I don't think Gore's response would have been too different from Bush's. Afghanistan but not Iraq, as others are saying.

 

[Sean Smith]

My vote is... no way to know. If Gore decided that invading Iraq would be a good way to pander to the general public and not get denounced as a sissy, there is a real possibility that he'd do it.

 

[w4rma]

Al Gore: I would Never Start This War
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=21239

Al Gore has never been a supporter of Iraq war
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3451987&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

Gore Delivers Iraq Speech to MoveOn Members

At New York University on August 7, former Vice President Al Gore gave a major policy address to over 500 MoveOn members. Here's an excerpt:

"Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the Rule of Reason as the best way to establish the truth."

"The Bush Administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agendas."

• Read the press advisory
• Text of the speech, as prepared
• Outreach message: Al Gore's MoveOn Speech and Other Great News
• Watch the speech (Requires RealPlayer)

http://www.moveon.org/gorespeech.html

 

[Don Galt]

A Democrat would have let the Air Force do its job and would have stopped the attacks.

We might have lost one tower, but that's it.

Bush was asleep at the wheel that day, and he LET IT HAPPEN. The fighters were scrambled, and could have intercepted... just as they have in the past when planes went off course and appeared to be hijacked.

How is it we have a decade of incidents of Air Force fighter escorts for planes that go off course-- like that golfer's plane with the oxygen problem.

But on the day that four planes are hijacked at once, the fighters are kept at bay, against NORAD procedure?

Also, this plan could have been carried out at just about any time during the Clinton administration.. but instead they wait until 9 months after Bush takes office.

I think there's a reason for that timing. If Al Gore had been selected, 9/11 may never have happened.

But all these what-if games are ultimtely pointless.

 

[greyhound]

I disagree with you on Saudi Arabia

Oh, I agree that Saudi Arabia needs sorting out in some way. I meant that the Democrats bleating "Why are we in Iraq when Saudi Arabia is the real enemy?" are full of sand. If a Democrat was in power, they wouldn't be waging war on SA.

Remember, its both Rs and Ds with lots of ties to the corrupt kingdom....

 

[greyhound]

Here are a few stories about Clinton's attempts to combat terrorist forces and the brick walls he ran up against:

I'm not a big Bush fan either, but at least when confronted with "brick walls" (UN, France, etc) he didn't let international opinion form his final decision. Yes, I know that's controversial in today's trans national
age.

Even with Afghanistan, support for military action was less than universal.
Its almost like the usual suspects were afraid that once the tiger was out of his cage, he couldn't be put back.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Holy Cow! And I thought MY response to this question required the wearing of a tinfoil hat.

So...George Bush is CREATING terrorist attacks, he ordered the planes on 9/11 to not be shot down and he's a secret agent of the Saudi government? No wonder all those Dems are so upset!

I guess the Masons must be behind it all.

I suppose they'll come and get us now that we know the truth.

 

[King]

One can only conjecture what might have been but my general feeling is that democratic leadership / president would have done what they had been doing......nothing... except beat the drum loudly as they did when other overt terrorist actions were taking place against us here (WTC first time) and abroad (embassy bombs, USS Cole, etc).

In my view, the terrorist saw us a weak, soft and possibly without the guts to really respond. Our leadership had been democratic and appeared soft. They also knew that American's had no real stomach for killing in retaliation either.

Under democatic leadership, my gut tells me that the acts like those of 9/11 would have continued with significant frequency.

I think Bush and the Republican leadership have given them something to think about. In fact, it seems to me that a lot of Iraq's and Afganistan's noisy neigbors have been pretty quiet.

Of course, that's my opinion and it's worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[Obiwan]

I might be swayed if I had actually heard a single Democrat put forth a single lucid idea about what we should have done/be doing differently.

I have little use for either party......but I think we have the right guys in charge