Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

If Bush want after Al Qaeda before 9-11 would people have bitched?

Old 10-11-04, 11:10 AM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 836
If Bush want after Al Qaeda before 9-11 would people have bitched?

OK I don't get it people like to jump up and down and cry and say Bush should have acted sooner and went after Al Qaeda before 9-11. What I want to know would people be saying the same things they are about Iraq if Bush want this course?

I mean before 9-11 Al Qaeda did not do to much harm to US Soil truth be told. I mean both Al Qaeda and Saddam both said death to the USA and destroyed military targets. Al Qaeda blow up some buildings and a bout. Saddam shot down a few planes if I remember right. Also Saddam also did kill US men and women in the first Golf War. People seem to like to forget the Golf War.

It seems to me Bush is damned if he does damned if he don't. So tell me WTF do you want someone to act to soon or to late? You can't have it both ways.

I look forward to your replies. Even the ones telling me you spelled stuff wrong and use grammar cause I made good points they can't stand to say I'm right.

PS. This is not a pro Bush post. You can replace Bush name with Kerrys if you want.

PSS. If someone can rewrite my points and this post better then me then please go ahead.

Last edited by TOPDAWG; 10-11-04 at 11:15 AM.
TOPDAWG is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:15 AM
  #2  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,590
Re: If Bush want after Al Qaeda before 9-11 would people have bitched?

Originally posted by TOPDAWG
Saddam shot down a few planes if I remember right. Also Saddam also did kill US men and women in the first Golf War. People seem to like to forget the Golf War.
No blood for German import cars!

VinVega is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:16 AM
  #3  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,839
Re: If Bush want after Al Qaeda before 9-11 would people have bitched?

Originally posted by TOPDAWG
You can replace Bush name with Kerrys if you want.
It would be more apt to replace Bush's name with Clinton. Obviously, there was more BOTH presidents could (and should) have done about Al Queda before 9/11.

But if Clinton had done more there would have been bitching from the right, and if Bush had done more there would have been bitching from the left.

Gotta love partisan politics.
Groucho is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:16 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Do a search in the archives and you will find an interesting thread about whehter we should kill Osama or not prior to 9/11 Includes some greatest hits from some people still on the board.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...ighlight=osama
chanster is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:19 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,431
Due to the 2000 election fiasco, half the people in the country would bitch and complain if Bush discovered the cure for cancer, ended world hunger, and created world peace.
General Zod is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:22 AM
  #6  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 836
Re: Re: If Bush want after Al Qaeda before 9-11 would people have bitched?

Originally posted by Groucho
It would be more apt to replace Bush's name with Clinton. Obviously, there was more BOTH presidents could (and should) have done about Al Queda before 9/11.

But if Clinton had done more there would have been bitching from the right, and if Bush had done more there would have been bitching from the left.

Gotta love partisan politics.
Shit you got me there I should have used Clinton. Yeah that does suck about politics. No matter how good a idea Bush comes with with the Dem's are going to hate it and no matter how good a idea Dem's come up with Reps are going to hate it.

I mean the tax cut Bush did must have been good being as the Congress renewed it. You have Kerry saying how bad it was for everyone.

I also remember Edwards saying Kerry has no plan and shit when it was trying to beat him. Now he is running with him he is saying Kerry has a plan. WTF!?

I want people to tell me when is the right time to act. I'll gave a exp of what I mean later when I'm more awake.
TOPDAWG is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:24 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Originally posted by chanster
Do a search in the archives and you will find an interesting thread about whehter we should kill Osama or not prior to 9/11 Includes some greatest hits from some people still on the board.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...ighlight=osama
Your "terrorist" = My "Freedom Fighter"
Nazgul is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:27 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,813
Neither Clinton nor Bush appreciated how great the risk was from Bin Laden.
Mammal is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:28 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Originally posted by General Zod
Due to the 2000 election fiasco, half the people in the country would bitch and complain if Bush discovered the cure for cancer, ended world hunger, and created world peace.
With the exception of a few weeks/months after 9/11, you are 100% correct.
Nazgul is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:31 AM
  #10  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 836
Originally posted by Mammal
Neither Clinton nor Bush appreciated how great the risk was from Bin Laden.
Yes but before 9-11 they were no more a resk then Iraq. Both only destroyed what could be seen as military targets. Both killed US men and women. I'm talking resk to US soil.

PS. Also could everyone leave their hate or love for Bush at the door. This is about when is the time to act not if you agree with Kerry or Bush. You may bring them into it but please keep it around the topic.

PSS. Over 83 views come on folks I'd like to know what you think.

Last edited by TOPDAWG; 10-11-04 at 11:40 AM.
TOPDAWG is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:41 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Bush never could have justifified taking out the Taliban to get at Al Qaeda leaders. "What do you mean there's a threat, you didn't find any jumbo jets in the Afghan outback; how could they crash airliners into the WTC." If we knew exactly what they were going to do, no liberal would have believed it; it was just a conservative plot to frighten people and justify weird laws. Of course, after they did it, "George should have known, George should have protected us, God knows Al would have."

(I don't think Saddam shot down any planes after Gulf I. On "no-fly" patrol, if a defense installation so much as turned on radar, we destroyed it.)
OldDude is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:43 AM
  #12  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,590
Originally posted by TOPDAWG
Yes but before 9-11 they were no more a resk then Iraq. Both only destroyed what could be seen as military targets.

PSS. Over 83 views come on folks I'd like to know what you think.
The African Embassies were military targets?
VinVega is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:45 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Or the first WTC bombing?
chanster is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:49 AM
  #14  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 836
Originally posted by OldDude
Bush never could have justifified taking out the Taliban to get at Al Qaeda leaders. "What do you mean there's a threat, you didn't find any jumbo jets in the Afghan outback; how could they crash airliners into the WTC." If we knew exactly what they were going to do, no liberal would have believed it; it was just a conservative plot to frighten people and justify weird laws. Of course, after they did it, "George should have known, George should have protected us, God knows Al would have."

(I don't think Saddam shot down any planes after Gulf I. On "no-fly" patrol, if a defense installation so much as turned on radar, we destroyed it.)
HMM talking about planes.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp
TOPDAWG is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:50 AM
  #15  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 836
Originally posted by VinVega
The African Embassies were military targets?
Yes they can be seen as that being as it's at least part of a government.
TOPDAWG is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 11:53 AM
  #16  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 836
Originally posted by General Zod
Due to the 2000 election fiasco, half the people in the country would bitch and complain if Bush discovered the cure for cancer, ended world hunger, and created world peace.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.htm
TOPDAWG is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 12:00 PM
  #17  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,590
Originally posted by TOPDAWG
Yes they can be seen as that being as it's at least part of a government.
So the civilians in those embassies were under the same understanding as military personnel that they were risking their life by working at a desk job? I think not, but that's where I'll end the tangent.

The answer to your question is that if Bush went after Afghanistan before 9/11, people would have bitched, because people's attitudes changed after 9/11. People's attitudes changed after Pearl Harbor as well. It's not that complicated.
VinVega is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 01:13 PM
  #18  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Great find on the pre-9/11 terrorist threat. Really interesting responses from the usual crowd.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 01:16 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: howell nj
Posts: 4,400
If Bush want after Al Qaeda before 9-11 would people have bitched?

what,and give up his vacation time.
tommy28 is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 01:50 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
It depends on what "went after Al Qaeda" meant. If it meant forming alliances with nations to capture suspected members, then I highly doubt it.
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 01:58 PM
  #21  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Originally posted by Mammal
Neither Clinton nor Bush appreciated how great the risk was from Bin Laden.
Actually, (and dont take this as i had any love for Clinton) but the Clinton administration had massive amounts of intel on Bin Laden and passed it along, and all of this was ignored by the incoming Bush administration... it seems to me to be a "I dont have to listen to you, we are smarter then you" childish attitude.

Last edited by Adonus; 10-11-04 at 02:11 PM.
Adonus is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 02:18 PM
  #22  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: puckland
Posts: 745
Due to the 2000 election fiasco, half the people in the country would bitch and complain if Bush discovered the cure for cancer, ended world hunger, and created world peace.
Of course. That's because if Bush were tackling these issues he'd do it with nukular weapons. Seriously, nuke anyone who doesn't have McDonalds and everyone will fall into line. Then he could cure cancer by throwing anyone with it off of the great American Island into the radioactive wasteland, survivor style. No more world hunger, strife, or cancer, the Bush way.
Nutter is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 02:21 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Originally posted by Nutter
Of course. That's because if Bush were tackling these issues he'd do it with nukular weapons. Seriously, nuke anyone who doesn't have McDonalds and everyone will fall into line. Then he could cure cancer by throwing anyone with it off of the great American Island into the radioactive wasteland, survivor style. No more world hunger, strife, or cancer, the Bush way.
Mod Note: Read This: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=387386
Venusian is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 02:40 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 17,238
Originally posted by Adonus
Actually, (and dont take this as i had any love for Clinton) but the Clinton administration had massive amounts of intel on Bin Laden and passed it along, and all of this was ignored by the incoming Bush administration... it seems to me to be a "I dont have to listen to you, we are smarter then you" childish attitude.
The fact that he only passed it along pretty much supports Mammal's post, no?
Jeremy517 is offline  
Old 10-11-04, 03:41 PM
  #25  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 481
Originally posted by Mammal
Neither Clinton nor Bush appreciated how great the risk was from Bin Laden.
I dunno. Richard Clarke said Bush's new strategy was to "eliminate" terrorist networks rather than "roll them back" (Clinton strategy) in a background briefing prior to 9/11.

What happened is that the U.S. gov't moves slowly--and in this case for the worse--and I'm not sure bin Laden's exact whereabouts were known for the purpose of eliminating him. Particularly after the attempt on his life via Tomahawk missile failed in...1998.
rbbrew is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.