If you were president in 2001, how would you have handled the situation? Would you have invaded Iraq?

I would've built up the military, because a lot of people wanted to help and were volunteering for it.





I don't have all the information that Bush had during that particular time, I'll admit, and I don't think we should be in Iraq right now. However, I do strongly believe that we should support our troops, and every country has their problems.





I wouldn't have invaded Iraq. The problem is with Al-Queda, not Iraq. If Clinton and the head of the CIA had done their job (Al-Queda's been around since the 1990's at least), and gotten rid of Al-Queda before they become a threat to us, this would've NEVER happened. They had at least 3 chances to get Osama in the 90s but either the head of the CIA backed out, or Clinton backed out.If you were president in 2001, how would you have handled the situation? Would you have invaded Iraq?
With the information that was available back then, yes, I would have invaded Iraq. I don't buy the Bush lied bull. Was the Intelligence faulty? Seems like it. But when you have as many people around the world believing what you believe recieving as much supportive evidence as was available, you've got to act.


I would have handled the war differently. If you are going to do something do it right. Unfortunately, Bush tried to appease the Democrats and Naysayers by doing it on the cheap. We're paying for it now.





Hindsight is 20/20. People who say we shouldn't have gone it, blah, blah blah, are not geniuses. It's easy to say it's wrong, get out, etc.If you were president in 2001, how would you have handled the situation? Would you have invaded Iraq?
Hell no!





19 Saudi Muslims hijacked 4 planes and attacked what they considered to be the nerve centers of our economic and political power structure.





The most appropriate response would have been to retaliate swiftly and succinctly by carpet bombing Mecca (a saudi city which is the heart of the muslim religion) flat to the ground with bombs made of pig fat.





No ground troops necessary.





Once we made it clear that no target (religious or otherwise) is off our ';politically incorrect'; list, there would be no further terror attacks against Americans anywhere in the world.


.
I wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I would have sent 100,000 troops into Afghanistan and hunted Bin Laden down until we killed him.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Had I had the faulty intelligence the President had, I would have considered an invasion but only with significant support from allies and a comprehenive plan of rebuilding the country with full UN support and creating a peaceful Iraq, something Bush never considered.
the problem was that after we deposed saddam we didnt lock the country down and give them their rights and freedoms a little at a time as they earned them....we shouldnt ever send our military in to not do a full, complete job of winning...
Probably not. But if I were president during WWII, I probably wouldn't have waited to get into the war until Pearl Harbor.





And by this statement, I mean to say, that the problems in the Middle East have been fomenting for quite some time. We keep having to go back and deal with them.





Iraq is located dead in the middle of the conflict. To me it seems a good place to have a democracy, if possible.
Something had to be done. I would have broken all economic ties to the middle east, but oh yeah the Saudi's own us. Let's just admit that there is no clear cut answer to this question.
The Bushies had formulated the Iraq plan before Bush was elected, as a way to add power to the presidency...which Rove, Bush, Cheney thought had been weakened over the past decades. So, 9/11 had nothing to do with Bush's Iraq invasion. It was a terrible mistake, as Bush is finding out.
The thing I don't understand is that the Afghanistanis were willing to extradite Osama Bin-Laden to the US for trial and President Bush turned them down
Well you are half correct, but you don't know what you are talking about!





7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.





';We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,'; Clinton said during a White House news conference.





But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.





Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.





One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives ';a phony issue.';





Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, ';These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get.';





Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.





The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for ';multi-point'; tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.





Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. ';What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number,'; he said. ';All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number.';





The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. AP





Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.





And you forget that Reagan supplied our enemies with arms (a Crime), and failed to do anything at all but cut and run after 242 Marines were killed in a terrorist bombing in Lebanon!





Invade Iraq? For what? Oil! No I would not. Even President Ford said he would not!
It wasn't Clinton, it was Bush Sr.


But ya, I agree with you.


I think the desicion to invade Iraq was a hasty one based on questionable information. Personnally I would have tried to settle the problem in different ways using war as a last resort.





-S
HELL NO!!** This war was based on many lies! This is not a simple question and I don't know all the details, but I have done some research, watched some videos, read some books, and most of what the mainstream media fed to the public was lies. The official accounts were mostly lies told in order to make it easier for those in control, to further their own agendas.
Well I am not here to be popular, but true to my convictions.





Its hard to say if I would have invaded Iraq. I certainly would have told the truth, I certainly wouldn't of use the excuse of Al-Queda.





I have to say someone had to do something seeing as the UN let Sadaam do as he pleased. I think they were on the right track when England and the US had other nations on their side. It was coincedence that this all came at the same time as 911.





Sadaam didn't comply for 12 years!! Not once, twice but 12 years!!!





Someone had to do something, it was just executed wrong and they should have forced the UN to do something.





They wouldn't though b/c they are useless.
I would of rounded up all the muslims and executed them one by one until Osama give himself up.





Then I would of had him stoned to death by the families of those that died on 9/11,





I would then of made the Muslim faith illegal and turned central park into a concentration camp. Allowing people to round up the remaining muslims and make them work rebuilding the WTC. Kinda like the eqyptians did to the jews. Any that survived would then be burnt to death.
No, I would have bombed the mortal hell out of the palaces in saudi arabia.
I would have sent the troops to Afghanistan where bin Laden and his cronies are hiding. Bush sent the troops to Iraq because he needed an excuse to remove Saddam as part of his personal vendetta. The 9/11 tragedy was all the excuse he needed.
Given all the information available at the time, ours and everybody elses, I would have invaded.


Even Clinton and Kerry said he had WMD's , which he could have supplied to Al-Queda ,Hezbullah or used on his own people


Fact is we're there and the best way to help the Iraqi people and fight the terrorists is to stay until the Iraqis can stand on their own.


Clinton never wanted to get Ben Ladin.


To do so would derail his plans to downsize our military, saying we had peace in the world.
I would have called a massive invasion! I would have told the troops do what you will. After a couple of days of total destruction I would call them out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Then I would send a message to both countries saying ';If you mess with us again we will come back again and again and do the same destruction until you understand not to make that same mistake.'; So if you see your fellow neighbor, brother, or a plain stranger planning an attack be it small or big, slap him on the side of the head and tell them, ';Don't do that the Americans are going to come back and we are going to suffer again!!!!';


We should not be rebuilding two countries that are still at war amongst themselves. Rebuilding comes after the war. And even then why should we pay to rebuild those countries?
I do not know how Bush came into the conclusion to invade Iraq. To me, it seems an incredible leap. I understand the attack on Afghanistan and the Taleban, who really are extremist and a threat- perhaps not to the USA, but to others in the region.





It was a global effort of peacekeeping.





I would've brought attention to the people partly guilty for the deaths at 9/11- after all, the towers should've lasted a hit by an airplane. But they didn't. Odd.





As for policies, I would've suggested that in light of the attacks, Airplanes should be designed keeping in mind hijackings (which weren't a new thing at all) and compulsory background checks for people getting training to fly airplanes.





I would not have highlighted Osama in a particular way, after all, he is not the root cause of any problems. A larger military would certainly not have been on my agenda, but I'd have pushed for more international treaties aiming to identify and control potential terrorists- whether they be in Europe, the middle east, or the USA. They'd be either condemned by the criminal law of their country of residence or sent to Haag.





Iraq would've been on my agenda. However, Since Iraq after the Afghan war, was surrounded by Nato forces even more than ever before, I would've been comfortable with pressing any and all reforms I wanted down Saddam's throat, in the name of preventing terrorism.





Still, Palestine would've been a more pressing issue. I do not see that Isreal has any choice in opposing the repatriation of Palestinians, and would've pushed for a real integration... A Palestine-Israel, or Israel-Palestine. If Israelites fear having muslims in their midst, they'd be welcome to move to my country. That is the only real legal and ethical solution.





I wouldn't have lost the world's backing, and I certainly would've gone further than Mr Bush.
Invading Iraq was a great mistake, because they killed a lot of civilian and destroyed homes of many people. It wasn't worth it. If i was the president of USA.. I would even think of invading Iraq.





I think USA attacked Iraq and Afghanistan because they wanted Oil, which was beneath the soil of iraq and afganistan.


This is a conspiracy, and the senate of USA is behind all this.
If I were President in 2001 I believe the Terrorist attack never would have happened. Bush was working with Ben laden and his group to let it happen. So was daddy Bush Sr. They both have a higher agenda and obviously that is not helping the American people. It would have been better to shoot down the Airliners than to have let them slam into the buildings in my opinion. Sure 2 air liners is horrible but losing the twin towers....
This is a tough questions and you have received some great answers. Personally, I think that not getting nations on our side was a huge mistake. The sanctions on Iraq had long been a joke. Something had to be done. Any nations taking ';kick backs'; for the food for oil program should have been disqualified from the UN. Period. I think that Bush had information that we as the public were not privy too and he did the best he could with what he had. Saying that he did it because of unfinished business by his father is silly. I'm not saying he did the right thing, but I don't know if anyone in his position would have done anything different. I do think other nations were more dangerous than Iraq. Our first and major goal should have been getting Bin Laden quickly and with more troops. Only after Bin Laden was captured should we have moved into other areas. We should have used the full force of our military and swiftly taken out suspected terrorists, not put them in prison. Remember how many people we lost on 911? We are being to soft on a very hard problem. Any other nation would have used every force necessary (including our forces!) to retaliate. The problem is many countries are so jealous of our success they were glad we finally got what they felt we deserved. Although none would say this publicly. Many nations think we are bullies, until they need our aid or our troops.
I would of nuked afghansatn and saudi arabia and dared some one to protest