What if..... something to think about

[stormraiser]

Here is a scenario of what probably would have happened if the folks in charge had proceeded based on the Aug 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. This was read on a local radio station yesterday.

(Washington, April 9, 2004) A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about "so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in
over-kill."

When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.

When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression." Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims.

Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen." The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan.

When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."

Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened."

Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.

[Guest]

Cute, but at least Bin Laden and Al-Queda exist. Imagine going to war over something fictitious. Oops, I don't have to imagine.

[Guest]

I see just a mistake: why an attack in Afganistan, when those who striked the WTC were already in the US?
That are my questions (I'm just a little ant, I know): why nothing to enforce homeland security has ever done? Why the security has not been enforced in all airports?

An attack anywere outside US would not have avoided 911

[Aslkahuna]

of the post. The point was that if Bush HAD done what the Democrats in this Country are claiming that he should have done in response to the August 6th memo, then the scenario that was postulated would have been a realistic one. We are in the midst of a Political campaign between two men who are not deserving of being President (though one is) and two Parties incapable of properly governing this Country and the American people by and large either lack the cojones or knowledge to turn them both out because in large part due to the manipulation of what we are told by the media on both sides of the political spectrum. This is why I advocate voting NO for President if a third choice (other than Nader) is not available.

Steve

[Guest]

of the post. The point was that if Bush HAD done what the Democrats in this Country are claiming that he should have done in response to the August 6th memo, then the scenario that was postulated would have been a realistic one. We are in the midst of a Political campaign between two men who are not deserving of being President (though one is) and two Parties incapable of properly governing this Country and the American people by and large either lack the cojones or knowledge to turn them both out because in large part due to the manipulation of what we are told by the media on both sides of the political spectrum. This is why I advocate voting NO for President if a third choice (other than Nader) is not available.

Steve

In a swing state the ramifications of what you are suggesting are catastrophic. Sure, I don't care much for Kerry either, but certainly re-electing Bush would be far worse, hence the lesser of two evils scenario.

[Guest]

In a swing state the ramifications of what you are suggesting are catastrophic. Sure, I don't care much for Kerry either, but certainly re-electing Bush would be far worse, hence the lesser of two evils scenario.

Can you tell me that you'd actually feel safe under Kerry's leadership? Bush is dealing with a very delicate situation and I think that the transfer of power to someone else would put the American people in a very vulnerable state. Just my opinion.
...Jennifer...

[Rainband]

Can you tell me that you'd actually feel safe under Kerry's leadership? Bush is dealing with a very delicate situation and I think that the transfer of power to someone else would put the American people in a very vulnerable state. Just my opinion.
...Jennifer...

I agree... I wouldn't feel safe with our security or our money.

[Guest]

Can you tell me that you'd actually feel safe under Kerry's leadership?
...[/quote]



yes, safer.

Bush appears to be a man defeated, confused and without confidence.

[Rainband]

Can you tell me that you'd actually feel safe under Kerry's leadership?



yes, safer.

Bush appears to be a man defeated, confused and without confidence.

Just becasue he isn't as good speaker doesn't mean he isn't a good leader.

[Stephanie]

I don't feel confident in President Bush's stewardshp of our money either. I think having a deficit is very irresponsible and we're just going to have to pay for our spending later (i.e. more taxes).

I thought about your post Anthony on the way home. I think that if the August 6, 2001 memo had evidence of terroristic threats for September 11, I really don't think that we would've attacked another country (or attacked within Afghanistan without permission, etc.) in order to get Osama. I think that if our information was as good as it should've been, then the rank and file within the FBI, and CIA would've already been taking care of "taking him out". They probably would've have contacts within that country to help them with it and had already been in contact with the country's government about what might happen. Maybe I'm being alittle naive as far as how the FBI handles (or should handle) counter terrorism. The whole world knows about Al Qaeda and the attacks that they've already made in previous years.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that the above scenerio would've played out the way you have it, IMHO.

[CaluWxBill]

I don't feel confident in President Bush's stewardshp of our money either. I think having a deficit is very irresponsible and we're just going to have to pay for our spending later (i.e. more taxes).

I thought about your post Anthony on the way home. I think that if the August 6, 2001 memo had evidence of terroristic threats for September 11, I really don't think that we would've attacked another country (or attacked within Afghanistan without permission, etc.) in order to get Osama. I think that if our information was as good as it should've been, then the rank and file within the FBI, and CIA would've already been taking care of "taking him out". They probably would've have contacts within that country to help them with it and had already been in contact with the country's government about what might happen. Maybe I'm being alittle naive as far as how the FBI handles (or should handle) counter terrorism. The whole world knows about Al Qaeda and the attacks that they've already made in previous years.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that the above scenerio would've played out the way you have it, IMHO.

I am not sure I understand deficit spending that well, but it is kind of a tax on the value of your dollar. the more deficit spending the weaker the dollar, therefore I don't think you will necessarily get taxed more in the future, only a rebound in the economy will truely balance the budget.

[Stephanie]

You're right Caluwx!

[mf_dolphin]

I don't feel confident in President Bush's stewardshp of our money either. I think having a deficit is very irresponsible and we're just going to have to pay for our spending later (i.e. more taxes).

I thought about your post Anthony on the way home. I think that if the August 6, 2001 memo had evidence of terroristic threats for September 11, I really don't think that we would've attacked another country (or attacked within Afghanistan without permission, etc.) in order to get Osama. I think that if our information was as good as it should've been, then the rank and file within the FBI, and CIA would've already been taking care of "taking him out". They probably would've have contacts within that country to help them with it and had already been in contact with the country's government about what might happen. Maybe I'm being alittle naive as far as how the FBI handles (or should handle) counter terrorism. The whole world knows about Al Qaeda and the attacks that they've already made in previous years.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that the above scenerio would've played out the way you have it, IMHO.

I have to disagree Stephanie. There had been an Executive order to take out Osama but it hadn't worked. One of the biggest cuts in the intelligence community was in HUMINT or human intelligence. The bottom line is we didn't have the human assets on the ground to take out Osama. I do agree that we wouldn't have attacked Afganistan even if we had dead proof of the 9-11 plans. Only an event of the nature of 9-11 enabled that to take place.

As far as deficit spending, keep in mind the utter devastation to the economy brought on by 9-11 and the corporate scandals. You add to that the cost of war in Afganistan an Iraq and you have today's problem. While the tax cuts added to the deficit I think time will prove that they gave the economy the push it needed. All the other economic indicators have been on the upswing. If the job recovery (usually the last to recover) the tax revenues will come and without raising the tax burden. Just my 2 cents

[Stephanie]

I know that the problems with our economy pretty much originated with 9/11. We need time to recover. However, I believe that we just added to the burden of the economy's recovery by the huge bill we added due to the wars. We probably would've been in a deficit or let's say we would've wiped out the surplus, if we kept the taxes the way they were.

To add what I said about handling Osama bin Laden if we had better information, I guess I had also assumed that the system was more efficient, therefore, the human resource issue would've been a non-issue. Simplistic - yes.

[Aslkahuna]

most Economists will tell you that the economy was already going south in 2000 but that 9-11 just added a body blow at the wrong time. I cashed in my Mutual Fund where I was holding funds for my son's College expenses six months early in January 2000 because I was not enthusiastic about where things were headed at the time-turned out to be a wise choice.

Steve

[Stephanie]

You're right Steve - 9/11 just quickened the fall.

[vbhoutex]

Can you tell me that you'd actually feel safe under Kerry's leadership?
...

yes, safer.

Bush appears to be a man defeated, confused and without confidence.[/quote]

SAY WHAT???? Where did you come up with that?? I have not seen anything resembling that!!!

Another thing is that the CIA and FBI have been hogtied by overegulation by the government for about the last 15 years!! A lot of the scenarios we've seen these COWARDS carrying out would have never happened, IMO, if they had been allowed to do their job porperly!! The people that were doing the wrong things within those organizations should have been dealt with, NOT THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS!!!!