I have read some of the post below with great interest. By chance, I had the opportunity to watch a lot of Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission. The listening and readings have either formed or buttressed thoughts that I have about pre-9/11 and post-9/11.
1. No president could have done anything concrete about Bin Laden before 9/11 happened. The Clinton people and the Bush people are right in saying that they did all that they could do about Bin Laden before 9/11 was tied to him. While the Taliban was Bin Laden's host, little was known about the extent of their involvement with Bin Laden prior to 9/11. It seems from news reports from many sources, that both the Clinton and Bush adminstrations worked through diplomatic channels to get the Taliban to "flip" on Bin Laden and either turn him over or force him out of the country to somewhere he could be captured. The US could have invaded Afganistan before 9/11, but such an act would have been viewed entirely different from the way it was viewed after we have lost over 3000 citizens and guests in an attack on our continental soil.
2. The actions of Bush post 9/11 were heroic. I think that any president, even the most dovish would not have had any choice but to lead the country into a war to avenge what had happened to us and capture or kill those responsible. In this context, Bush simply did what was expected of him. I do not think Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton or Dennis K. would have acted any differently had they been president on 9/11, them doing something other than preparing the country to avenge the atrocity would have been cause for removal from office.
3. The unique opportunities that the 9/11 tragedy created have been lost. I agree somewhat with the Bush detractors on this point. We had a unique opportunity to strike a killing blow at worldwide terrorism by dealing efficiently and completely with Bin Laden and the Taliban and by making Afganistan a shining model of US incubated democracy. If we had stayed focused and wiped out Bin Laden, and the Taliban, all who hate us would also have had to deal with a much more powerful feeling before taking us on, that feeling is cold fear of what we could and would do to them if they harmed us. The path that we are now on is less clear, Bin Laden is still free and plotting, hundreds of Bin Laden wannabes have been bred worldwide and are now actively trying to hurt us.
4. Regardless of political bent, all of us must pray that Iraq becomes a calm, democratic country, with the US playing a major role. Throw a sizeable prayer in for Afganistan and Pakistan becoming stable democracies, with major US influence, also. Because if all of these things do not happen, we have large problems on our hands. Number one would that we would have lost to fear of god that many people feel of the US when they hear the country's name. People who do not fear you have a lower threshold to overcome before attacking you. Number two is that we need to show all, even our erstwhile allies that we understand what we are doing on the world stage and are capable of functioning effectively as the world's lone super power.
In mid-August of 2001, I read an interview with Al Gore in a business related journal. I think it was BusinessWeek, but it could have been Fortune, or Forbes. I hope someone looks it up.
He was in casual dress, and full beard. This was the essence of what he said:
"Do you think if I were in charge, I would have permitted this bloodshed to go on in the Middle East?"
Those days, Israelis and Palestinians were killing each other mercilessly. At least by clinton days' standards.
If Gore were President, 9/11 would NOT have happened. Clinton inspired hope and demonstrated progress.
If I read your post correctly, Al Gore talked bout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that had ignited in September 2000 and was raging in August 2001. I did not see anything in your quote about him mentioning Bin Laden and Afganistan and what he would do there. It could be that Bush and his advisers will ultimately be proven to be a group of dense idiots regarding their handling of the Bin Laden affair pre and post 9/11 - and I see a lot of issues in that regard, but it seems that no politician, even Al Gore were thinking about Bin Laden heavily prior to 9/11. Maybe Bin Laden was at the top of Gore's list and the interview which you quoted did not bring out that information, but as I read things Gore was not thinking about Bin Laden and an imminent attack in August 2001.
My point really is Gore would not have created a fertile environment, whereas a few middle class/upper middle class Arab young men, with no profound religious background [some of them were observed drinking alcohol and visiting strip clubs], would have gotten to a state of emotional frenzy to commit the criminal and violent acts of Sep 11th.
I have spent time in Latin America, Asia, and the Europe of late 60s and early 70s. Police/Military action only, against terrorism, is somewhat like guessing the next head or tail. Never a complete success. Gore would have relentlessly continued to show hardwork to bring stability to the region.
Bush, from day one, in words and actions after his election, only offered hurling insults to one side, blessings to every action of the other side. Now of course, the conflict will only grow and polarizes the world in a non-constructive way, unless Kerry is elected.
A lot can happen between now and the election. BTW, I think you're Al Gore far too much credit.
This is the failing of the current administration (obsessed with strategy pre 9/11). To a lesser extent, it was the failing of the Clinton Administration (unable to formulate a strategy due to political weakness and forced to use only tactics).
The issue is not whether the current administration could have prevented the attacks by doing something / anything. We will never know. We did nothing: apparently because Mr Bush was waiting for a "strategy". That is a fuck-up in my book. I can understand trying and failing. I won't tolerate not trying. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I know there are other people on this board that know what it means to have P&L responsibility for a business. Those people know that the owners of the business have little patience for losses while the CEO is working on a "strategy". A good CEO finds a way to stem or eliminate current losses and insure long term profits (and do both at the same time). Thousands of US lives were lost. At least TRYING some tactical (Clinton type) responses would show Bush understood his responsibilities. The current defense sounds like nothing more than some guy saying his fuckup did not motter because things will be getting better in the future. The best approach is to admit the mistake and show you understand the nature of your error. If Bush cannot do this, he is in ego mode rather than reality mode and should be replaced.
I have heard Karen Hughes on several talk shows: she understands this. Hopefully, shw will get to Mr Bush in time and help the GOP deal with it.
Probaly the major failing during the Vietnam error was in leaders failing to admit mistakes. Admission of mistakes allows for strategy changes that can correct bad situations.
The Bush administration in my opinion has made some grave mistakes in Iraq, the first was in the timing of the Iraq invasion, we should have finished the job in Afganistan first. I do not disagree that we should not have invaded at some point, I disagree with the timing, it was simply not right. Second, once the decision to invade was made, not enough troops were committed to suppress even the slightest attempt at insurrection.
One can only hope that the situation in Iraq is not out of control at this point. I think that the higher troops that are finally being committed to Iraq will slowly suppress the insurgents. These troops and the ones already fighting in Iraq everyday are the only heroes in this saga, maybe the politicians will rise to the level of the troops and develop well thought out strategies that will not let the sacrifices that are being made by troops be made in vain - this last wish applies to whichever side wins in November.
i was in the usa at the time of september 11th 2001, pre 9 11 there was no security (or very little) at airports and all post 9 11 did was put a few more police / national guard at airports, we have lived this side of the pond with terrorism for 30 years and are used to airport security checks etc i personally feel the us has a lot to learn. Could the USA had done more to prevent 9/11? I honestly doubt it, have you not put up $25 million for OBL and still no takers? My point is can you stop a fanatic in getting what he/she wants? many have started many have failed, some get there to some extent, but lets face it, there all looneys!! and most of them are in power!!
wears the colours of your flag wherever he is seen on tv, President Blair will not wear a union flag badge (is it button in the usa?) because that would be seen as racist!! Did you know that 23 April is St George's day (patron saint of England)and nobody celebrates it because that would be seen as racist!! but we're allowed to celebrate st patricks day?
that take place in the heart. If St.Georges day is important to one, then it should be celebrated in a way that is respectful of those who would not celebrate the day. Failure to respect different points of view is why there is so much strife in the world.
my point was , stilltryin, i go out to celebrate st pats and we're allowed to, the scots celebrate st Andrews day(November sometime i think) you can celebrate all the hindu, muslim and jamaican festival (quite rightly too) in the uk but the minute you try and celebrate Britishness by i don't know, a George cross outside your house for one day, a pie and a pint, or even a full english breakfast your condemned by insinuating racism, and i'll accept i do do it i will celebrate this week, only to have a laugh with friends and family (thy're all scottish and i'm english and i live in Scotland)