Would Clinton/Democrats have stopped 9-11?

[bvar22]

More data emerged today that supports the claims that the terrorists that organized the attack on 9-11 were well known to American Intelligence agencies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1688808



Would the 9-11 attacks been prevented if the bush*/republicans had NOT:

*trashed the Hart/Rudmann report?

*voted down improvements to airport security?

*demoted the Chief of Anti-Terrorism (Clark) to a non-cabinet position?

*discontinued the daily WhiteHouse anti-terrorism meetings?

*discontinues intelligence gathering on the Saudis?

*taken terrorism/Al-Qaeda OFF the most important list?

*ignored the August 6 Presidential Briefing ("Bin Laden determined to attack in US)

*ignored the direct warning from (?) that Al-Qaeda would be a primary concern

Our intelligence agencies knew a great deal about the people who committed 9-11. It seems that daily, more data emerges about how much the USA really knew! If anyone in the bush* administration had been paying attention, they would surely have had a "DUH!" moment of clarity. There is no doubt that the Clinton administration was MUCH smarter than the bush* administration, and unlike the bush* administration, competence was valued by Clinton, but DAAAAAMN!!!!

I KNOW that terrorism and Domestic Attacks were a high priority in the Clinton administration. They successfully uncovered and prevented the "Millennium Attack" by the Prioritizing and Coordination of intelligence at the Top Levels. So mush "KNOWN DATA" has emerged recently that I now believe that if the Clinton Anti-Terrorism policies had continued under the bush*/republicans, 9-11 would have been uncovered and prevented!
They were WARNED!!!


Please add to or correct the quick list of things that the bush*/republican administration either discontinued or ignored from the Clinton Anti-Terrorism efforts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Can't be certain, but

I do think Clinton would have at least READ the August, 2001 PDB and done SOMETHING.

[glitch]

21. I know Gore would have. nt

[mzmolly]

2. Excellent post! One more recommendation here, and I'm sure more to follow

:hi:

[applegrove]

3. Clinton came up with a plan for attacking Afghanistan as soon as

the report on the Cole came in. They passed it onto Condi.

[90-percent]

19. Hypothetical

But the odds are like 500% better that either Clinton or Gore as President would have prevented it.

And if you're MIHOP, they sure as hell wouldn't have made it happen on purpose!

-85%

[supernova]

4. Even if it had still happened

I don't think we'd be sitting here saying "well, they let it happen."

Clinton does work hard and he does take an interest in everything, so we wouldn't be sitting here blaming him or Gore for not knowing.

[bribri16]

5. No, but the follow up would have been different and we would not

be in Iraq now.

[kevsand]

15. In many ways, that may be the most important difference. /nt

[mzmolly]

20. Actually the answer is YES, and we'd not be in Iraq or Afghanistan right

now.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

6. That depends if .....

we still believe that 19 guys with box cutters created 9/11.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. Would you believe 19 guys with Swiss bank accounts?

:shrug:

[AuntPatsy]

7. I think it's fairly obvious, condi herself admitted they had been

warned by Clinton's administration, that they chose to ignore this warning speaks volumes to those with real brain matter.

[tnlefty]

24. Wasn't it Richard Clarke who stated that Incompetent Condi

asked him who Al Queda was as he was repeatedly trying to warn her about the group and Bin Forgotten? As in she thought he was mentioning a person named Al Queda.

Didn't he also mention that the more that he mentioned that more attention needed to be paid to Bin Forgotten the more they pushed him out?

[hughee99]

39. Even if she heard of Al-Queda,

she probably wouldn't recognize the name when it was pronounced CORRECTLY given the group of idiots she worked for.

[papau]

I agree- it burns me up when media types ask what would Gore have

done differently -

like they can not work it out on their own.

The media owes us for 911 and the tax cuts for the rich and for Iraq

I am not into payback - but I sure would like an honest media

[benburch]

8. In a word. YES. Absolutely.

Since I firmly believe that Bush ALLOWED 9/11 to happen with full knowledge that it was coming because he needed a "Pearl Harbor" for his PNAC buddies.

[Felix Mala]

9. Not to mention Clinton's warning in face to face meeting with The Idiot:

"You'll spend more time on terrorism than anything else."

[fudge stripe cookays]

10. They probably would have paid a lot more attention....

to CIA reports that said Muslim men were learning how to FLY planes and not LAND them!

You know...the CIA reports the Republicans sat on, or demoted the sources?
FSC

[fudge stripe cookays]

11. delete

dupe

[mzmolly]

12. Great link here with more:

http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911

snip -

The Bush administration changed Bill Clinton's policy towards Afghanistant to appease Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their Saudi backers to promote the interests of oil companies, putting profits for campaign contributors ahead of fighting terrorism:

They prevented FBI terrorism experts from investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al Qaeda before 911, leading to the resignation of FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill only two weeks before 911

They ordered the Naval Strike Force - which President Clinton deployed near Afghanistan on 24-hour alert in order to strike Osama Bin Laden - to "stand down" before 911

They gave $43 million to the Taliban in April 2001

[lvx35]

13. Maybe, but I wouldn't make it a political point.

I think its a losing game to get too into "whoever prevents terrorist attacks more wins" between parties. It could be bad for civil liberties. I think the best approach is to always remember when the terrorists attack, its the terrorists fault.

[mzmolly]

16. I'd make it a political point every chance I got.

- Just like "THEY" would.

[bvar22]

14. I agree.

I have reached my tipping point. Until today, I (and many like me) have avoided stating that Bill Clinton and the Democrats would have stopped 9-11. I no longer have that reservation.

The Democrats need to use this argument if the Republicans DARE to label us "Soft on Terror"!

[Old and In the Way]

17. Let's stipulate for a moment that it was a conspiracy of the neo-cons

and some very high up military folks to LIHOP the event.

Can you imagine a scenario where it did occur under Clinton's watch? How soon would it have taken for the Republicans to have started the impeachment proceedings? I figure 72 Hours. OTOH, I'll bet Clinton would have started a real investigation of 9/11 that would have pre-empted the Republican set-up. We might really have uncovered the root cause with Clinton as President.

On edit:

* One of Bush's first acts upon stealing office was to take the Predator surveilance drones out of commission and moved the missle subs charged with striking AQ camps in Afghanistan off station. Seems to me, this administration was allowing AQ to regroup and become effective....maybe they wanted a stronger AQ to justify their plans to start WOT/OIL.

[jobycom]

18. Yes. No doubt, and Bush practically proved it when he

after 9-11 passed every one of the proposals that Clinton and Gore had made BEFORE 9-11 but that were rejected along straight partisan lines.

You left off the Gore Commission and the terrorist funds seizure bill, both of which were defeated by Repubs, and both of which Bush accepted after 9-11.

The Gore Commission recommended standardizing airport security and tighter baggage checks and passenger searches. He predicted that terrorists would hijack planes in America sometime within the next five years if security wasn't improved. One airline head claimed that no foreign hijacking had ever occured in America, and none ever would, and that Gore was just a fear monger. The Repubs defeated it in committee, on a straight party vote.

No question the Gore Commission would have prevented 9-11.

[bvar22]

22. Thanks for the additions:

After this thread, I am going to compile a list of ALL of the Clinton/Democrat Anti-Terrorism efforts that the Bush*/republicans trashed!

I KNOW there are more.

Fell free to add to or correct the list in the OP!

[Al-CIAda]

23. It is NOW known that 52 such warnings in PDBs were issued.

*ignored the August 6 Presidential Briefing ("Bin Laden determined to attack in US)

It was the summer of "hair on fire".

[featherman]

25. Allowing for the idea that this WAS simply an

act by this gang of nuts, I have always believed that a Gore administration, with the benefit of continuity, would likely have disrupted this plot somewhere along the line. It was only successful through luck, executive stupidity, administration incompetence, and a bizarre set of coincidence.
Any parliamentary leader who was at the helm during such a disaster would have and should have been asked to resign. In our system we lionized the incompetent and made him a "hero" for speaking Karl Rove's words through a bullhorn one day.

[whistle]

26. "Would Clinton/Democrats have stopped 9-11?"....

...I think you question needs to read "Would Gore/Democrats have stopped 9-11?"

I believe that Gore, had he won the election by fairly assessing the Florida vote count, would have certainly been more presidential than Bush. He would have appointed a cabinet whose qualifications were far more superior to anyone in the Bush cabinet. He may have still appointed Colin Powell as Secretary of State, but given him far more freedom to exercise the responsibilities of his office.

I think Al Gore as president would have not only been more aware of the approaching dangers but would have called on all of his intelligence sources as well as his cabinet and military advisers for a full and accurate and realistic appraisal of all national security threats. It may have even been possible that Al Gore would have asked President Clinton to be UN Ambassador at a time of grave world instability, or at the very least would have turned to all of the former presidents for guidance and advise. And Al Gore would never have gone on a five week vacation in the summer of 2001 as president, had he known that the U.S. faced a major security threat.

Having said all of that, could Gore have prevented 9-11 from happening? He certainly would have been far more prepared than Bush was and so the entire scenario of 9-11 may have not happened at all or manifested quite differently. As for BushCo, it really is beginning to look like LIHOP or MIHOP.

[bvar22]

27. Good point.

I was referring more to the policies that were in effect under the Clinton Administration.
No Doubt, Al Gore would have continued these policies and more!

[rabid_nerd]

32. The Gore report on airline security.. You are avoiding the word Gore ...

and emphasizing Clinton...?

[bvar22]

37. I love Gore,

but the point I am making is that ACTIVE POLICIES were IN EFFECT (Under Clinton/Gore) that were CHANGED by bush*Republicans that allowed 9-11.

I am COMPILING a LIST of Clinton/Gore/Democratic POLICIES that were CHANGED, not arguing who was or would have been a better president.

[whistle]

65. Great, please post when you that list together

[whistle]

44. Continued with those he felt were strong and productive while....

...implementing many new and creative ones on his own. Al Gore is a real veteran who fought and lead in Vietnam, unlike AWOL* sitting in the oval office smelling up the place with his foul lying corrupt stench!

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. Well said. I concur.

[SittingBull]

28. No, they wouldn't, too

Remember the first WTC attack 1993? They knowed it in advance, too.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_history&Number=292814361&page=0&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1


The same with the Oklahoma-Bombing.


http://www.mccurtain.com/articles/2005/07/15/top_story/news001.txt

[Wetzelbill]

29. hard to say for sure, but they wouldn't have sat around and let it happen

like the Bush WH did. I think we would have had a shot at stopping it if Gore was in the WH or it happened when Clinton was Prez.

[JHB]

30. Since Bush's actions DECREASED our vigilance and readiness...

No one can say for certain, but...

What can be said for certain is that the change in focus, priorities, and actions at the change in administrations had the effect of decreasing the collection of intelligence, the practical distribution of that information, and in general reduce the state of our vigilance and readiness to detect and intercept such a plot.

There must be a consolidated list somewhere of what the Bushites did: dropped antiterrorism as a priority, reduced funding for counterterrorism efforts, pulled the subs (with ground attack missiles to try to hit bin Laden) off station, cut funding for armed Predator RFVs which were used to try to hunt bin Laden, tabled an existing counterterrorism plan for political reasons (it had Gore's fingerprints on it, not theirs), etc.

[Thrasybulus]

33. Don't forget the report of the Gore Commission on Airline Safety

that was never implemented due to resistance from conservatives and the airline industry.

No guarantee that its implementation would have prevented 9-11 but it would have proved decidedly more difficult for the terrorists.

[bvar22]

35. Was the Gore Commission....

the one that recommended "Strengthening Cockpit Doors"?
I remember one report that recommended that, but have been unable to reference that particular item.
That ONE RECOMMERNDATION by itself would have prevented 9-11!

[Initech]

34. Now to reiterate the rethugs' pathetic comebacks:

If you bring up any of those items to a W supporter, they will tell you one of the following:

- Waco

- Kosovo

- The USS Cole

Um, excuse me? Those are three incidents! And Clinton wasnt directly responsible for ANY of them! How many has Bush caused since taking office?

[bvar22]

40. Not that it would make any difference to a repube, but

The attack on the USS Cole was NOT a terrorist attack.
It was a surprise attack against a defended military target in hostile territory well OUTSIDE the US Boundaries.
By definition, Terror Attacks are perpetrated on a civilian population.

Kosovo?
Not a terrorist attack on the US

Waco?
Not a terrorist attack on the US

I get your point, though.

[Initech]

42. That's just it...

It really bugs me when the republicans are so stupid that they bring these points up. And they base Clinton's entire presidency for one thing, and for two, they base the reason for why we're in this shit in the first place on those three attacks.

[Bushwick Bill]

36. No Brainer - Yes

No way does the Clinton administration ignore the following warnings and shut down investigations.

First, we know about the 50 or so FAA warnings.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/8916

To me, the most disturbing evidence I've read (in Mike Ruppert's book, Crossing the Rubicon) shows that several FBI agents in two offices (Minneapolis and Phoenix) as well as other individuals (most notably Robert Wright) did a great job conducting investigations, writing memos and requesting to further investigate some of the alleged hijackers because they thought for certain that these guys were in training to crash planes. At most every turn, the agents were ignored, smeared or threatened when they tried to speak out. But for one exception (Colleen Rowley), all of their memos were classified in the interest of national security and won't be released. Here is Colleen Rowley's infamous memo:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Some of these FBI agents got so upset their superiors wouldn't listen to them that they actually called up one of the guys who prosecuted Bill Clinton (David Schippers) to get through to the administration because they thought Schippers had clout with the administration. John Ashcroft ignored Schippers' calls.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html

Then, we have the international warnings. Most notably, after the attacks, Vladimir Putin said on MSNBC that in August 2001, he ordered Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

Yeah, Condi, who could have foreseen the attacks :eyes:

[Independent_Liberal]

38. Yes, they would have stopped it.

Clinton and Gore would've acted the second they got the report.

[FrankLee]

41. ...and what about the "rendition" activities??

Turns out that, under the Clinton administration, our intelligence agencies began this "rendition" program, whereby they would kidnap certain wanted or suspect individuals and detain, question, or take them to other countries for questioning.

The practice sounds pretty bad from a human rights perspective, but if they could somehow be assured of only kidnapping the evil bastards, it wouldn't be so bad.

This highlights the fact that the Clinton administration was NOT in fact DOING NOTHING to disrupt al-Queda. Since the program was rather secret, they could have had a lot of success, and we might not have known it. No doubt it would disrupt terrorist operations, if guys start disappearing here and there. Who knows, these "rendition" activities might have delayed 9/11 by several years. It might have happened on Clinton's watch if not for the program. Hard to tell.

"Rendition" sure beats indiscriminate bombing and war profiteering, no?

[bvar22]

43. You make an interesting point.

BOY, I would HATE to be put in a position where I was arguing FOR Kidnapping & Rendition! (In fact, I wouldn't)

Was Kidnapping and Rendition discontinued under bush* prior to 9-11?
For it to apply in the context of this thread, bush* would have had to discontinue it.

I am compiling a List of Anti-Terrorism Policies that were Discontinued under the bush*/republican administration that WOULD HAVE PREVENTED 9-11.

[petgoat]

45. 9/11 would not have happened under Gore

Clinton ordered the CIA to kill bin Laden. They didn't get around to
it. Says Richard Clarke.

Sandy Berger went to the Pentagon 11/7/00 asking for commando raids on
the camps. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs opposed him.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

Richard Clarke had a plan to go after al Qaeda financially and
militarily. Had a Gore victory been assured, hostilities would have
commenced in October of 2000.

"If we hadn't had a transition," says a senior Clinton Administration
official, "probably in late October or early November 2000, we would
have had (the plan to go on the offensive) as a presidential
directive."

Says the TIME magazine article above.

Since there was a transition, Clinton decided to hold off. Berger and
Clarke went to see Condi in January. Clarke's plan got the "not
invented here" treatment--a policy review that was still ongoing when
9/11 happened.

It's hard to imagine Gore ignoring warnings from 11 foreign countries
and 3 FBI offices. According to Die Zeit and Der Spiegel, the Mossad
warned before 9/11 of 19 terrorists in the USA preparing attacks. The
warning named names, four of which have been released. Mohammed Atta
was one, another alleged 9/11 pilot was another, and two alleged 9/11
hijackers are two more.

[YOY]

46. There really is no way of knowing.

All positivity aside. Unless we have a time machine and the ability to change the 2000 election.

I do think that the so called 'Patriot Act' would have been a different animal altogether.

[Booster]

47. I don't know if Clinton would have stopped it or not, but I know for

a fact that he's smart enough NOT TO ATTACK THE WRONG COUNTRY.

[wli]

48. he wouldn't have paid bin Laden to do it

So he wouldn't have had to stop it.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

49. Very likely Clinton or Gore would have stopped it

As Richard Clarke says, President Clinton was obsessed with the Al Queda threat during the millenium plot scare.

Janet Reno would bring everyone in and shake them out to find out what all everyone knew and put it all together.

Bill Clinton would have read voraciously on the topic, would not have ignored the Aug 6 PDB, and wouldn't have been so slack about the borders and the terrorists who were in country who did the attacks.

Richard Clarke would have continued to have been listened to by the President and NSA.

If the attacks could have been stopped, the Clinton/Gore administration would have done it, if anyone would.

[ngGale]

73. Clinton was obsessed with Al Queda ...

I think our intelligence network was fine. Clinton put all the pieces of the puzzle together and would never have allowed a PDB to go unread. IF, it had happened anyway I'm sure Clinton wouldn't have squandered the good will of the world we had that day. The CIA had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, the war would have been over in 70 days. Gore would have ask and listened to Clinton regarding anything, Al Queda. I too think, Gore would have left Clarke and most, in their same position's as not to break up our intelligence network. Al Queda was being taken too seriously by Clinton/Gore.
So, * threw the Hart/Rudmann report in the trash can. Now our whole country is in the trash can, along with our outed intelligence connections. :grr:

[scarletlib]

50. I strongly believe that President Gore

would have foiled these attacks and 9-11 would not have happened. He would have done this even though his adminstration would have been under attack and investigation by the rethugs from day one.

[pauldp]

51. Maybe. Would Clinton have shut down an investigation into P-tech?

Would he have stopped an Al-Qaeda connected network software company from crawling up the asshole of ALMOST EVERY Federal institution?

http://www.wbz4.com/iteam/local_story_343145212.html

I don't know. P-Tech WAS well established when Bush took office so Clinton may not be that innocent. BUT Bush did thwart the investigation, and when it comes to covering up 9-11 evidence Bush is definitely GUILTY. Hands down.

[petgoat]

66. According to Greg Palast, Bush Shut Down FBI Investigations of Terrorist

financiers, including members of the bin Laden family. He told the FBI to go easy on the Saudis.

See "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"

[pauldp]

72. Thanks. I'll have to check that one. I know there was an MSM P-tech story

set to air nationally and the White House squashed it.

[samsingh]

52. yes

[agincourt]

53. He certainly would have tried to prevent it,

Though if the attacks were facilitated under orders from a "shadow government", through our federal law enforcement and military, all bets are off. They would have done the opposite as they did with Bush, they would have tried to remove Gore rather than try to make him a dictator. I think stuff was amok before Clinton left office, starting with the time before the impeachment.

[kodi]

54. sure. richard clarke would have seen to it

come on, the 911 commission shows that the busheviks ignored clarke and other anti-terror experts and isolated them from the oval office.

if gore had been in the white house in august 2001 and richard clarke was still meeting daily with the president as we can assume he would have, the US response to a memo called "bin laden determined to strike in the US" would have been swift and enormous.

it was akin to clinton as president locking the windows and doors and when bush came in he not only unlocked them he opened them, all because his republican attitude was that anything clinton did was bad and the opposite was good.

ideology caused this, for had clinton taken a lackadaisical attitude towards terrorism, bush would have pursued anti-terrorism like a rabid wolverine.

that is what is so god-damned infuriating about this, the busheviks neglected reality because it did not conform to their idea of the world. rather than being objective with the safety of the nation, they subjectively dismissed a direct threat to the nation....all because that to do so would have meant that in this, at least bill clinton was right....and they could not stand to admit anything of the sort....their hate for all things "Clintonian" provoked a response that eventually allowed 911 to happen.

it is that plain and simple.

[KeepItReal]

57. Correct! Any *other* reason for Bush & Co's inaction would be treasonous.

Richard Clarke and the National Security Council under Clinton/Gore was on the job. There is a reason why he was not allowed to continue his good work and only Bush & Co. know what that is.

[petgoat]

67. only Bush & Co. know what the reason is

The Bushcists repeatedly said 9/11 had provided them with a great opportunity.

Here's how Dr. David Ray Griffin puts it in "The New Pearl Harbor":

At the meeting of the National Security Council on the night of 9/11, President Bush reportedly said that the attacks provided "a great opportunity." A month later, Donald Rumsfeld told the New York Times that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world." Condoleezza Rice told senior members of the National Security Council to "think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities.'"> This point was even put in The National Security
Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush
administration in September of 2002. "The events of September 11, 2001,"
it candidly declared, "opened vast, new opportunities."


http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

[Dinger]

55. I Saw Something Tonight (On CBS I Think) That Blamed Clinton

Said something about his administration finding out about 4 of the 9-11 terrorists, and telling the FBI to be quiet about it, and thereforem it was Clinton's fauly. Did anyone see this???

[erpowers]

58. Yes, I Think So

I think they would have mainly because they stopped the Millennium Bombing. I do not know about the Clinton Anti-Terrorism efforts, but much has come out lately about how different groups wanted to arrest certain members of these terrorist groups and were they could not legally arrest them to find out later that those people could have been legally arrested. Looking at your list it does seem that if those thing had been continued the attack could have been stopped.

[OzarkDem]

59. Without doubt. Why do you ask?

Your talking points look like they come from the RNC.

:shrug:

[bvar22]

60. I beg your pardon!

Please re-read my OP and point to:

"talking points look like they come from the RNC."

Since you obviously haven't read this thread, I will give you an easily understood summary:

The bush* administration discontinued many anti-terrorism policies that were SOP in the Democratic Administration under Bill Clinton. Aside from some emotionally based GUT feeling that Clinton/Gore would have stopped 9-11, no one has pointed out a definitive, particular Anti-Terrorism Policy that would have definitely STOPPED 9-11.



Today, the New York Times reported that:
"More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States,"


The following is from the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security which was VOTED DOWN by the Republicans in 1998.

3.7. The FAA should work with airlines and airport consortia to ensure that all passengers are positively identified and subjected to security procedures before they board aircraft.

Curb-side check-in, electronic ticketing, advance boarding passes, and other initiatives are affecting the way passengers enter the air transportation system. As improved security procedures are put into place, it is essential that all passengers be accounted for in that system, properly identified and subject to the same level of scrutiny. The Commission urges the FAA to work with airlines and airport consortia to ensure that necessary changes are made to accomplish that goal.

If the information revealed by the NYTimes had been combined with the recommendations from the GORE Commission(especially 3.7 cited above), the 9-11 Attacks WOULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED.

I have always felt like the Democrats, because they were more vigilant, would have intercepted the 9-11 attack (as they did the Millennium attack). HOWEVER, I have been unable to point out a SPECIFIC ANTI-TERRORISM POLICY that would have definitely stopped it.

I would like to PROVE that the Democrats would have stopped 9-11. If you can point to a specific policy that was SOP under the Democrats that was discontinued by the Republicans that would have prevented 9-11, please post it here and save me the trouble:

[petgoat]

69. Clinton Policies: see my post #45 above n/t

[bvar22]

70. Thanks

I am checking out the info you posted in #45, and plan on incorporating it in the final list. As much as I hang out at DU, I am surprised that I hadn't heard of this particular item.

This could have a deep impact. I remember that Clinton had issued orders (POLICY) to KILL Bin Laden. I suspect that the incident you mention was a an active program that was persued by Clarke as a result of the Clinton KILL Bin Laden Policy. If the Clarke operation was discontinued by bush*, then the "KILL Bin Laden Policy" may have also been inadvertantly (or verdantly:+)discontinued by the Republicans. I need to do some more research on this item.


:patriot:

[petgoat]

71. Bin Laden FBI Investigations Shut Down; Clarke Plan Sidetracked

Note also Greg Palast says FBI investigations of possible terrorist
finance activities of bin Laden family members were shut down by the
Bush administration (see "The Best Democract Money Can Buy").

Note Richard Clarke's plan to "roll back" al Qaeda through financial and
military attacks would have been initiated under Clinton; under Bush
it was sidetracked while they undertook a "policy review."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

Sandy Berger request for military raids was not renewed AFAIK under
Bush. (see Time article above)

[pauldp]

61. No the question is "would Clinton have ordered the attacks like Bush?"

I think the answer to that question is NO.

[bvar22]

63. In my heart, I agree with you.

:patriot:

[WMliberal]

62. possibly, but I know President Gore (man that sounds nice)

would be fighting a better war on terror.
We wouldn't be pissing it all away in Iraq.
The Patriot act wouldn't have been used against senior citizens trying to get medicine for their glaucoma.
None of us would know what the hell Abu Ghraib was.
Someone better than Roberts would be heading to the Supreme Court.
Bin Laden would likely have been caught.
Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been a "what if" work of fiction, au lieu de documentary.
need I go on?

[YvonneCa]

64. Every action of the United States sends a message to the world...

...including members of terrorist organizations. In 2000, when Bush was selected by the Supreme Court, I think the message went out that another Bush was in charge, and the war was on! A continuation of the father's war. If Gore had been permitted to take the office of President, the message sent by the U.S. would have been different. Would this have prevented 9/11? Who knows for sure. But I definitely trusted Clinton and Al Gore with the safety of my country...and I think they had been on top of the terrorism thing (successfully) for a long time. This administration is negligent.What frightens me most is that in 2004, the United States election result sent another REALLY negative message to the world.:patriot:

[BikeWriter]

68. IMO, 911 would not have occured. If it had, Iraq certainly would not!

[CTyankee]

74. Everyone should read "The Age of Sacred Terror"

written by two men who worked on anti-terrorism for the NSC during Clinton's administration. This book is heavily sourced and extremely intelligently written. It gives background and history to Islamic terrorism. It is obvious that these guys knew their stuff very well.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

75. Gore would have. He micromanaged to a fault and would've stopped 9/11.