Would you have supported Bush?

It is April 01. Bush addressee's the nation. We have Intel stating that a major terror attack will happen in our country and in order to stop this we need to invade Afghanistan and round up people of middle eastern descent that are here on visa's. Let's be honest now, try to remember where you were in the spring of 01.

that is certainly not the only option they had on the table.

... who are clearly not availing themselves of the full curriculum. And while you're at it how about all people who are not availing themselves of the full curriculum regardless of ethnicity.

but not how it was in reality.

I would have supported (and do support) the war in Afghanistan. I'd like to think I'd be pretty uneasy about rounding up "suspicious" Arabs, though.

Colleen Rowley?

The descent of the people is beside the point. The point is they're in the country on visas planning to attack. The president doesn't even need to announce that, he just needs to act to stop it, abiding by the law as he does it. That's what Clinton did during the Millennium plot crisis. Do you remember any major announcements from the Clinton administration about ME terrorists plots in the US? The Clinton administration handled it beautifully, in my opinion. They took the required steps to halt the actions without creating panic. And all this while the Republicans were trying to get into Bill's pants!

I never found the man to be remotely credible or trustworthy so I would have been skeptical if I had to make a choice based solely on his words. Also, it depends on what the "rounding up" entailed. If other voices besides Bush echoed the same, I would be more inclined to support him. At the time, I still trusted Colin Powell, so if, for instance, he was a big part of presenting the case, the "rounding up" was limited specifically to people who the FBI determined to be threats, and there was an effort to involve our allies (who were given info from the Intelligence community and sharing their own info), then I think I would have supported it. Also, I would think that Clinton would have backed him if he actually went after a real threat to the country. Problem is that there is no way that the * adminstration would have handled any kind of threat in the correct manner.

There were reasons beyond terrorism to intervene in Afganistan. The UN should have taken action there a long time ago, over the treatment of women. I used to always say that there has to be a way to get some ak47s into the hands of Afgan women.

I would still have to answer "no", though. I think that if the world's largest intelligence apparatus was able to pinpoint the exact where and when of a domestic attack, it would be able to pinpoint the "who". Diplomatic channels would have to be exercised prior to invading another country.

I most definitely would not and do not support rounding up people because they are from the Middle East. There is something terribly wrong with treating people as criminals because they belong to a certain religion or ethnic group. I also am not totally convinced that rounding up Middle Easterners is the best way to fight terrorism.

I do not think I would have supported a full invasion of Afghanistan because I remember what happened when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. There is also no guarantee that we would have been able to prevent the attacks or capture Osama bin Laden if we had invaded Afghanistan.

This is not to say that I would have opposed every measure that Bush could have taken to prevent the attacks. I would have supported improving security on any form of public transportation. For example, I would not have opposed improving airline security. I would have supported more rigorous security procedures for passengers and cargo. I also would have favored placing armed federal marshals on the planes. Even before 911, I remember reading about several cases of "air rage" where passengers lost control on airplanes. The federal marshals could have at least discouraged that behavior. I would have favored funding martial arts training for pilots and flight attendants so they could better deal with unruly and dangerous passengers.

I would have supported Bush if he had made Al Qaeda a priority and had used diplomatic measures to find and capture members of Al Qaeda. I would have favored seizing the assets of any and all known supporters of Al Qaeda.

Otherwise HELL NO

gotten the support of most Americans, including mine.

Guess the question should be now should we be doing all the bitching about Bush doing nothing when he wouldnt have received any backing for trying to do something.

During the 2000 election, I was on a message board fighting against the right wing monkeys. It was real nasty...still is (I rarely go over there anymore...an AOL message board) and I got tired of the same old Clinton bashing.

After the election was stolen, I attempted to reach out to a couple of the more approachable of the knuckle-draggers and show some bipartisan good cheer. That lasted all of one day...no sooner did Bunnypants get into office then out came the stories of Clinton trashing the White House (another lie) and I figured these were even worse than spoiled brats and the next two/four years would be a disaster.

I'm proud to say that I never supported this regime...I was one of that proud and few 9% (didn't Bunnypants have a 91% approval rating at one point???) that hated the moron (my wife also is in that group) and I delight in saying a lot of "I told you sos" these days. But I'm not resting, now it's time for us to take the offensive...drive these bastards out completely!

Rounding up all people of Middle Eastern descent would have been unnecessary, as well as stupid. Certain specific characters had already been suspected of being up to no good; they could have been followed, perhaps arrested. Some of them entered the US after that date; they could have been kept out.

A full-scale invasion of Afghanistan would not have been necessary. They should have been trying to get at Osama instead of giving money to the Taliban. The eventual invasion didn't help any of Afghanistan's other problems, either.

Consultation with Clinton's people would have been a good way to deal with the threat.

I think the "rounding up" of Arab suspects could be a little more targeted. But I was already disappointed in our response to the Khobar Towers bombing and the Cole. I'm no Richard Clarke, but I was convinced there was a serious threat to the US from one or more Islamist terrorist movements.

Or rounding up folks on various international terrorist alert lists?

I don't care what people ARE. I care what they've DONE.

why would anyone believe him on that?

This is one of the ways in which Bush has undermined our security.

He has lied so much, that nothing he says is credible. Boy who cried wolf and all...