Quote:
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
In hindsight every president shoudl have done something different. I can't blame Clinton and I can't blame Bush for what he did or didnt do in regards to terrorism BEFORE 9/11. Attacks were few and far between, not on US soil, and not very deadly.
It was just accepted policy that terrorism was a priority but it wasn't serious. There were many threats by Osama Bin Laden and other groups that never happened.
In hindsight, should Bush have immediately pulled out all the stops, declared martial law, grounded all planes, and doubled the police force? Yeah. Were there some small things that the president did wrong as far as making the airlines and airports aware? Yes. Did Clinton do any better? No. And we have no evidence of any reports that Clinton got. For all we know, Clinton could have gotten the same report, and the plot either didnt go off or because of dumb luck, the attack was prevented. There would have been a lot of hindsight conjecture had an attack on American soil occured under Clinton.
BUT, we can take that hindsight and improve the future. We can see that terrorist attacks are possible on this soil and fund the correct police force. We can see the troubles that occured when Israel was created, and we can see what short-sighted meddling in foreign countries can do in the long run. That is what should educate us and that is what we should take away from the attacks.
I personally think that the majority of the decisions that Bush has made were wrong, but to piddle over stupid shit? That's not going to get anyone anywhere and its the problem with the democratic party.
|
PLEASE NOTE:
There is neither cussing nor name calling in this post. Erica, please edit it. I read these threads for entertainment, and level-headed, fair minded evaluations are just boring. You won't get any replies to your post, either. Throw some mud, dammit. You must be one of those conservo-liberal pansies.