Mark

You know what is scary?

In some alternate universe, on this forum, fatherphil has posted a thread entitled 'bush administration and 9/11' and wondered what things would have been like under Bush

dcwolf

Would Gore not have seen 9/11 coming? He was Vice Prez when the head of airline security was complaining to the feds in 1998 about the lax airline security rules. Maybe Gore would have been more prepared to prevent 9/11, once the clues started mounting in the prior months, than Bush.

Also, wasn't Bush ignoring Palestine in 2001, and would Gore have been more diplomatic?

Psycho Economist

First, and this may not be the nicest thing to say, but I think 9/11 was carried out to provoke the reaction it did. With that in mind, I don't think it would have happened under Gore; I don't think bin Laden would have risked it backfiring... Gore not invading one or more middle eastern countries.

First, I think the investigation of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole would have been more thorougally investigated, and we would have quietly opened up mediated negotiations with the Taliban to take bin Laden into custody then.

That having failed, I don't think Gore would have raised the stakes quite so quickly after 9/11. Things would have been more quiet and deliberate all-around. If we could not secure a trial for bin Laden in a third-party country, our military operation in Afghanistan would have "featured" other nations more prominently, and our forces would have done more covert ops.

And there would be no Phase II.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Psycho Economist
First, and this may not be the nicest thing to say, but I think 9/11 was carried out to provoke the reaction it did. With that in mind, I don't think it would have happened under Gore; I don't think bin Laden would have risked it backfiring... Gore not invading one or more middle eastern countries.

9/11 was in the works before Bush became president. Therefore it's unlikely that Bush vs Gore would have made any difference.

First, I think the investigation of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole would have been more thorougally investigated, and we would have quietly opened up mediated negotiations with the Taliban to take bin Laden into custody then.

This is assuming they would have handed him over. They wouldn't have--he was too powerful. If Bin Laden's supporters quit supporting the Taliban they would have fallen.

Psycho Economist

Yes, but there is such a thing as contingent planning. With the election in mind, you draw up a plan, but deploy it when there's enough neo-con influence to guarantee your attack will result in setting the U.S. on the invasion trail. Maybe you do it in 2001. Maybe after mid-term elections in 2003. Maybe after you quietly bank a lot of money into NewsCorp through third-parties.

Propping up despotic regimes to achieve specific ends is fair play in Washington. Solidifying a state with an interest in oppressing only its own citizens secures our turf better than flushing an amorphous transnational terrorist organization with us in its sights from a known hole into an unknown one. Diplomatic recognition, foreign aid, arms shipments may all would have been put on the table at various times. Don't know if that would be preferable, but they would have been options.

Ultron

Gore would have attacked Afghanistan but weeks to months later as a UN coalition (ala Bush 41) and it would have been a longer more retracted affair. He would have ignored Iraq like Clinton did to be honest, even after the WTC attack. There would have been no address to the UN to do anything about Iraq, I'd bet.

Loren Pechtel

Got cancer? Don't like surgery? Here, take this antibiotic! It won't hurt you like surgery will. It kills bad things. A far betterr solution!

Optional

*ahem*

Got a flu? It's the KNIFE for you, buddy! Don't like surgery? TOUGH, *I'M* the one what's got a KNIFE!

-me

Psycho Economist

Keep your eye on the ball. The problem isn't Iraq, or the Taliban or any country or government. It's terrorism originating in the developing world, targeting the developed world.

We need to neutralize people with the intent and means to attack us.

We can conquor the whole middle east. We can drive fundamentalist Islam underground. That's one approach to the problem. It's straightforward. It's cathartic. It's good for Presidential poll numbers. But it still may not deprive terrorist organizations (who aren't tied to any state we can conquor) of the means to attack us. It certainly won't diminish their intent to do so.

Have cancer? Don't like chemotherapy? Let's amputate something that looks suspicious to you and hope that we get rid of the tumor.

Loren Pechtel

You miss the point.

I was suggesting a course of action that while not as unpleasant as the right one would be totally useless. The implication being that his proposed course of action was the same.