What if al Qaeda Had Been Hit Pre-emptively?

townhall.com ^ | 2/09/04 | Joel Mowbray

[MEG33]

Good article.

[Prime Choice]

BTTT! Good find!

[weegee]

The answer is that if President Bush had instituted a national security sweep domestically and an increased military/security presence overseas, in the first 8 months of his presidency no less, his critics would have warned of him being a war monger, stirring up a hornets' nest, and violating peoples' rights before they had committed any regrettable acts.

The armchair quarterbacks have completely given President Bill Clinton a pass over 9.11.2001 and gone on the offensive against President Bush.

Would the public have believed that such a coordinated plan could actually be carried out? The WTC had survived an Islamofascist bombing in the past. With all of "these" reports of suspected planes that would be hijacked to destroy the WTC, the Pentagon, and other targets, "how credible" is the threat against America?

The hindsight on this is being used by Bush haters to just rant. They would be saying virtually the same thing (with no catastrophic event to reveal to America the genuine threat that exists).

[EternalVigilance]

It is excellent.

Well crafted, exquisitely well-reasoned, and irrefutable.

[whadizit]

Oh, man, can't you just imagine what will happen if these out-of-touch peaceniks get their representative in the White House? All the work we have done to go after terrorists abroad will be for naught. I'll bet we will see an Iraq being run by the U. f---ing N. with a radical islamic cleric as head honcho and an apology coming from Kerry to Iraqis. He will apologize to Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin for the error of W's ways. Man, we will revert to our previous WEAK, PUSHOVER status in the world. I'll bet the Palis. and other killers will be dancing in the streets passing out candy!

[weegee]

We all now know the "threat" posed by all "long haul" flights (if they are used as "missiles" soon after take off). How much would those involved in national security have revealed the details of Al Qaida/Bin Laden's plans for fear that others might try to crash a plane?

[Fledermaus]

Yep. Right on! We already, in 1993, saw they attempted to take down at least one WTC tower. And Clinton, like Kerry would, treated it as a legal crime and not a statement of war.

So we further hampered our intelligence capabilities by forcing the government, in a trial, to give information as to how they tracked these men, found out their origins, and connected them to terrorist. Information that caused Al-Qaeda to change tactics and methods.

Just as the Clinton administration, along with NATO, agreed to "oversight" on their bombing runs over Kosovo (meaning the other side got a list of runs, targets, etc.) so they could pretend they were playing nice with the UN and the "world opinion". Where did that get us? Huh? Nowhere.

Now these same cowardly appeasers whine, like Tim Russert did Sunday with one question to Bush, that "the United States isn't liked in places like Germany and France"!

Liberal a-holes just don't get it do they? Who gives a flying F*** about the worthless French and Germans or what any of their unemployed, pompous morons think about us?

And Russia? RUSSIA? The left brings up RUSSIA? You mean the not-so-Soviet but not-to-evolved much since 1992 Russia you loved when Stalin was murdering and starving Ukranians by the millions?

It's a sad statement of a political party that would have totally backed Hitler if he just hadn't of been such a gay basher. We know the left don't give a hoot about his killing of the Jews.

[The_Media_never_lie]

What if al Qaeda Had Been Hit Pre-emptively?

The Democrats would have been livid!

[Texasforever]

Well to tell the truth I was under whelmed with GW's case on MTP. It shows one of his political weaknesses that have been there since I first watched him campaign for governor. He has a complete lack of ability to toot his own horn. He acts embarrassed to give himself credit for anything. He just can't bring himself to forcefully defend his actions. I think it is a family trait and he had better get over it soon.

[truth_seeker]

Well it would be just fine, and Clinton DID it. Poorly executed, to no benefit, but he did it.

So it follows that if Bush DID it, pre 9/11/01 for the SAME reasons (plus more) it certainly would be okay.

[Fledermaus]

It might have hurt his dad because we weren't at war like we are now. But that family trait, I think, makes people comfortable.

He's not like a Kerry who toots his own horn so much he should do porn films!

[MEG33]

ROFL

[FormerACLUmember]

Perfect article. I agree with you completely, that the democratrs and their media would have done everything in their power to destroy Bush. even knowing that al Queda was going to attack us again.

[jocon307]

"Would the public have believed that such a coordinated plan could actually be carried out?"

You are right, it would have been a true case of good news is no news. Muslim terrorists are sitting in jail right now, having been convicted of plotting to blow up the Lincoln & Holland Tunnels in NYC (and some other stuff too, but I don't even know if they planned on blowing them ALL up, or if they just had a variety of targets in mind) and also the so-called "Millenium" bomb plotters (who were going to blow up LAX in 2000) are in jail (I think).

But these are things that never happened, and so they do not really sink in to the public mind, my own included. If Hitler had been stopped in Czechoslovakia I doubt his name would be always and forever used as a synonym for evil. This is an unavoidable problem with prevention rather than cure.

[lainde]

bttt

[HankReardon]

I cannot help but imagine some Democrats have hopes of a terror hit on American soil before the election. "Bush spent all this money on Homeland Security and he still couldn't stop the terrorist!" Far fetched? Outrageous to suggest this? It would be unthinkable that some Democrats would be hoping for this only if they had not been hoping for the economy to go bad, encouraging to go bad, and also hoping for the war in Iraq to go bad, speaking out and enheartening the Iraqi and foreign onsurgients. We really need a grassroots campaign against these people.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I cannot help but imagine some Democrats have hopes of a terror hit on American soil before the election.

Beyond peradventure the Democratic Party relies on bad news for its very existence, and would be tempted to demagogue any--Heaven forefend--terrorist strike against us for partisan advantage.

But IMHO the effect of a second 9/11 on the standing of the president would be similar to that of the first one. The Democrats probably would try to exploit it--and it would do for the Democratic Party what the Depression did for the Republican Party.

[MEG33]

A long time poster on DU suggested more deaths of our soldiers in Iraq would be good if it led to Bush's defeat.

It was copied and posted on Andrew Sullivan and other sites before it was deleted.This one really sickened me and enraged me.

[MEG33]

Ouch!Could be.