If you are unhappy with the President's actions post 9/11...

[Ben F.]

what would you have done differently?

(I realize this is a very vague question, but those of you who think you're hot shit and the president is just a moron behind the wheel, perhaps you could tell us all what you would have done, and why we would be better off. Maybe throw in why your actions would have warranted re-election, if you are up to it, that is)

[jrock5730]

I will be very vague here, but I would have done what I said I was going to do, and thats track down Osama Bin Laden, no matter what it took.

[opiskelija]

of course hindsight is 20/20, but just a couple of things that I would have done differently that are rather consistent of my thoughts since September 11th.

1. A closer scrutiny of the way that intellegence is gathered around the globe and the analysis of it. To some, this will seem quite trechorous, but until the intellegence system was corrected, major decisions with going into a pre-emptive war in Iraq would have to include the intellegence gathered by other UN nations, particularly the IAEA people who were on the ground. Intellegence gathering has been known to be systemically rotten to a great deal and before committing large amounts of forces to something based on intellegence gathered from this group is very dangerous.

2. Concentrate on Afghanistan on the War on Terror. Make sure that that state is rebuilt from being a failed state to some semblance of reality. Compliment this by trying to force the hand of the Europeans to cooperate as much as possible to do this. According to my last calcuation, the EU as a whole has more capacity compared to the US, in terms of number of troops. Make them use their rhetoric of their new rapid response forces. Domestically the leaders would not have had to deal with so much anti-troop commitment. There was to an extent a genuine feeling of goodwill with Europeans towards Americans post-9/11. Use this as an advantage versus spending all of it on Iraq.

3. Pressure on the Russians. There has to be a major shift in US policy towards Moscow away from this idea of the "good tsar" This doesn't mean to criticize on domestic issues, but to take the position that in return for certain trade related issues and consular issues, you will play an active role in dealing with the central asian states and Iran in particular. For the Russians, it is about to an extent, about the money. Easily corruptable and able to be manipulated in this manner.

4. Domestically, there are a few things that could be done differently. One thing concerning foreign nationals that I'm not sure is being done currently with the new fingerprinting program for visas, but to make sure that foreign nationals are not overstaying their visas, make it more difficult for them to get caught. Everytime a hotel room is booked, everytime a credit card purchase is made, a valid passport number is needed and is sent into the large database with the ability to extend this info to local authorities. For those who may criticise this, in the 1980s, the Danish government knew where every foreign national from certain hotspots were in the country, what they were doing, etc.

Just a beginning.

Justifications, for all of this. The primary problem with 9/11 and fighting terrorism is that it is an asymetric form of warfare. Domestically and internationally there was a breakdown in the analysis and gathering of information and an inefficient way of monitoring the borders. Afterward the attack, there had to be more emphasis on real-life intellegence (spies) and the ability to more efficiently process information. The best way to fight terrorism would have then root out the largest hotspot of terrorists and do everything possible to make sure that state did not fail. Remember, having a stable Afghanistan is as important to a stable Pakistan as a stable Iraq is to a stable middleast. Iraq was in some definition, stable. Domestically, there were many tortures and executions from a brutal dictator, but remember in the US around 15000-20000 are murdered. Dictators can be stable and can be bought. There was worldwide sympathy behind the US, particularly in Europe that should have been used in terms of diplomatic pressure globally and military use. The Europeans will be quite good at using the rapid response program, ideal in short quick operations say in Indonesia, the Phillipines, et al. Not Iraq. This was spent by Bush.

[pedelen99]

what would you have done differently?

(I realize this is a very vague question, but those of you who think you're hot shit and the president is just a moron behind the wheel, perhaps you could tell us all what you would have done, and why we would be better off. Maybe throw in why your actions would have warranted re-election, if you are up to it, that is)

- Put every soldier possible into Afganistan until Bin Laden was killed.

- Used the incredible amount of international goodwill we had at the time to develop a true multi-national process to end terrorism and the roots of terrorism.

- Use the same goodwill to force progress towards a solution in the Israeli-Palistine crisis

- Critically looked at the intelligence data on Iraq and asked hard questions about it, and listened to the military experts about how many troops would be needed to secure Iraq.

- Fired the lawyer who wrote a legal brief trying to justify torture.

- Fired the guy who described the Geneva Conventions as 'quaint' and 'outdated'.

- Develop an economic stimulus package to help the economy recover from 9/11

- Spent as much money as it took to harden targets here at home, especially in terms of scanning and inspecting cargo coming into the country.

- Announced a ten year plan to eliminate our dependence on foriegn oil based on the Apollo Project.

- Told the rich people that we're at war, it's time to make some sacrifices for your country, and raised the top tax rates.

- Kicked Karl Rove to the curb and told him that he'd never work in this town again.


Hey, and that's just off the top of my head...

- Phil

[RJ2kWJ]

- Told the rich people that we're at war, it's time to make some sacrifices for your country, and raised the top tax rates.


- Phil
Why not everybody? Why just the rich?

[pedelen99]

Why not everybody? Why just the rich?

a) They got the majority of the tax breaks.

b) In the midst of an economic downturn, increasing taxes on middle & lower classes is not a good idea.

c) I hate those elitist rich bastards


(ps... just kidding about that hate thing...)

- Phil

[RJ2kWJ]

a) They got the majority of the tax breaks.

b) In the midst of an economic downturn, increasing taxes on middle & lower classes is not a good idea.

c) I hate those elitist rich bastards


(ps... just kidding about that hate thing...)

- Phil
Yea but couldnt you look at it that everyone is a citizen who is being protected by this "war" and everyone should foot more $$$$$.

[pedelen99]

Yea but couldnt you look at it that everyone is a citizen who is being protected by this "war" and everyone should foot more $$$$$.

You could, but I wouldn't. You're down to the basic philisophical debate between progressive and regressive taxes. (Although that's a decent debate, and one I'd much rather get involved in than some of the other idiotic ones that seem to be swirling around).

Since this is a 'if you were president' thread, my response would be that I believe in progressive taxes. If you don't agree you should vote for someone else. Or earn less money (but somehow I don't think anyone is going to pick that option)

- Phil

[RJ2kWJ]

You could, but I wouldn't. You're down to the basic philisophical debate between progressive and regressive taxes. (Although that's a decent debate, and one I'd much rather get involved in than some of the other idiotic ones that seem to be swirling around).

Since this is a 'if you were president' thread, my response would be that I believe in progressive taxes. If you don't agree you should vote for someone else. Or earn less money (but somehow I don't think anyone is going to pick that option)

- Phil
Understood...

[Ben F.]

that's it huh, 2 out of all of you kerry supporters are willing to step up to the plate and say what you'd do better?

impressive.

[pedelen99]

that's it huh, 2 out of all of you kerry supporters are willing to step up to the plate and say what you'd do better?

impressive.

I thought you got some decent answers (although my opinion may be biased since one of them was mine). And I'm not sure that other people will just want to repeat what was already written... you have a pretty good capture of what we would do differently. I'm not sure how it makes a difference if 2 people or 200 say the same thing.

- Phil

[SatelliteEyes]

that's it huh, 2 out of all of you kerry supporters are willing to step up to the plate and say what you'd do better?

impressive.


Ever think that not everyone sits around here all day waiting to respond to posts in AM.org?

Anyway...to make it short and sweet.

1 - Increase troops in and around Afghanistan (that means Pakistan as well) in order to track and capture Osama Bin laden and any other known Al-Queda terrorists

2 - Increase the funding for Intelligence, all kinds, focusing on all parts of the world, not looking at Afghanistan w/ blinders. that includes Homeland Security, I'd increase their funding as well.

3. - worked with other nations/allies to build better intelligence community where intelligence of theirs can be shared with us (not necessarily a two way street there, I am not ready to hand over our intelligence to another country unless we make that decision)

4 - Cracked down on countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yeman, etc. that are known to harbor terrorists, even if it meant imposing some sort of sanctions on them in order to get the to comply.

5. continued the strict sanctions on Iraq and increased the amount of UN weapons inspectors sent there to search and keep WMD out of Sadaam Hussein's hands.

but then again I am not a politician and I sure as hell am not a foreign policy expert so....

[Ben F.]

Ever think that not everyone sits around here all day waiting to respond to posts in AM.org?

of course i realize people don't do that. I guess my hope was that in all the mass of kerry support, there would be more than 2 who are bold enough to step up and exemplify their knowledge and expertise, rather than just belittle the president because their position affords them that luxury.

I don't have all the answers, nor do i claim to. but i also don't go around slamming people's decisions without a superior, more effective decision to put in its stead.

it's very easy to find what some would consider 'wrong', but I think it's a little harder to lay it on the line and say what you would do if you had the authority. I applaud the two that did, I am just surprised there aren't more. I'll try to be more patient :)

[SatelliteEyes]

It's cool, I know when I come up with something I think others would find interesting I get impatient for responses as well.

BTW, I can't wait for this election to be over so we can all sit around and agree that 24 is the best show ever....ahhhh those were the days.

[Ben F.]

I thought you got some decent answers (although my opinion may be biased since one of them was mine). And I'm not sure that other people will just want to repeat what was already written... you have a pretty good capture of what we would do differently. I'm not sure how it makes a difference if 2 people or 200 say the same thing.

- Phil
they were decent, phil- and very elaborate-which i appreciate.

if people agree with what you say, hopefully they'll quote you and give you the thumbs up. it's very easy to just hop on someone else's bandwagon. I'm asking people to step up and say what they would do (form their own plan/stance), not how much they like what someone else says they might do.

[clemson357]

I will be very vague here, but I would have done what I said I was going to do, and thats track down Osama Bin Laden, no matter what it took.

:lol yeah, me too. I would have caught Bin Laden, Saddam and his sons, achieved world peace, and then taken a nap after lunch :lol

its just a tiny bit easier said than done. If W couldn't catch Osama I seriously doubt you could have.

[pedelen99]

:lol yeah, me too. I would have caught Bin Laden, Saddam and his sons, achieved world peace, and then taken a nap after lunch

I can't believe you'd take a nap before you balanced the budget and fixed the economy. Slacker...

:)

- Phil

[SatelliteEyes]

:lol yeah, me too. I would have caught Bin Laden, Saddam and his sons, achieved world peace, and then taken a nap after lunch :lol

its just a tiny bit easier said than done. If W couldn't catch Osama I seriously doubt you could have.


Well, we'll never know if W could have caught Osama...he had his eyes on another prize all along. that is why we have so many more troops in Iraq than we do looking for OBL.

[Davenumber40]

I'm a big Bush supporter and here's what I would have done differently:

1. As Phil said, "kick Rove's ass to the curb". Can you believe we agree on something.

2. Done a better job of explaining why Iraq was important. I said the WMD's were a bad reason from the get go because if we didn't come up with a lot of them, we'd be in trouble.

3. Made sure money just wasn't thrown at homeland security. I know several cities here in Kentucky that got homeland money that had no business getting it. I know you all haven't heard of London, Kentucky (population 5,000) so I'm betting it isn't a prime terrorist target.

Just a couple off the top of my head. I still believe Bush is a better man to handle terrorism than Kerry.

[pedelen99]

I'm a big Bush supporter and here's what I would have done differently:

1. As Phil said, "kick Rove's ass to the curb". Can you believe we agree on something.

A sense of ethics - on all sides - would go a long way to making this country a better place.

- Phil

[chevman]

what would you have done differently?

I would have used 9-11 to effect REAL change.

Think about it, what did everyone expect Bush to do? Pretty much what he ended up doing - which was to bomb the bejesus out of Afghanistan first, and then go after Saddam second, all the while offering healthy doses of rhetoric about how this was a conflict between 'right and wrong', us versus the evil-doers, light versus darkness, etc.

If I were him, I would have gotten on TV the night of 9-11, and said, 'look, the western world FAILED tonite, post-modernism failed tonite, capitalism failed tonite, the whole fucking thing we have been working on since the early 1900's has a huge flaw that was exposed by 19 very determined men. We're not sure what's going on over in the Middle East and obviously we have done something to piss some of you off beyond all normal standards of decency. For that we apologize, and we honestly ask your forgiveness in whatever it is that we have done - but we also ask you as fellow human beings and citizens of planet Earth to please stop the violence. We will pledge to do the same, and also pledge to listen to your concerns in a real manner and in a manner that is not directly dependent on your ability to contribute to America's economic well-being.'

After saying that I would have dispatched about $10 billion to enhance and expand the Peace Corps and would have sent American ambassadors to every Middle Eastern country, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked them 'how can we help? Tell us where we are needed and we will help whatever situation it is that is causing all this pain, or if you like we will leave and come back later and ask again.'

The problem with Bush to me is not his credentials or opinions or any of that partisan bullshit you hear on TV every night - it is the fact that he had one of the greatest opportunities in recent history to really, truly change the course of events on our planet and he went and did the exact same thing that everyone who has ever been in a similar situation has done. He sought revenge, he repressed his own people, and to top it all off he refuses to acknowledge the fact that America is here not to serve the will of some false God, but to serve the will of the people of our country and of our Earth. Look at his past and his choice becomes a little more understandable, but no less tragic.

[Davenumber40]

A sense of ethics - on all sides - would go a long way to making this country a better place.

- Phil

Very true. Not to mention I would rather have a conservative who is willing to lose for what they think is right, than Rove. I get the sense that he'll do whatever it takes to give Bush a win.

[DMBSignGuy]

- Put every soldier possible into Afganistan until Bin Laden was killed.

- Used the incredible amount of international goodwill we had at the time to develop a true multi-national process to end terrorism and the roots of terrorism.

- Use the same goodwill to force progress towards a solution in the Israeli-Palistine crisis

- Critically looked at the intelligence data on Iraq and asked hard questions about it, and listened to the military experts about how many troops would be needed to secure Iraq.

- Fired the lawyer who wrote a legal brief trying to justify torture.

- Fired the guy who described the Geneva Conventions as 'quaint' and 'outdated'.

- Develop an economic stimulus package to help the economy recover from 9/11

- Spent as much money as it took to harden targets here at home, especially in terms of scanning and inspecting cargo coming into the country.

- Announced a ten year plan to eliminate our dependence on foriegn oil based on the Apollo Project.

- Told the rich people that we're at war, it's time to make some sacrifices for your country, and raised the top tax rates.

- Kicked Karl Rove to the curb and told him that he'd never work in this town again.


Hey, and that's just off the top of my head...

- Phil

:thumbsup Thats all good stuff there. Would not have invaded Iraq at this time and i think you would not have either. But your answer to it would definitly have been done by me.


Ever think that not everyone sits around here all day waiting to respond to posts in AM.org?

:lol seriously. Some of us have work on a monday. :p

[mosvar]

Vote Bush

[bseitz]

You could, but I wouldn't. You're down to the basic philisophical debate between progressive and regressive taxes. (Although that's a decent debate, and one I'd much rather get involved in than some of the other idiotic ones that seem to be swirling around).

Since this is a 'if you were president' thread, my response would be that I believe in progressive taxes. If you don't agree you should vote for someone else. Or earn less money (but somehow I don't think anyone is going to pick that option)

- Phil
Or shelter your income like Mrs. Kerry and Mr. Edwards.

[nonewdirections]

Vote Bush
i bet that won like ... 5 votes ... ;)

[bseitz]

I can't believe you'd take a nap before you balanced the budget and fixed the economy. Slacker...

:)

- Phil
Don't forget the free healthcare....

[jrock5730]

I would have used 9-11 to effect REAL change.

Think about it, what did everyone expect Bush to do? Pretty much what he ended up doing - which was to bomb the bejesus out of Afghanistan first, and then go after Saddam second, all the while offering healthy doses of rhetoric about how this was a conflict between 'right and wrong', us versus the evil-doers, light versus darkness, etc.

If I were him, I would have gotten on TV the night of 9-11, and said, 'look, the western world FAILED tonite, post-modernism failed tonite, capitalism failed tonite, the whole fucking thing we have been working on since the early 1900's has a huge flaw that was exposed by 19 very determined men. We're not sure what's going on over in the Middle East and obviously we have done something to piss some of you off beyond all normal standards of decency. For that we apologize, and we honestly ask your forgiveness in whatever it is that we have done - but we also ask you as fellow human beings and citizens of planet Earth to please stop the violence. We will pledge to do the same, and also pledge to listen to your concerns in a real manner and in a manner that is not directly dependent on your ability to contribute to America's economic well-being.'

After saying that I would have dispatched about $10 billion to enhance and expand the Peace Corps and would have sent American ambassadors to every Middle Eastern country, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked them 'how can we help? Tell us where we are needed and we will help whatever situation it is that is causing all this pain, or if you like we will leave and come back later and ask again.'

The problem with Bush to me is not his credentials or opinions or any of that partisan bullshit you hear on TV every night - it is the fact that he had one of the greatest opportunities in recent history to really, truly change the course of events on our planet and he went and did the exact same thing that everyone who has ever been in a similar situation has done. He sought revenge, he repressed his own people, and to top it all off he refuses to acknowledge the fact that America is here not to serve the will of some false God, but to serve the will of the people of our country and of our Earth. Look at his past and his choice becomes a little more understandable, but no less tragic.


Best reply yet.

[364041Scott]

As A Kerry supporter my responce is as follows:


President Bush rushed to war without the support of the international community. I agree that we do not need a approval stamp for our actions but support (IMO) has to be there. The war was and is based on faleshoods told to the Amercian people and the international community. This has caused this great nation considerable harm and respect.

Our resources should of been focused in Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden, he is the one that attacked the WTC, not Hussain. The 9/11 comission backed that up.

While the war is quite important, I am concerned about the economy.

President Bush has waged a war on the working middle class. He has gutted overtime rights for millions of amercians, while giving tax breaks to the rich. He has done nothing the help the 43 million Amercians who do not have health care. We the tax payers pay for that with the rising cost of health care. I personally know eldery folks that have to chose between medicine or putting food on their table.

* America has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs and 558,000
information jobs since January 2001.

* Overall, we've had a net loss of more than 1.6 million
private-sector jobs since January 2001.

* 8 million U.S. workers are officially unemployed-14 million
are jobless, underemployed or have given up looking for work.

* 45 million Americans are uninsured-5 million more than in
2000.

* Typical household income fell $1535 between 2000 and 2003.

* 4.3 million more Americans are poor than in 2000.

* Personal bankruptcies rose 33.9 percent between 2000 and 2003.


America has a jobs crisis and a health care crisis. We need a
president who will tackle them. That president is John Kerry.

Scott

[chevman]

Best reply yet.

Thank you.

[bseitz]

Very true. Not to mention I would rather have a conservative who is willing to lose for what they think is right, than Rove. I get the sense that he'll do whatever it takes to give Bush a win.Right. As opposed to Carville, Begala, Greenberg, McCauliffe, Lockhart, etc, etc, etc....

[clemson357]

Well, we'll never know if W could have caught Osama...he had his eyes on another prize all along. that is why we have so many more troops in Iraq than we do looking for OBL.

yeah, and there is no way Osama would ever be in Iraq. I mean, come on, its not like it was one of the biggest terrorist havens in the middle east.