To: jimbo123
Based on the timing of the WTC attack, it would have been the 2nd Clinton term that would have prevented the attack. As much as I recognize that Donald Trump comes from the private sector, it is difficult to expect that a new President taking office on 1/20/2091 could get the entire federal government working to his satisfaction in less than 8 months, or reverse the years of neglect that led to the attack.
So a 1/20/1997 start date would realistically been required.
13 posted on
10/18/2015 8:53:44 AM PDT by
Bernard
(The Road To Hell is not paved with good results.)
To: Bernard; All
Do you remember what was going on in the early stages of the Bush’s first term? Within WEEKS and the WEAK response?
47 posted on
10/18/2015 9:19:55 AM PDT by
j.argese
(/s tags: If you have a mind unnecessary. If you're a cretin it really doesn't matter, does it?)
To: Bernard
That’s the way I look at it.
If Trump had been president in 2001, perhaps he would have tried to get rid of all foreign terrorists in the US; however, would he have had enough time ie seven and half months to do so? And if he did try during his early 2001 term, would the media, lobbyists, etc have stopped him?
I remember quite well that Clinton was focused on domestic terrorism (esp white supremacists) and not foreign (at all!). Remember OK bombing. The country was focused on domestic, not foreign terroism.
To: Bernard
"As much as I recognize that Donald Trump comes from the private sector, it is difficult to expect that a new President taking office on 1/20/2091 could get the entire federal government working to his satisfaction in less than 8 months, or reverse the years of neglect that led to the attack."
I think that's basically correct. I think all the hijackers were already here and the planning for the attack was well under way before Bush even became president. No president has the time or ability to micromanage the issuing of visas and vetting of individuals who apply for admission to the US.
Trump is speaking with 20/20 hindsight. I very much doubt that his first priority as president would have been to review the status of every LEGAL immigrant who was in the country at the time. The potential threat of radical Islam in the US was not even discussed in the run-up to the 2000 election.
To: Bernard
Especially since after the election, instead of putting his team together, pres elect Bush was fighting the Gore election thieves.
218 posted on
10/18/2015 1:03:37 PM PDT by
demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
To: Bernard
“Based on the timing of the WTC attack, it would have been the 2nd Clinton term that would have prevented the attack.”
Clinton had airport screeners profiling Arabs/Muslims for extra scrutiny during his term. Dubya ran against that practice and made a big deal out of stopping it.
This is what Dubya said in one of the 2000 debates:
Arab-Americans are racially profiled in whats called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that. My friend, Sen. Spence Abraham is pushing a law to make sure that, you know, Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isnt just an issue at the local police forces. Its an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, were going to have to deal with it more and more.
When he was elected Dubya followed through on his promise to stop airport screeners from giving extra scrutiny to Arabs. At least one of the ticket people who had Mohammed Atta go through his line mentioned how he had wanted to have him pulled aside but couldn’t do it.
Bush’s indifference to border security was a hallmark of his administration, from his refusal to limit Muslim immigration after 9-11 to his constant promotion of amnesty for illegal aliens. And lax border security was a major factor in 9-11.
320 posted on
10/19/2015 12:32:03 PM PDT by
Pelham
(A refusal to deport is defacto amnesty)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson