How we could have stopped 9/11

[dude1394]

Simple...

Sept. 11 Might Have Been Different If ...

BY JAMES LILEKS

The Sept. 11 report, as expected, will call the attack "preventable." As commission head Thomas Kean, a Republican, noted:

"If we had been able to put (the hijackers) on the watch list of the airlines, the two who were in the country; again if we'd stopped some of those people at the borders; if we had acted earlier on al-Qaida when (it) was smaller and just getting started ... the whole story might have been different."

If. If. Maybe. If. If George W. Bush had phoned the Saudis on the first day of his administration and told them any act of Islamist terror would result in a mushroom cloud over Mecca, and that he would consider it "what we call in bowling a practice frame," it might have been different. It might have been different if B-52s had taken out the Taliban in February 2001 -- and we all know how Ted Kennedy et al. would have exploded in a rain of bile had Bush kicked off his term with a pre-emptive war. The articles of impeachment would have been drawn up before the first wave of bombers returned to base.

It might have been different "if we'd stopped some of those people at the borders" by pulling aside all Arab-looking young males, fingerprinting them, photographing them and putting them into a national database of The Usual Suspects. That would have gone over well, eh? The American Civil Liberties Union would have loaded the catapults with lawyers and hurled them by the dozens into every courtroom in the country.

Yes, it might have been different. It might have been different if Ronald Reagan had responded to the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon by carpet bombing Hezbollah camps and dropping bombs the size of circus elephants into Syrian and Iranian government buildings. It might have been different if George Bush 41 had told the United Nations that this coalition stuff was all well and good, but now it was time to go to Baghdad, destroy the Baathists and get a head start on schooling this medieval landscape in the ways of modernity. It might have been different.

Oh, to be sure. It could have been different, if only we'd acted like the French, and looked after our own interests a little more closely -- meaning sweetheart oil deals, kickbacks to government officials, sneering at democratic Israel while holding the autocratic Palestinian Authority close to our bosom and selling arms to anyone. Oh, France! The only nation to act as high-handedly as China and still have the moral reputation of Tibet.

It could have been much different. If only we'd pressured Israel to leave the land it took without requiring anything of the Palestinians, we would have been applauded throughout the region. For a day. Then we would be expected to stand aside while the Palestinian Authority renewed its war against the Jews.

Go back a few decades: It would have been different if French operatives had arranged for the Ayatollah Khomeini to have "le accident" while he was in Parisian exile, contemplating the future of the Islamic state. It would have been different if President Carter hadn't stabbed the shah in the back for behaving like a Middle East autocrat instead of a Georgia city councilman. For that matter, if would have been different if the Defense Department hadn't insisted in 1961 that U.S. military personnel be exempt from prosecution in Iranian courts -- a move that aroused the ire of many Iranians, including a hitherto unknown fellow named Khomeini who rose to prominence on the issue.

It might have been different. Sept. 11 might not have happened if the Crusaders had not headed south. If the Moors had kept Spain. If the West had submitted. If the Roman Empire had not split. If Eve hadn't eaten the apple. If the light and the dark had been remained whole, instead of being forced into partisan camps on the second day. It might have been different.

Sept. 11 might have happened on May 6. Or perhaps Feb. 23.

[MavsX]

makes sense

[Ninkobei]

oh god, please let this be sattire.

[Flacolaco]

lol great article.

[AxdemxO]

It mite have been diferent if Bush didnt have personal interestes...hes to blame as much as anyone. Not because it happened while he was in office, but because he would do anything to get people to back his own ideas and interests, even go so far to know about 9/11 and making sure it happened soo that he could go to war in Iraq.

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

It mite have been diferent if Bush didnt have personal interestes...hes to blame as much as anyone. Not because it happened while he was in office, but because he would do anything to get people to back his own ideas and interests, even go so far to know about 9/11 and making sure it happened soo that he could go to war in Iraq.

no comment.

[MavKikiNYC]

It might have been different "if we'd stopped some of those people at the borders" by pulling aside all Arab-looking young males, fingerprinting them, photographing them and putting them into a national database of The Usual Suspects. That would have gone over well, eh? The American Civil Liberties Union would have loaded the catapults with lawyers and hurled them by the dozens into every courtroom in the country.

Fingerprinting terrorists? Catapaulting lawyers? This part sounds win-win, at least.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

It mite have been diferent if Bush didnt have personal interestes...hes to blame as much as anyone. Not because it happened while he was in office, but because he would do anything to get people to back his own ideas and interests, even go so far to know about 9/11 and making sure it happened soo that he could go to war in Iraq.

I really hope you dont believe that. Then again you think hezbollah is a group of freedom fighters so it wouldnt shock me.

[dude1394]

AxdemxO says:

It mite have been diferent if Clinton didnt have personal interestes...hes to blame as much as anyone. Not because it happened while he was in office, but because he would do anything to get people to back his own ideas and interests, even go so far to know about 9/11 and making sure it happened soo that he could go to war in Iraq.

If you believe your post you must also believe the above. What an absolutely idiotic post. Sounds like the maggot moore throwing crap out there.

[AxdemxO]

I actually do belive my post and i also do belive that Clinton was responsible and could have done more. But Clinton did not have the same personal interests that Bush does in oil, in Saddam, in trying to force onto others what he believs is the rite way to live, and soo on.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

I actually do belive my post and i also do belive that Clinton was responsible and could have done more. But Clinton did not have the same personal interests that Bush does in oil, in Saddam, in trying to force onto others what he believs is the rite way to live, and soo on.

I feel very sorry for you.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

I actually do belive my post and i also do belive that Clinton was responsible and could have done more. But Clinton did not have the same personal interests that Bush does in oil, in Saddam, in trying to force onto others what he believs is the rite way to live, and soo on.

Then you sir are an idiot. Here this is for you.

[Rhylan]

I don't understand why some people think Bush was smart enough to let 9/11 happen JUST SO he could go into Iraq, yet at the same time dumb enough to let Iraq turn into a huge mess.

You can't have it both ways.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I don't understand why some people think Bush was smart enough to let 9/11 happen JUST SO he could go into Iraq, yet at the same time dumb enough to let Iraq turn into a huge mess.

You can't have it both ways.

These people can..

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I don't understand why some people think Bush was smart enough to let 9/11 happen JUST SO he could go into Iraq, yet at the same time dumb enough to let Iraq turn into a huge mess.

You can't have it both ways.

Because Bush was lookin out for his own personal interests and wnated people to support him. he thought that by removin Saddam the people of Iraq mite like him and things would be good..well thats all good..but he didnt just remove saddam he invaded the country for no reason and those people want him out and therefore the whole thing is a huge mess.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I don't understand why some people think Bush was smart enough to let 9/11 happen JUST SO he could go into Iraq, yet at the same time dumb enough to let Iraq turn into a huge mess.

You can't have it both ways.

brillance.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Because Bush was lookin out for his own personal interests and wnated people to support him. he thought that by removin Saddam the people of Iraq mite like him and things would be good..well thats all good..but he didnt just remove saddam he invaded the country for no reason and those people want him out and therefore the whole thing is a huge mess.

You continue to be an idiot. You have not one scintilla of proof of that yet you throw it out there like some sort of nut. No sane person would ever go to war (unless they threw a couple of cruise missiles out there) to get people to like them. Certainly no one would risk american soldiers in a ground offensive just to get someone to like them.

You are an idiot.

[AxdemxO]

No ur an idiot and Bush would do that...becasue he is not a sane person...but instead he plays god with the lives of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and millions of othe people. He doesnt give a shit what happens to any of em. And thats why i feel bad for the young american men and women out there because they did not sign up ti fight and die for a war made up of lies.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

No ur an idiot and Bush would do that...becasue he is not a sane person...but instead he plays god with the lives of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and millions of othe people. He doesnt give a shit what happens to any of em. And thats why i feel bad for the young american men and women out there because they did not sign up ti fight and die for a war made up of lies.

Not only an idiot, but a deranged one as well.

[AxdemxO]

Yee well go ask them men and women where theyd rather b..In Iraq fighting Bush's war based on lies or at home with their families

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Yee well go ask them men and women where theyd rather b..In Iraq fighting Bush's war based on lies or at home with their families

Well DUH! You continue to amaze.

[AxdemxO]

Ok soo..whose fault is it tht they r there...who decided that we should go to war and tht saddam had WMD and connections to Bin Laden....i m sure it was Bush.....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Ok soo..whose fault is it tht they r there...who decided that we should go to war and tht saddam had WMD and connections to Bin Laden....i m sure it was Bush.....

1. First their own as they are volunteers to the army. Putting their lives on the line to protect you and your family.
2. The US government who voted to invade Iraq pursuant to their not turning over all weapons programs after ~12 years of trying to do it diplomatically.
3. Because 3K people were murdered on 911 by terrorists and the US governement decided that the decade of the 90's was not exactly the right strategy to confront terrorism anymore.

In other words they are over there because YOUR government decided it was the best thing to do.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Yee well go ask them men and women where theyd rather b..In Iraq fighting Bush's war based on lies or at home with their families

You do realize that a very large portion of the military signed up specifically because we went to war right? Obviously everyone would rather be at home with their families than at war but thankfully there are people who understand that war is sometimes a necesarry evil. This isnt an after school special. You cant always just walk away. Sometimes you do have to fight and as long as we have people who understand that and are willing to fight the fight, we will be ok.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

I don't understand why some people think Bush was smart enough to let 9/11 happen JUST SO he could go into Iraq, yet at the same time dumb enough to let Iraq turn into a huge mess.

You can't have it both ways.

My opinion is that he didn't let 9/11 happen, but was dumb enough to go to Iraq before finishing what he had begun in Afganisthan.

Afganisthan and Iraq were too much for America to handle. Bush should've listened to his very own speeches before he got president - quote:

"I’m not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you"

So after all I say yes to an Afganisthan war that was started for the right reasons, but only if you finish what you've started.
But I say no to a Iraq war that was started for the wrong reasons and led the US into a situation where they neither could finish the Afganisthan war properly, nor handle the situation in Iraq.

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by dude1394

1. First their own as they are volunteers to the army. Putting their lives on the line to protect you and your family.
2. The US government who voted to invade Iraq pursuant to their not turning over all weapons programs after ~12 years of trying to do it diplomatically.
3. Because 3K people were murdered on 911 by terrorists and the US governement decided that the decade of the 90's was not exactly the right strategy to confront terrorism anymore.

In other words they are over there because YOUR government decided it was the best thing to do.

3. Because 3K people were murdered on 911 by terrorists and the US governement decided that the decade of the 90's was not exactly the right strategy to confront terrorism anymore.

Now what does tht have anythin to do with Iraq again??

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

3. Because 3K people were murdered on 911 by terrorists and the US governement decided that the decade of the 90's was not exactly the right strategy to confront terrorism anymore.

Now what does that have anythin to do with Iraq again??

1. Did the world think that Iraq had wmd?
2. Did the world think that Iraq supported terrorists?

Ask the guy below what he thinks about the Iraq invasion. I think he has a hell of a lot more intel than you or mavie does. Damn I get tired of the monday-morning quarterbacking that goes on in america in general and the democrats in particular.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Arne

My opinion is that he didn't let 9/11 happen, but was dumb enough to go to Iraq before finishing what he had begun in Afganisthan.

See, Arne... that's fine. If you're gonna say Bush is incompetent and roll with that all the way along, then go for it.

I just can't stand the intellectual inconsistency of the 9/11-Tin-Foil-Hat crowd. They'll talk all day long about how dumb or incompetent George Dub is, until it comes to evaluating his ability to hatch the greatest conspiracy ever carried out on US soil.

Short of the JFK assassination, of course. I'm sure they've got plenty of theories on that one, too.

[FishForLunch]

What is the common link between Arabs and Moonbat lefties?

Both their lives revolve around conspiracies.