No. of Recommendations: 1
George Bush was elected in 2000 and took office in 2001. During his first year the World Trade Center was destroyed, and the arc of his presidency and of the country took a totally different direction.

In Clinton's first year in office there was also an attack on the World Trade Center. The plot was to collapse one tower into the other which, during the work day, would have killed 10-20,000 people.

Has anyone thought about what Clinton might have done and how the 1990s would have been different?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 27
"Has anyone thought about what Clinton might have done and how the 1990s would have been different?"

Let's see...he did not invade any countries. He actually fired missles at Bin Laden and missed by minutes (close than we have ever gotten to taking him out). Of course, he was roundly criticized for doing so. After all, no one had heard of Bin Laden at the time.

You are thinking he should have done something differently? I'm thinking things would be different now if Bush had focused on Bin Laden, too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You are thinking he should have done something differently?

With 15,000 dead in New York there would be a lot of pressure to do something.

I once read that Ramsi Yosef of WTC bombing fame had an Iraqi passport. Would there have been more pressure on Saddam than just sanctions?

Would there have been another recession (there had just been one in 1990-91)?

Would the US military cutbacks have been cancelled? If so, California may not of had its housing collapse in the 1990, with prices remaining high.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Awhole lotta "IF's" in there DB

If - "he whose name I shall not speak" had lost the 2000 Supreme's determined election - then we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

How'ya'like that "IF"?

KBM ("If'ed to near death")
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 48
In Clinton's first year in office there was also an attack on the World Trade Center. The plot was to collapse one tower into the other which, during the work day, would have killed 10-20,000 people.

Has anyone thought about what Clinton might have done and how the 1990s would have been different?


Well, the "plot" didn't work. Yes, if the toll had been 20,000 dead, I'm sure something would have been done differently. As it was, the perpetrators were caught, tried in a court (novel concept), convicted, and sent to jail.

At the time no one had heard of Bin Laden. Richard Clarke, the terrorism taskmaster (put in office by Reagan, reappointed by Bush, reappointed by Clinton, dismissed by Bush II) couldn't get the CIA or the FBI to focus on Bin Laden. As he famously says in his book, as late as 1996 the people in the CIA were saying "Bin Laden? Isn't he the payroll guy?"

I'll grant you that the SECOND TIME something happens it gets your attention better than the first time. For example, we find that many of the people who were adamantly opposed to regulation of the mortgage market and the hedge funds have decided to change their minds. That's after LTCM (the first time) and now the rest of them.

So Bush II has "the advantage" in having had a precursor to point to, you know, back in the days when the FBI had 200 guys tracked on finding Monica's Blue Dress and 3 guys in a back room trying to figure out why Arab flyboys were taking pilot lessons, but not caring about "landing." Of course if Bill had complained about that, you and your happy cohorts would have been screaming just as loudly as you did when Clinton DID actually try to get Bin Laden (but failed). You cried not because of the failure, but because he tried at all.

Don't try to rewrite history. Everybody - except you - is smarter than that.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Has anyone thought about what Clinton might have done and how the 1990s would have been different?

Clinton would not have been re-elected in 1996 because he would have responded ineffectually to such an attack.

Bob Dole would have been elected in 1996.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
George Bush was elected in 2000 and took office in 2001. During his first year the World Trade Center was destroyed, and the arc of his presidency and of the country took a totally different direction.

Yes, it did. It gave him the excuse to attack a country that never attacked us. It ruined the US economy, the US dollar and our budget deficit. 5 years after the war started, Bush has still refused to say how he expects his war to be paid for. As of right now, it is financed via credit card. No taxes has been raised to pay for it. I know I'm not going out on a limb when I say that it will be our kids and grandkids that will be forced to deal with the mounting Bush Iraq bill.

In the mean time, Al Queda, the people that actually attacked us, seem to be doing just fine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
George Bush was elected in 2000 and took office in 2001. During his first year the World Trade Center was destroyed, and the arc of his presidency and of the country took a totally different direction.
---
Yes, it did....


So ggiovanni, any thoughts on what might have happened eight years earlier if a much worse attack had occured?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Man o man, you are hell bent on sucking people into a creative exercise to portray Bush's activity as beter than what might have been IF....

Your quest to view the Bush Admin's activities in comparison to 'what might have been' is nothing but a wishful attempt at self-serving revisionism.

You want to search for a non-existent silver lining? You'll probably get more willing participants in your flight from reality on the 'Conservative Ostrich' board.

Face it, DB2, BushBush screwed the pooch.

Reality is a bitch. No amount of 'what if'n' will change that fact. Deal with it.

Think hard about getting a smarter leadership next time around... a leadership that will work to improve our environment, that won't spurn science, that will improve our global relationships, that doesn't pander to the lowest common denominators of our population.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Man o man, you are hell bent on sucking people into a creative exercise to portray Bush's activity as beter than what might have been IF....

You don't get it. I'm not the one obsessed with Bush. It was just a mental exercise.

Here's another one, from the book The Years of Rice and Salt by K.S. Robinson. He imagines an alternative history in which not 30% but 99% of Europe was wiped out by the bubonic plague; in which Europeans have become a curiosity race like the Ainus of Japan. In Robinson's world, China and Islam contend for the domination of the world.

The first ship to reach the New World travel across the Pacific Ocean from China and colonization spreads from west to east. The Industrial Revolution is started by the worlds greatest scientific minds -- in India.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It was just a mental exercise.
________________________________________________________________________

I buy this explanation! Indeed it is a mental exrecise to try assume to be, say, a modern Winston Smith - intellectual, living in a tyranical state, and not rebelling against Big Brother and the Party, and instead fronting the truth for that state, revising history, facts!

... heckuva job drbobbie2!

C.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here's another excercise, if you can stretch your minds a little:

At the first couple of Zionist conferences in the late 1800s there was a debate about whether to settle in Palestine or raise funds to purchase Uganda from the British.

Assuming the British would have agreed, how would that have changed world history? The Arabs would not have the Israelis to blame for their problems. Would they still have problems? How would the Jews and the Ugandans gotten along? Could a million lives have been saved if the Jews had somewhere to go and get out of Hitler's Germany?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
couple of Zionist conferences
_______________________________________________________________________

Assembling to commit a criminal act is a crime in itself! Very much same as conveneing to learn how to fly airplanes but not to learn how to land them is, presumably, a crime. So, ... never mind this 'assuming' business, eh?

Anyway, ... assuming you still wish to front yet another "what if" to a 'from the past scenario', ... at least try to 'streach your mind' a bit more and propose something that - at least vaguely, is worthy consideration? [ ... just a friendly hint!]

C.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
If you want to play "what if"...

What if Saint Reagan had not cancelled the Carter Administration's energy independance programs and policies?

What if 80% of the US' electric generation capacity was nuclear, as France's is? What if the US had dropped it's "no nuke fuel reprossing" policy and what is now regarded as waste was instead a resource? What if cost effective fast breeder reactors were developed to produce even more fuel?

What if there were no SUVs and the only people driving pickup trucks were the ones who really needed the load capacity, while everyone else drives passenger cars that achieve 30mpg or better?

What if the alge developed in the 70s was now farmed on a scale large enough to provide all the diesel required in the US? (iirc, that would require about 100 sq miles of alge ponds)

What if the fall of the Soviet Union removed the last reason to care at all about the ME?

What if there were no terrorists, no Iraqi "WMDs", no Iranian nuke program, because noone wanted ME oil any more, so there were no oil profits to siphon off to fund those activities and everyone in the ME was back to hearding goats?

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It ruined the US economy-ggiovanni
Ok, then explain why total revenue has increased, not decreased.

Revenues

2001 1,991.4
2002 1,853.4
2003 1,782.5
2004 1,880.3
2005 2,153.9
2006 2,407.3
2007 2,568.2

http://cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Joe
Debunker of liberal economic nonsense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok, then explain why total revenue has increased, not decreased.

Population and inflation increases????
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok, then explain why total revenue has increased, not decreased.

Population and inflation increases????-sano

Revenue growth 28.96%
Population growth 6.1%
Inflation 17% (bls.gov-inflation calculator)

http://cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
http://cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In addition to the other data I've sighted, the amount of taxable income not subject to income taxes has increased, due to increases in the personal exemption standard deduction has been increased.

Joe
A tax preparer for over thirty years
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement