How would 9/11/01 have been different if Obama had been president?

[proud2BlibKansan]

Would we have invaded Iraq? Would there have been a more complete investigation into 9/11? Would we know today who was really responsible? Would it have happened at all?

What do you think?

[RandomThoughts]

1. I know who is responsible by multiple sources, as requiered.

[boppers]

48. One of the hallmarks of CT is "having secret knowledge".

It's a feedback loop.

[sandnsea]

2. Who was really responsible?

Please expound.

[pocoloco]

4. Never studied the PNAC??

Sad, probably a little late to start now.

[boppers]

49. IT systems have improved, as expected.

They were right about that one.

[Bitwit1234]

3. We would not have had a war with Iraq that cost thousands

of American Lives as well as million of Iraqi lives. And we would not have spent trillions and trillions of useless dollars in that war.

[Cal33]

42. A lot of the trillions of dollars ended up into the pockets of

our Neocon corporations. Don't you think? That was the purpose of starting the illegal war in Iraq
in the first place.

[peace13]

5. He would have told Americans to be brave and strong...

instead we got 'be afraid', a pathetic little message from * and his war criminals.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. He probably wouldn't have told us to go shopping either

Just a hunch :)

[randr]

7. Faux news would have blamed him for the attacks

[vaberella]

10. Ain't that the truth. n/t

[sharp_stick]

27. No shit

they would have been on the air from ground zero at noon blaming him for it. Bunch of fucking parasites.

[SharonRB]

8. He would have listened to Richard Clarke

And the PDB and there would have been no 9/11, no war in Iraq ...

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Definitely

And so would Gore.

[AtomicKitten]

47. I will never forget Richard Clarke's testimony before Congress (SPAN).

:patriot: http://cnettv.cnet.com/richard-clarke-9-11-apology/9742-1_53-50010354.html

I too believe Pres Obama would have heeded Clarke's hair-on-fire warnings.

[Gman]

9. 9/11 might have never happened

He would have read and taken seriously Clinton's report about OBL, he would have taken the infamous August briefing very seriously. The news may well have been about the foiled attack on the WTC.

[livetohike]

26. Agree. Pres. Obama is very thorough and deliberate

and competent. Completely opposite Bush.

[Clio the Leo]

11. US walked out of talks w/Israel/Palestine a couple of days before 9/11...

.... they reported on NBC's footage (that I watched today.)

It made me wonder.

[SharonRB]

12. I'm sure the attacks were being planned

Long before we walked out. I saw that, too. It took more than a few days to plan.

[Clio the Leo]

14. Oh obviously....

.... but our relations weren't hunky dory with the Arab world up until we walked out of the talks. The entire approach has changed.

But, of course, ultimately, the attack was no one's fault but al qaeda's

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. But would an Obama administration have walked out?

[Capn Sunshine]

13. Probably wouldn't have happened-9/11 was a result of intentional ignorance

All the signs were there, all the agencies knew what was up. But it seems to me a large part of the Bush Administration actually worked to keep the info down. Remember the orderto the State Dept NOT to fly on commercial jets starting in August? The situation red danger danger danger briefing given to Bush on vacation, and his only response was "OK you've covered your ass now"?
The whole Bush administration effort to silence John O'Neill, who quit the FBI In disgust at their ignoring his warnings, and took a job at the Twin Towers as head of Security, where he was killed in the attack?

My theory to this day is that those who conspired to ignore pending 9-11 attacks thought it was going to be a hijacked airliner, and that was all. but it fit in well with their plans to create a narrative where only republicans can protect you. When the attacks went down and thousands were killed, they still went ahead with their plans.

Exhibit "A" - the ginned up anti muslim hysteria before every god damned election since by the GOP.

I just don't see President Gore or Obama playing down that line. The attacks would have been stopped, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE might be viewed a bit differently today.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. I've always said that too

So I suppose I am more of a LIHOP than a MIHOP. But the Bush administration knew. And they conveniently (so they believed at the time) didn't do enough to prevent it.

I'd never thought about that hijacking theory but it sure makes sense to me.

[LWolf]

15. I think things would have been about the same.

We may not have invaded Iraq, but we would have gone to war. We would have spent too many lives and too much of the nation's resources on political wars using 9/11 as an excuse. I don't think there would have been any more thorough investigation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I think Obama is a better diplomat than Bush

He is also more well liked by foreign powers. I think he would have done more to solve the tension through diplomacy. I also doubt he would have ignored the PDB of 8-6-01.

[LWolf]

25. Do you think there would have been

no "war on terror" or trampling of civil liberties? I think those things would still have happened.

I DO think it's possible that he would have paid more attention to the PDB, and that could have made a big difference.

[jenmito]

23. "I think things would have been about the same. We may not have invaded Iraq, but..."

If we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, which I'd bet my life that we wouldn't have, things would NOT have been even REMOTELY the same. We had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora and Bush/Rumsfeld refused to give them the troops they needed to get him, probably to justify going into Iraq.

And that's IF the attacks would've happened in the first place, since Bush ignored the Aug. 6th PDB about bin Laden determined to attack within the U.S.

[LWolf]

24. "the same" that I'm referring to is that there still would have been

a "war on terror." The nation would still have sold civil liberties and economic health down the river out of fear and the need for revenge.

[vi5]

28. I agree with you completely.....

I honestly believe it wouldn't have mattered if Nader was in the White House. The country wanted blood and the leaders were going to give it to them at all costs.

And I do think there would have been enough of a cabal of people calling for war in Iraq and it would have been presented in much the same way, although it probably would have been republicans in congress doing much of the pushing and the ginning of evidence rather than the White House itself. But I think they would have been able to be swayed.

[jenmito]

29. Yeah, right. There definitely would NOT have been a "war on terror." Obama

refuses to call it "the war on terror," calls it "the war against al Qaeda" which didn't exist in Iraq, and spoke out against the war in Iraq from the start. There would've been no Gitmo, either, we would've gotten bin Laden when we had the chance in Dec. '01, and we'd have a much better economy and relationship with the rest of the world.

[LWolf]

30. Obama spoke out against the war before he got to the senate.

Then he regularly voted to fund it until late in the '08 primary race. He didn't pretend to be other than a hawk; hence the "not against war, just dumb wars" remark.

As someone who was actually against THE war, the "war on terror" from the beginning, I know that we still would have gone to war.

Economy? It depends on how much he would have been willing to throw down the rabbit hole in afghanistan. His economic policies aren't all that different.

Relationship with the rest of the world? You're probably right about that one. I don't see how anyone could have been any worse.

Do you really want to fight about an imaginary scenario that didn't happen 9 years ago?

[jenmito]

32. Voting to fund a war that was already on-going is totally different from STARTING a war as POTUS.

We would've still gone to Afghanistan, I bet, but not Iraq-no WAY. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 ever happened, and that gave them the perfect excuse with help from the media. Obama had no reason to go into Iraq, and no reason to try to call the war against those who attacked us the "war on terror" so he could falsely connect Saddam to al Qaeda.

Bush spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq which, if Obama were president, would've been spent HERE.

I'm on a thread where this is the topic, so yes, I do.

[LWolf]

41. Financially supporting a war that you are "against" is an obvious contradiction.

When I see a contradiction between words and actions, I'm going to count the actions.

It all boils down to a matter of personal perspective. For me, the war was wrong, and Obama would have entered that war. For you, Afghanistan seems to be okay, so you excuse the going to war.

Trying to claim what he would, or would not, have done with all the money we spent is fruitless; we can't prove anything either way. I can guess that, since Obama is a neoliberal, domestic investments wouldn't have been on the table, but I can't really know. I can only use what I know of neoliberal political and economic agendas to guess.

In reality, Obama wouldn't have been president at all. If GWB weren't president, Al Gore would have been. I think he would have served two terms, and I don't know that it would have been Obama who came forward to win the Democratic nomination under a sitting Democratic president.

But continue on. It's fine to guess, but let's not try to pretend that the tea leaves or crystal ball reflect reality.

[jenmito]

43. No, it's not. There's a world of difference between invading a country as POTUS and

funding that war already started as Senator. That's apples and oranges-not a contradiction between words and actions.

"For me, the war was wrong, and Obama would have entered that war. For you, Afghanistan seems to be okay, so you excuse the going to war." Are you talking about Iraq in the first sentence? Because for ME that war was wrong, too. It was ALSO wrong in OBAMA'S opinion, and like I said, he had no reason to go into Iraq (like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did), so I seriously doubt he would NOT have invaded Iraq after 9/11. For me, Afghanistan WAS OK, and same for Obama. He's doing what he SAID he'd do, and I support him.

And, just to remind you, YOU posted on this thread about what Obama would've done after 9/11. I responded to YOUR post on this "what if" thread.

[LWolf]

45. You can manipulate it all you want.

At the core, if you are "against" something, you shouldn't be supporting it in Congress by funding it. Actions and words should match.

In the first sentence, I'm talking about the war on terror, period. I'm not separating Afghanistan and Iraq, because they were both wrong.

It's true that Iraq should not have been part of the war on terror, and we were lied into it.

I don't think there should have been a war on terror to begin with. I don't think the nation should have been whipped into a frenzy of fear and vengefulness to begin with, that our response to the attacks should have been to enter into a protracted war on "terrorism," which is not an enemy that can be pinned down and vanquished. I think the attackes were used as an excuse to manipulate the American people into accepting the Bush administration's agendas.

War was not okay with me. It was not an appropriate response. We both agree that it would have been his response. We disagree about the correctness of the response. I think going to war as a response to 9/11 was wrong, and I think it would have happened with Obama in the WH. That would not have been different.

I think many, if not all, of the negative consequences of the war still would have happened.

When the OP asks if things would have been different if O. had been president on 9/11, I assume she means would our response to 9/11 have been different, not would the entire presidency have been different.

I stand by my thoughts. I think Obama's response would have been to go to war, just as GWB did. He probably wouldn't have used it as an excuse to settle old business with Saddam, but he still would have gone to war. I think he would probably have supported the Patriot Act; he certainly decided, after his inauguration, that he wanted to retain those aspects we wanted to get rid of.

I posted a RESPONSE on this thread. I am not the OP. I think you are aware of this. You can post as many responses to me as you like; it really won't make any difference. If it makes your day to argue, go for it. There isn't going to be a meeting of minds, or a "winner" or "loser" in this argument. It's based on fantasy; on "what if," not on reality, and not on fact.

But go for it. Argue all you like. I'll check in once a day to argue back if you need me to.

[jenmito]

46. YOU'RE the one manipulating this, equating a POTUS invading a country that had nothing to do with

the 9/11 attacks to a Senator who was AGAINST the POTUS invading Iraq, funding it (since troops were already there).

Combining Iraq and Afghanistan as the "war on terror" is what BUSH did, not what Obama did, even as President. The vast majority of people were for going into Afghanistan, including me (and now-President Obama). If you want to continue Bush's meme, go ahead. But Iraq does NOT deserve to be in the same category as Afghanistan.

I STRONGLY disagree that "many, if not all, of the negative consequences of the war still would have happened" if we hadn't gone into Iraq. Much of the world was with us regarding going into Afghanistan. Once we diverted our attention to Iraq, that all changed.

The OP was about how Obama would've handled 9/11 and asked if we would've gone into Iraq. I don't think he WOULD'VE gone into Iraq, and you DO think he would've done so. I see no evidence that he would've invaded Iraq. You keep saying you think Obama would've "gone to war" after 9/11, and in YOUR mind, that includes invading Iraq. I think you're way off with that and with lumping both wars together.

Yes, YOU chose to write a response to this "what if" OP and then you kept acting as if there's no point in speculating about "what if." :shrug:

[LWolf]

53. You can disagree all you like. It doesn't change anything.

You're disagreement isn't based on anything real.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

55. Facts. About a time that never happened.

And you think I'M using Republican talking points. Your argument has devolved into obvious personal attack. How frustrating it must be for you to try to "win" an argument about something that isn't real, and that didn't happen.

[jenmito]

56. Facts about Obama speaking out against the Iraq war years ago. Facts about Obama

refusing, as President, to call anything a "war on terror." Facts about Obama bringing all combat troops out of Iraq by Aug. 31st like he promised. Facts about Obama calling Afghanistan the right war even as a presidential candidate, promising to focus on it like he's now doing. Facts about you replying to the OP with YOUR opinion of what would've happened "if..." and ME responding to YOU.

[LWolf]

57. The facts:

Saying he was against the war in Iraq before it started, and then funding the war he was "against" in Congress; a contradiction you don't want to acknowledge, but part of the picture. When there were no personal stakes in it, he was "against" the war. When he actually had to act publicly, he supported it. When it was convenient, he reminded everyone that he was "against" the war and ignored his support for it in Congress. To offer some evidence, he voted against funding it towards the end of the primaries after having voted TO fund it the rest of his time in Congress.

All of that is completely beside the point. My response to the OP didn't say "Obama would still have gone to Iraq." As a matter of fact, I said, "We may not have invaded Iraq, but we would have gone to war." You actually agree with that. The day after day need to fight over whether he would have gone to Iraq when I didn't say he would have is strange, to say the least.

The FACT that Iraq was sold to Congress as part of the "war on terror."

The FACT that you acknowledge...the war in Afghanistan still would have happened, regardless of what political label it was given. That Obama thought Afghanistan was the "right" war...as did Bush.

The FACT that we still would have gone to war, wasted lives and resources....


And yes, my opinion, because the OP asked for it. Still, it's an opinion about an imaginary scenario, as are anyone's about this topic. IT'S FICTION. IT WILL NEVER BE FACT. It didn't happen, and it never would have happened.

FACT: If GWB weren't president in '01, Al Gore would have been. Not Obama. THAT is FACT. Anything else, including all conjecture about what might have happened if Obama had been president, is fiction.

You like your fiction better than mine. So what? It's still fiction.

FICTION.

Keep tilting.

[jenmito]

58. So...

everyone in Congress who voted against invading Iraq and then funded it were really FOR it?It's not HIS fault he wasn't a senator at the time of the invasion so he could vote against it.

Yeah, Iraq was "sold" to us as part of the WOT, but once Obama became President, he refused to call it that. But YOU choose to keep using Bush's term for it.

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans were ALSO for going into Afghanistan. It wasn't just me, Obama, and Bush.

There are a few facts. The fact is also that you chose to comment on this thread, I responded to your comments, and then YOU repeatedly said, in a sense, there's really no point in talking about what could've been. :shrug:

[dionysus]

36. bless your heart for trying so hard.

[Imajika]

16. Smells like a "truther" thread...

...masquerading as a non-crazy, legit post.

"Would there have been a more complete investigation into 9/11? Would we know today who was really responsible?"

LOL, clever.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. LOL the tin foil hat is on your head not mine

[dionysus]

37. good catch.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Oh isn't that sweet?

Two tin foil hatters.

[dionysus]

39. you have just exhibited the textbook definition of "projection"

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. LOL no your friend did that all by himself

:rofl:

[boppers]

51. +1

Conspiracy Theory loves a "god of the gaps". Thus, if somebody doesn't understand something, or can't explain something, they assume that it must be something mysterious and powerful.

It's a lot like creationism.

The solution to this problem is elusive, though, because those who aren't easily educated are often unwilling to learn.

[bigwillq]

17. No one knows

Same answer if you asked ...different if Gore had been president. Or B. Clinton. Or Kerry.
No one knows. Any answer besides that is just speculation.

[stray cat]

31. 9-11 no different, afterwards no invasion of Iraq, not sure about afghanistan

[nmbluesky]

33. i'm sure Fox News attack him.....

[Jennicut]

34. Obama would be blamed for the attack by the right wing, after all, he is a scary muslin!

I am not being sarcastic either. But 9/11 would be different as all Presidents are different from each other and Pres. Obama has far more intelligence then W. and does not seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Iraq. Afghanistan was an afterthought with Bush.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. LOL! How could I forget?

[proteus_lives]

35. He most likely would have waged the WOT as it should have been.

Investigations by intel, pin-point strikes by special forces teams, aid to countries and areas heavily influenced by extremism.

[boppers]

50. One by one:

"Would we have invaded Iraq?"

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. FAIL.

"Would there have been a more complete investigation into 9/11?"

That's damn near impossible. It's been dug into about as deeply as it could be, down to minute by minute timelines. FAIL

"Would we know today who was really responsible?"

We already do. FAIL

"Would it have happened at all?"

Yup. The die was cast through our actions of the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

[truebrit71]

60. A question..

Are you saying that the official story is 100% accurate?

[Milo_Bloom]

52. It wouldn't have happened. Period.

Do you think Obama would have ignored his counter-terrorism experts?

9/11 was ENTIRELY preventable if someone in charge had been paying any attention at all.

I don't believe for a moment that 9/11 was an inside job of any type, but I do think bush was criminally negligent (if we held presidents to that standard) in ignoring the experts and offering no proper resources that could have stopped it.

[truebrit71]

59. The republicans would have immediately called for an investigation into how it happened...

..and then begun impeachment proceedings against Obama...