What IF: 9/11 Hadn't Happened?

[Seeker]

Let's say the passengers overpowered them...or they got arrested in a Florida stripclub...or whatever...

Chronologically:
-Giuliani would still have a ****ty reputation like he did right before 9/11

-there would be no 'war presidency' farce, and Katrina would still have happened. Plus, all the focus would be on Bush's domestic policies like NCLB.

-That being the case, would Bush have won the election?

-On the other hand, without Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Iraq, etc etc people would have less of an opportunity to see how unrelatingly evil Bush and neocons (ie. the kristol kagan krauthammer etc group) therefore not mobilizing popular opinion against the Bu****es.

-We'd still have the Taliban in Afghanistan, blowing up statues and killing women

-Saddam Hussein: Tough call. In my opinion, the Bu****es would simply have found another excuse to invade, like Saddams monkeying around with inspectors and oil for food, etc. However, they might have done an 'in and out' invasion, just going in, putting in a more acceptable CIA backed strongman on a shorter leash with some kind of BS elections for 'legitimacy' and then pulled back to Kuwait and waited on events...

[Ecthy]

Would London still have happened, Madrid? Why shouldn't there be another attempt at a terrorist act, less likely to be prevented for a lack of HomeLand Security? Might it not all start a bit later?

Apart from these thoughts, I think the chances of a Bush re-election in 2004 are substantially lower, what with the economic low during those years after 2000 (more cyclical than 9-11 related).

[Patroklos]

Saddams monkeying around with inspectors

That was a reason for going in, for those of us who bothered to listen to the actual speeches and not the snipets on the news.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That was a reason for going in, for those of us who bothered to listen to the actual speeches and not the snipets on the news.

But it was the supposed al-Queda connection, combined with the completely bogus 15-minute launch capability, that was used to discredit those who opposed the assault on the inspectors issue only.

Let's not forget that even though Saddam was monkying around with the inspectors, this did not result in stockpiles of WMD.

[Ned]

IMHO, Bush could not have gotten public support for the war without 9/11. Albright said the same thing during testimony. Clinton wanted to invade, but he knew he couldn't do it because he could not get the votes in Congress. She said everything changed because of 9/11.

The mood of the American people was pro-war after 9/11. It wasn't before 9/11 and is not now. Iraq happened because of 9/11 even if Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ned
IMHO, Bush could not have gotten public support for the war without 9/11. Albright said the same thing during testimony. Clinton wanted to invade, but he knew he couldn't do it because he could not get the votes in Congress. She said everything changed because of 9/11.

The mood of the American people was pro-war after 9/11. It wasn't before 9/11 and is not now. Iraq happened because of 9/11 even if Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks.

I didn't hurt that there were stong implications coming from the adminstration that Saddam was behind 9/11. The majority of the U.S. believed this until very recently, despite repeated Bush post-invasion denials that Saddam had anything to do with it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I didn't hurt that there were stong implications coming from the adminstration that Saddam was behind 9/11. The majority of the U.S. believed this until very recently, despite repeated Bush post-invasion denials that Saddam had anything to do with it.

Bull.

Crap.

Nonsense.

Propaganda.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That was a reason for going in, for those of us who bothered to listen to the actual speeches and not the snipets on the news.

yeah, and then there were those of us who looked at the evidence behind those speeches, ie. actions behind the words...

Did you know that all of the USA's supposed "rock-solid", "slam dunk" evidence of Iraq's existing WMD's were proven to be forgeries within 80 hours of their presentation in the UN?

But that didn't matter now did it, because some people were too busy proclaiming the superiority of their cause because they had loyally listened to lie-filled speeches in full instead of just their compilations.

Upcoming: Vicious ad hominem from Patroklos, who still hasn't figured out that there weren't any evidence of WMD and Iraqi government did comply with the inspectors right before the invasion, like the weapons inspector team said. Oh Patro, what would we do in these Iraq threads without you There would be a consensus of reality, and that would be dreadfully boring because it'd give us an opportunity to look forward instead of bickering over what has happened in the past.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Ned


Bull.

Crap.

Nonsense.

Propaganda.

You mean the "leaked" lies of the Bush administration that there were strong links between Saddam and Osama, and the seemingly never-ending ramblings of Dick Cheney in TV shows where he parroted the "Saddam has definite ties with al-Qaeda" talking point ad infinitum? Yeah, it was. What's even more terrible is the revisionist history the tools and puppets of this administration are so blindly taking part of right now, trying to pretend that none of this ever happened

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Bull.

Crap.

Nonsense.

Propaganda.

You.

Are.

An.

Absolute.

Moron.

[Odin]

Bush would of lost in 2004 because there was no war to distract from the sluggish economy and the destruction of the middle class via outsourcing.

[GePap]

The only two things that are easy to predict without 9/11 is that there would have been no invasion of Iraq to remove the Hussein regime.

What matters more in determinating the other differences is why 9/11 does not happen - is the plot never hatched? or is it discovered and the hijackers rounded up? Or is it attempted, but fails?

[Ned]

Originally posted by VJ

You mean the "leaked" lies of the Bush administration that there were strong links between Saddam and Osama, and the seemingly never-ending ramblings of Dick Cheney in TV shows where he parroted the "Saddam has definite ties with al-Qaeda" talking point ad infinitum? Yeah, it was. What's even more terrible is the revisionist history the tools and puppets of this administration are so blindly taking part of right now, trying to pretend that none of this ever happened

Now, this is all true. The admin tried to show links between AQ and Saddam to support its argument that Saddam's possession of WMD was a threat to the US because he could give them to AQ. Cheney did emphasize the purported discussion between on of the AQ 'jackers and Saddam's intelligence in Czechoslovakia, IIRC, but to support the point that Saddam and AQ had contacts and were working together.

Neither Bush nor Powell nor Rice ever argued that we needed to go after Saddam because he was behind 9/11, nor do I recall the administration ever saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. The opponents of the admin, including the NYT, said that the 9/11 commission had "refuted" the administrations claims of an operational link between Saddam and AQ. The problem with this is that the administration never claimed an operational link, but contacts and possible support, which the 9/11 commission agreed the evidence supported.

What it comes down to is that there are repeated accusations that Bush lied to us about Saddam being behind 9/11, when Bush never claimed this at all. It is pure BS. It is pure crap. It is propaganda.

The next time someone says this, I would like a direct quote from Bush or Powell and not from an anti-Bush source.

[mrmitchell]

Bush - 9/11 = No reelection. I guarantee it.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Now, this is all true. The admin tried to show links between AQ and Saddam to support its argument that Saddam's possession of WMD was a threat to the US because he could give them to AQ. Cheney did emphasize the purported discussion between on of the AQ 'jackers and Saddam's intelligence in Czechoslovakia, IIRC, but to support the point that Saddam and AQ had contacts and were working together.

Neither Bush nor Powell nor Rice ever argued that we needed to go after Saddam because he was behind 9/11, nor do I recall the administration ever saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. The opponents of the admin, including the NYT, said that the 9/11 commission had "refuted" the administrations claims of an operational link between Saddam and AQ. The problem with this is that the administration never claimed an operational link, but contacts and possible support, which the 9/11 commission agreed the evidence supported.

What it comes down to is that there are repeated accusations that Bush lied to us about Saddam being behind 9/11, when Bush never claimed this at all. It is pure BS. It is pure crap. It is propaganda.

The next time someone says this, I would like a direct quote from Bush or Powell and not from an anti-Bush source.

The Bush Administration never openly said Saddam had something to do with 9/11, but their lackeys on Faux Nooze and AM talk radio pushed that BS as hard as they could. I STILL run into ignorant morons that think Sadarm was involved in 9/11 and that meme surely didn't pop out of thin air.