What's the difference between 9-11 and the WTC bombing of '93?

[magellan]

Both were done by terrorists financed by al Qaeda.

Both resulted in the deaths of Americans.

Both prompted the president at the time to propose tough anti-terrorism legislation, including expanded wiretapping authority.

However...

Only one resulted in the Republican-controlled Congress enacting the proposed anti-terrorism legislation.

Only one resulted in an illegal war against a country that hadn't attacked us.

Only one resulted in the saying that that date "changed everything".

Want to know what the defining difference between these two events is?

The WTC bombing of '93 occurred when a Democratic President was in office.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. one led to an unrelated war that lead to more terrorists

[magellan]

7. I had it there orginally

But took it out because I didn't want to make the list so long that no one who needs to read it would. But it's added again.

[Red Zelda]

2. About 3,000 deaths??????????

Duh

[ET Awful]

5. Welcome to DU

Enjoy your stay.

[magellan]

9. Nice way to start your time at DU

The post was supposed to be simple to draw lines between what anti-terrorism measures the Repugs in Congress enacted for Bush** but not for Clinton.

Take your "Duh" and have a nice day.

[hughee99]

15. In 93', and 94, the repugs didn't run Congress. n/t

[magellan]

16. They did when Clinton introduced his proposals in '96. (nt)

[hughee99]

21. These proposals?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html

Looks like Clinton got most of what he wanted signed into law.

[magellan]

23. Did he get expanded wiretapping authority? (nt)

[hughee99]

24. Aren't we against that now? n/t

[magellan]

27. Yes, "we" are

But that's not the point. The question you should be asking is why were the Republicans against it when Clinton proposed it -- even though back then it would have been fully compliant with FISA -- but under Bush** they support it, and do so even though it doesn't comply with FISA?

[hughee99]

37. I don't need to ask

I already know the answer. Politics.

[magellan]

39. Then why are you shaking me down?

If you agree with the point I made in my OP?

[hughee99]

47. I don't mean to...

but I guess there's just some issues about the points in the OP.

"Only one resulted in the Republican-controlled Congress enacting the proposed anti-terrorism legislation."

Actually, both presidents, for better or worse, seem to have gotten most of what they asked for as far as programs go, and neither got the wiretapping legislation they wanted. The reason *'s wiretaps for the last few years are illegal is because congress hadn't authorized this for him either. He was ducking the FISA courts and making shit up as he went along, but congress didn't pass the legislation for him, they're just doing a CYA now.

"Want to know what the defining difference between these two events is? The WTC bombing of '93 occurred when a Democratic President was in office."

Yes, that was one difference, but IMHO, hardly the defining difference. It's hard to deny that the two bombings had very different effects on the country in general that had NOTHING to do with the party in power. In the days after 9/11, the outpouring of support from the people of America, and around the world was nothing like the response in the days after to the 93' bombing, and this wasn't because of who was in office. I hate to say it but the scale of the attacks and the body count was extremely important. In the days after 9/11, the american people were demanding that something be done, right away. Demanding it so much that politicians from both sides were pushing all sorts of proposals. Some proposals were good, some were just for PR reasons to "look like they were doing something". After the attacks in 93', the level of outrage was far less. Politicians weren't being pressured by constituents to "do something, do anything". Clinton though through his proposal (to his credit), but by the time it was ready, what outrage there even was had mostly gone away. That made it a lot easier for politicians to oppose it. 9/11 was bigger, the outrage was much bigger lasted much longer, the legislation was proposed much quicker (Patriot Act I signed on 10/26/01) and the political repercussions of not supporting that legislation at that time were VERY different from Clinton's '96 proposal, which can be seen in the 98-1 Senate vote and the 357 to 66 House vote. It's hard to say that this only passed because of the repukes when a vast majority of the Democrats also voted for it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. are you talking about wtc or about americans dying in a useless war in

iraq?

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Nope!

About 50,000 deaths. You are forgetting the folks killed in the illegal war. Talk about "Duh!" You would appear to have the market cornered.
The Professor

[Midlodemocrat]

44. Oh, FFS.

:eyes:

Enjoy your stay.

[July]

3. One resulted in capture, trial, and conviction of perps (hint WJC).*

One did not.

*Accomplished under the old rules, AKA the Constitution of the United States of America

[Botany]

6. egg Zac Lee

Clinton got those people .... bush didn't.

Spin that Disney

Spin that Fox

[magellan]

11. Again, I was going to add that

But then the perps of 9-11 apparently died in the attacks, so there was no one to arrest...which would have meant pointing back to bin Laden and listing what had been done and what hadn't, and I wanted to keep it simple, to show the Repugs up for the failures they are.

[VeggieTart]

32. Yes, the people who actually committed the crimes died...

But the architects of the plot are no doubt still alive and can be punished--should be punished--for their role in recruiting and financing this.

[ET Awful]

4. You left off . . .

Only one resulted in the perpetrators being captured, tried and sentenced to life in prison.

[magellan]

12. The perps of 9-11 died in the attacks. (nt)

[sam sarrha]

14. some of them... and most of them didnt know they were going to crash

[magellan]

18. I know, but that's really neither here nor there for my purposes

They died, there was no one to capture. So it really isn't a fair comparison to make with what Clinton managed to do, finding and prosecuting the WTC bombers.

[ET Awful]

20. Of course it's a fair comparison. The mastermind behind the attack in

1993, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was captured, tried and convicted. Not so with the mastermind of 9/11.

[magellan]

22. The alleged mastermind of 9-11 is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

And he is captured, which makes your point moot. Now whether or not we believe he's the mastermind, that's a matter for another post.

[ET Awful]

43. Gee, interesting how you leave out TRIED AND CONVICTED.

Nice attempt though.

[magellan]

45. Are you also accusing me of having an agenda?

I think I wrote my OP in plain English. I don't know why some here want to overcomplicate it, or suspect me of things when I leave some fact out or argue that something doesn't support my point.

Which was simply, the Republican-controlled Congress has gone above and beyond in giving Bush** everything he wants following 9-11, legal or not, while they did virtually nothing for Clinton following the bombing of the WTC in '93.

I can't make it any simpler.

Screw this.

[sam sarrha]

26. your are over simplifying, the master minds are alive,the pawns are dead.

what is your agenda...??

[magellan]

29. What is MY AGENDA?

My INTENT, sam sarrha, was merely to point out what the Republicans have done for a Republican president when they wouldn't do it for a Democratic one under similar circumstances. I'm trying to keep it simple so simple minds can grasp the disparity. I'm sorry if it didn't come up to your standards. I'm not writing for geniuses like you who are so clever they'd rather INSULT someone like me rather than search my previous posts to get an idea about me before accusing me of having a FUCKING "AGENDA".

FUCK YOU.

[sam sarrha]

40. i asked a simple question.. i wanted to know what your point is, i am

autistic and dont always use the proper synonem... you need to go on decaf.. I dont think i want you at any of my parties.. you might try meditation for that anger problem, it really helped my anger and cynicism problem.

[magellan]

42. I told you what my point was in my last post

I don't need decaf, you need to start practicing a little restraint before you go around accusing people of things just because you don't get what they're saying. I should think, if you're autistic, you welcome that courtesy from others.

[exlrrp]

8. The differences

Clinton didn't land us in a war over it we shouldn't have been in and can't get out of.\
Congress didn't blame the President for it the 2d time around.
The main difference: The first time they damaged the WTC--the 2d time they destroyed it

[magellan]

13. So you take a tombstone mentality to it?

Buildings destroyed, more dead means 9-11 deserves more attention and more reaction?

I'd argue that if the Repugs had paid more attention to terrorism/bin Laden subsequent to the attack in '93, and supported Clinton's proposals, we might not have suffered 9-11.

[sam sarrha]

17. 40 countries warned * ,people were waiting in the halls to warn him again

an FBI agent read him a report of eminent attack at the ranch, just before the attack, and * replied, you covered your ass, you can go...

Randi Rhodes spent an hour explaining all the countries and people who told him about planes and who and when and he DID NOTHING .. after it happened he sat in a classroom hiding behind children.. and DID NOTHING.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[magellan]

19. And before that the Repugs were fixated on impeaching Clinton

They weren't interested in supporting Clinton at all, in anything, because he was a Democrat. Politics were way more important to them than the threat of terrorism...and that's still the case.

[sam sarrha]

28. you missed the point... they LET IT HAPPEN for power and profit

[magellan]

31. Think you can convince a repub of that?

Because I'm trying to talk to people who don't have time for what they deem to be conspiracy theories. What you and I believe doesn't matter to them. I'm pointing out the simple, inarguable differences between how the repub controlled congress treated terrorism under Clinton following the WTC bombing and under Bush following 9-11.

GET IT NOW?

[sam sarrha]

38. they are lost in an Apriori Loop. they always come to the same conclusion

it is a form of mental illness.. narcissistic in nature..they have an overview of the world that is inappropriate and ineffective, it causes serious problems and suffering to other people and themselves... they blame the problems on others.. the scapegoats defined by the logical premise.. and in Apriori the conclusion comes first and the premise follows.

if you try to help them, and point out the fallacy of their logic at any point in the loop they come to the same conclusion.. you and the others in the pigeon hole they put you are the problem.

i discovered this as a juvenile parole officer, i wrote a paper,'Apriori logic as perceptual dysfunction and a stalemate in the counseling process'

the only way you can help them is to get them to do art, music;as in learning to play an instrument with a teacher, repetitious exercise;as in distance jogging/running, swimming laps, and meditation.
these activities connect the digital and analogical functions in a way where the person begins to live in a world of solutions instead of a world of problems

every kid i got to meditate was paroled in 60 days

[magellan]

41. I think it's people who overcomplicate things who are the problem.

I'm highlighting simple facts; you want to concatenate those facts with reams of information ordinary people don't have access to or find confusing or will contest simply because they've been given alternative viewpoints.

I'm not in a pigeon hole, you are. The typical one the Dems find themselves in -- too intellectual, can't abide a fact that neglects other facts, and therefore the originator is accused of ignorance or of having an 'agenda' if they don't include disclaimers and acknowledgements of every other little thing they know but haven't said outright.

Hopeless.

[sam sarrha]

48. i am sharing information on why they are so hard to connect with, you are

are just as hard to share information with.. without being cursed at

i have a form of autism, i have a non neurologically traditional view of the world that is just a valid as yours.. without all the emotional tantrums.

your frustration may be because what you wish to achieve is not as easy as you would wish it to be.. if not ought right imposable.

i have Aspergers Syndrome, i have an IQ of 165 and am essentially functionally illiterate, i have a 6th grade literacy level. i do not sometimes use the most effective synonym,please forgive my mindless insult, as you have brutally confirmed. we are on the same side, i would think, being on this site together, please start behaving as that is true.

i feel for your frustration, lets change moccasins for a while and you can get an idea of real frustration.. living in a perceptual format composed entirely of visual images.. i do not see words, i see things visually and have to translate them into words.. i have synesthesia in other words. i see and know things and can not always express them. although i am a mechanical and technical savant.. i worked on the Delta3 rocket and helped develope the work instructions to build the avionic flight control circuit boards for the F22.

i was a rework specialist at Boeing. i have overcome many of my disabilities. so you being neuroligical traditional can surely do better than i. if i pissed you off.. you are the one with the problem.. how can a word make a man come totally unglued.. think about it

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. LIHOP! He wanted it to happen! He needed it to happen!

I'll bet he even MADE IT HAPPEN! What a POS!

[VeggieTart]

33. If Gore were in office, the towers might still be standing n/t

[magellan]

35. They might.

At the very least we wouldn't be in the 4th year of a illegal occupation of Iraq that's doing nothing but creating more terrorists, or making plans to go after Iran next.

Welcome to DU, VeggieTart. :)

[trotsky]

34. The Dems controlled both houses until January 95.

Yes, the Repukes discounted the terrorism threat once they had power, and it's certainly worthwhile to point that out, but just wanted to mention your comparison has a little flaw.

[magellan]

36. Clinton's proposals were rejected by the Repug-controlled Congress in '96.

Among other things they didn't give him the requested expanded wiretapping authority. Yet they were more than happy to give it to Bush**, and without FISA oversight.

No flaw.

[trotsky]

46. Like I said, I know the Repukes were against those measures.

But that didn't happen until well after the '93 bombing. Just saying, if you put that comparison out there, it's not going to work too well.

[leftofthedial]

49. only one resulted in the capture and punishment of the perpetrators

this is not government

this is rape and pillage

2000 was a coup