How would Clinton have handled 9/11?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-08-03 05:33am

Imagine that through some act of Q, Clinton scores another term in the Oval Office.

How would he have responded to the events of 9/11?

Would it even have happened?

Most people I know say he would act "better than Bush", whatever that means. Thought I'd get a different people's opinion.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-08-03 07:15am

Gandalf wrote:How would he have responded to the events of 9/11?

Would it even have happened?

Most people I know say he would act "better than Bush", whatever that means. Thought I'd get a different people's opinion.

Invading Afghanistan is a minimum response, Iraq is absolutely an option since there would be far more pressure on Clinton to do something than there was on Bush. Clinton would have administered nearly a decade of escalating terrorist activities culminating in the WTC strike, he could never afford to get away with more lame and ineffective cruisemissile strikes.
Would WTC happen? IMPO yes, it is hard to defend against an attack you never seriously imagined the enemy would or could carry out.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-08-03 07:26am

I think Clinton might have paid a little more attention to the terrorist activities to begin with. He tended to listen to advisors.

This does not mean the WTC would not have happened.

I can see Clinton doing this
1- Afghanistan would rapidly come under attack. However, Clinton was fairly good at the diplomacy game. I can see him offering to give the Taliban what they wanted in exchange for as many Al Qadia members as they could hand over. (i.e recognizing the Taliban as the legit rulers of Afghanistan), and then going in and beating the tar out of them. Either that or commando raids to round them up. Whether this would have worked is another story. The end result would still be Afghan as is is now.

2- Iraq: I can see slick-Willy, if he'd decided to go after Iraq, handling it different, and maybe talking Saddam into being more co-operative. (After all, AFAIK, Saddam didn't dislike Clinton the way he did the Bush family).
i.e: "Okay Saddam, you are saying you are clean. Problem is, no one believes you. But I'm a fair man. You let the armies in to occupy everything with your permission and to sort for the WMD everyone thinks you have, and there is no need for a war. We don't find them by the end of my term and full co-operation, we pull them out and the sanctions are lifted." (Note: I think anyone with a brain would have tried this). If Saddam says 'No way', it looks like he's hiding something. If he says yes, they peacefully take over Iraq's infrastructure etc, arrest Saddam, and tell the Iraqi army "you work for us until we get the new government elected".

Either that, or he has another affair to distract everyone with.

"Clinton found in bed with ...."

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-08-03 12:10pm

The 9/11 commission would find out about all the chances he had to kill or catch Bin Laden that he passed up, the Monica Missiles, and we would be looking at Clinton vs. George W. Bush with Clinton's approval rating hovering in the high 10's.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-08-03 12:10pm

Strike the Monica MIssiles.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-03 12:41pm

1: Afghanistan is ABSOLUTELY a necessity. The invasion and conquest of Afghanistan came straight out of the national policy playbook that's been in use for decades and absolutely would not have varied from president to president. If 9/11 had happened in 1997, American troops would have been controlling Afghanistan by early 1998. However, I don't believe that Clinton would have - indeed, I doubt he COULD have - fumbled the ball afterward as badly as Bush did. Without the internal psychological mandate to invade and occupy Iraq, the major foreign policy objective for the rest of his term would have been catching and dismantling Al-Qaeda and converting Afghanistan into a livable nation.

2: Iraq is a non-issue for Clinton because his presidency doesn't demand continual warfare against some third-world shithole as a major feature. Flip Saddam a few more Tomahawks to make sure he knows his place in the world, but otherwise let him sit and stew in his own impotence.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-08-03 01:25pm

9/11 would still have happened. Given the way administration & bureaucracy works there's little chance the intel & info would've gotten to anyone who could do something about it, and more importantly there wouldn't be enough motivation & time to take action.

Afghanistan, yes it would've been invaded, but I don't think there'd be any more success than the current operation. Rather, I think it would be worse, most likely ending up the way Somolia did with ill-defined mission objectives, failed ops, and a withdraw in embarrassment after a year or 2. In the end it'll be a complete total goatfuck.

Iraq wouldn't happen, it would be handled diplomatically and there'd be various concessions and promises, in other words, status quo.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2004-08-03 02:13pm

I am not so sure that Clinton would have invaded Afgahnistan, but instead just sent a few tomahawks and bombing runs from carriers. After all how many times were US installations attacked in his terms that he responded with anything more than that? And he certainly would have not gone anywhere near Iraq, because well he would take the war on terrorism as seriously as Bush has.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-03 02:15pm

I think everyone agrees 911 wouldve happened anyway. So moving along...

Afghanistan would've gone down, i think, much the same as in our present. The main difference being probably more airstrikes and dependance on diplomacy than outright fighting on the ground, what little their was since the Northern Alliance did most of the work of plowing through the Taliban IIRC.

Iraq would NEVER have happened. Period. Clinton had no reason to attack Iraq, neither did Bush but i wont get into that right now, so most likely he would fling a few hundred more cruise missiles up Saddam's ass per year than usual just to say "Dont get any qute ideas, mmkay?"

There would be vastly fewer protestests and much less animosity in America, if any at all, since most of it sprung from the war in Iraq.

And this 'war on terror' stuff wouldve been much shorter and more precise. As it is, it seems to have no end in sight, and even the talking heads, the conservitive ones anyway, have started talking about a 'never ending battle against terror'. Clinton, i think, wouldve been smart enough to send one big message to the terrorists, like blasting a few of their strongholds to rubble and having their leaders get the needle afterwards, and they would learn who to fuck with and who NOT to fuck with very quickly.

This is all my personal opinion and speculation, obviously.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-08-03 03:13pm

Death from the Sea wrote:I am not so sure that Clinton would have invaded Afgahnistan, but instead just sent a few tomahawks and bombing runs from carriers. After all how many times were US installations attacked in his terms that he responded with anything more than that?

None of the attacks under Clinton's tenure hurt anywhere near as many Americans as the WTC attack.

And he certainly would have not gone anywhere near Iraq, because well he would take the war on terrorism as seriously as Bush has.

Iraq is not related to the war on terror, I don't know why this matters.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-03 03:45pm

Solauren wrote:1- Afghanistan would rapidly come under attack. However, Clinton was fairly good at the diplomacy game. I can see him offering to give the Taliban what they wanted in exchange for as many Al Qadia members as they could hand over. (i.e recognizing the Taliban as the legit rulers of Afghanistan), and then going in and beating the tar out of them. Either that or commando raids to round them up. Whether this would have worked is another story. The end result would still be Afghan as is is now.

I somehow don't think Clinton (who is a skilled diplomat) would be stupid enough to make himself look like such a trecherous backstabber (negotiate with the Taliban to give him Osama in exchange for recognition of their government, then attack anyway). Regardless of what low regard the Taliban already had throughout the West, I doubt such a backstab would sit very well with America's allies. Rather, Clinton would have handled the Taliban much the same way Bush did: Give the them a deadline to hand over Osama, and if they don't comply, they face the consequences.

I doubt the Taliban would be more compliant to this ultimatum regardless of who it came from: Bowing to American ultimatums would have been too much of a humiliation for them, and they probably thought they could defeat the Americans the way the Mujahaddin defeated the Soviets.

Clinton also wouldn't be doing anything like not attacking Afghanistan or pulling out after a few casualties: After 9/11, it would have been political suicide for any president to not go after Afghanistan, or to pull out before the Taliban and their "guests" had been deposed...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-03 05:10pm

Death from the Sea wrote:I am not so sure that Clinton would have invaded Afgahnistan, but instead just sent a few tomahawks and bombing runs from carriers. After all how many times were US installations attacked in his terms that he responded with anything more than that? And he certainly would have not gone anywhere near Iraq, because well he would take the war on terrorism as seriously as Bush has.

One thing Clinton excels at is reading what the people want, and it didn't take a genius to figure out that we wanted blood after 9/11. He would have certainly invaded Afghanistan; that was just required, and every one of his advisers would have told him so.

The PATRIOT Act still probably would've passed. Everyone and his mother in the Senate signed it without even reading it. Such is the way of panic legislation. Whether it would've passed in it's current form is another matter. With a Democratic president, the bill might have been less invasive of civil liberties.

Iraq would've been a non-issue. Clinton's family doesn't have a personal grudge against Saddam Hussein. The focus would likely still be on bin Laden and improving our standing in the Muslim world. I imagine that the rest of the world wouldn't hate us so damn much, as well.

Tzeentch · Post by **Tzeentch** » 2004-08-03 11:52pm

aerius wrote:9/11 would still have happened. Given the way administration & bureaucracy works there's little chance the intel & info would've gotten to anyone who could do something about it, and more importantly there wouldn't be enough motivation & time to take action

I'm not positive about that. I watched an interview with Richard Clark in which he claimed that intel reports during the Clinton administration indicated that Al-Qaeda was planning something; Clinton put everyone on high alert and had daily briefings and joint discussions with FBI and CIA for something like two months, whereupon a bunch of al-qaeda operatives were caught in the U.S. trying to pull something. It didn't get a ton of coverage because it was a non-event; the day was quietly saved.

There's obviously no guarantee that Clinton would have stopped 9-11, but it is certainly a possibility.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-04 12:11am

One of the big problems that allowed 9/11 to occur was fragmentation and division among the CIA, FBI and NSA. They don't share all the intelligence they have with each other, and agents working for one agency on a specific mission don't necessarily have access to relevant intel gathered by the other two. This problem existed in administrations well before Saint Bush The Second came along.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-08-04 01:51am

Just something to remember.

The term "regime change", was developed in the Clinton Presidency. I doubt he would have attacked Iraq in the circumstances Bush did, although if some kind of conspiracy theory links Saddam to Al Queda, he probably would have.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-04 02:00am

PainRack wrote:Just something to remember.

The term "regime change", was developed in the Clinton Presidency. I doubt he would have attacked Iraq in the circumstances Bush did, although if some kind of conspiracy theory links Saddam to Al Queda, he probably would have.

To add to that, Clinton also signed the Iraq Liberation Act (HR 4655) in '98, essentially making it the official policy of the US government to work toward deposing Saddam.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-08-04 02:23am

Ma Deuce wrote:
PainRack wrote:Just something to remember.

The term "regime change", was developed in the Clinton Presidency. I doubt he would have attacked Iraq in the circumstances Bush did, although if some kind of conspiracy theory links Saddam to Al Queda, he probably would have.
To add to that, Clinton also signed the Iraq Liberation Act (HR 4655) in '98, essentially making it the official policy of the US government to work toward deposing Saddam.

Working toward deposing Saddam != If anything happens on Earth or elsewhere that creates a major demand for change in US policy, attack Iraq.

Bush's stance on Iraq reminds me of Germany's stance on France before WWI, they're plan for war in any theatre called for an invasion of France. Serbia is at war with Germany = Invade France. The problem with this is the clusterfuck it caused.

Clinton never showed as much intention to mislead the public on policy/warfare issues. He didn't use the least amount of excuse to mobilize forces, push policy through congress. He was effective as a leader.

I see him handling Afghanistan through a fast invasion, heavy involvement of special forces to track down Al Qaida members in Afghanistan as fast as possible, before they skipped country. He would have opened diplomatic ties to Pakistan, this was inevitable. Clinton would have pushed harder when bin Laden wasn't found right away and eventually would have found him, in my opinion. Iraq wouldn't come up; Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc would have come under duress(read sanctions) for harboring terrorists. Clinton's ability to work with foreign opinion and gain aproval abroad would have kept the US in warm relations with planet Earth. His sanctions would have gotten him in trouble with the far Left, but they aren't his base. His base are the middle class who saw deficits start to disappear and their bank accounts flourish with his conservative fiscal policy.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-04 03:03am

I see him handling Afghanistan through a fast invasion, heavy involvement of special forces to track down Al Qaida members in Afghanistan as fast as possible, before they skipped country. He would have opened diplomatic ties to Pakistan, this was inevitable. Clinton would have pushed harder when bin Laden wasn't found right away and eventually would have found him, in my opinion.

Even under Clinton, the war in Afghanistan would be fought the almost exactly the same as it was in reality: up unto the partial pullout from Afghanistan for the Iraq war, that is. This is where the war in Afghanistan in the Clinton timeline starts to look different from the real-life war.

So, in other words, the only thing Clinton would have done to make bin Laden's capture more likely is that he would not have gone into Iraq, and thus no troops would have been diverted away from Afghanistan. I really don't see how or why the military would have conducted the initial invasion of Afghanistan in a different fashion than they did in reality.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-04 03:25am

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Clinton never showed as much intention to mislead the public on policy/warfare issues. He didn't use the least amount of excuse to mobilize forces, push policy through congress. He was effective as a leader.

Erm,. it's funny how everyone forgets that little war in 1999.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-04 03:33am

MKSheppard wrote:
SyntaxVorlon wrote:Clinton never showed as much intention to mislead the public on policy/warfare issues. He didn't use the least amount of excuse to mobilize forces, push policy through congress. He was effective as a leader.
Erm,. it's funny how everyone forgets that little war in 1999.

Clinton had UN sanction to go in there (actually, more like "begging"), so if there was any distortion of the situation, it was the UN, not him.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-04 03:33am

Falkenhayn wrote:The 9/11 commission would find out about all the chances he had to kill or catch Bin Laden that he passed up, the Monica Missiles, and we would be looking at Clinton vs. George W. Bush with Clinton's approval rating hovering in the high 10's.

Which legitimate chances did he have to catch or kill Bin Laden? Or are you suggesting that he should have launched full-scale invasions instead of using cruise missiles?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-04 03:46am

MKSheppard wrote:Erm,. it's funny how everyone forgets that little war in 1999.

Yes that war was a clusterfuck, and yes, it is not recognized as such widely enough: but unlike Iraq, not a single American died in that war, and thus regardless of the faulty premises for that war, the American public can more easily live with it: That certainly doesn't make it easier for the Serbs who were killed or evicted from ther homes in Kosovo by KLA thugs as a result of that war, who (as Wong said) really have the UN, not Clinton to thank for their misery...

Darth Wong wrote:Clinton had UN sanction to go in there (actually, more like "begging"), so if there was any distortion of the situation, it was the UN, not him.

Not just the UN: The European members of NATO were pressuring the US to "fulfill their treaty obligations" and get militarly involved over there (because of course, they were totally incapable of doing anything about it themselves)...

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2004-08-04 03:08pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Erm,. it's funny how everyone forgets that little war in 1999.

Yes that war was a clusterfuck, and yes, it is not recognized as such widely enough: but unlike Iraq, not a single American died in that war

Excuse me? Perhaps you forget a certain incident in Modagishu involving Blackhawks and Rangers, and corpses being dragged through the streets...

I wouldn't say that Somalia was entirely bloodless for that reason. It was one of the biggest fuck-ups of the Clinton presidency, and the main reason why I think he would've fucked up Afghanistan and Iraq (his idea of retaliation for the Tanzania bombing? Blowing up a few camels and tents with multimillion-dollar missiles...).

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-04 03:17pm

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Working toward deposing Saddam != If anything happens on Earth or elsewhere that creates a major demand for change in US policy, attack Iraq.

Clinton pointed out in an interview not too long ago that our policy toward Cuba has been one of regime change for fifty years and we haven't done a full-force invasion and conquered Havana.

We DID NOT have to invade Iraq, we should not have invaded Iraq, but we did anyway.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-04 06:03pm

Afghanistan goes the exact same way it did in our time line (OTL). No president with a working brain and a desire not to get impeached (well, impeached again, in this case) would do otherwise. Clinton isn't going to recognize the Taliban, he isn't going to just fling cruise missiles at them, and he's not going to run away after a few casualties. This isn't trying to restore order in some ungrateful piss stain like Somalia. This is crushing the sons of bitches who killed 3000 people and the other sons of bitches who've been giving them cover (who deserved to have their teeth kicked in anyway, unless anyone's forgotten what a sack of shit the Taliban was).

Iraq gets handled a lot differently. I don't think Hussein gets IGNORED. Clinton thinks he's got WMD's even if he's not willing to invade, and after September 11, Hussien doesn't know if Clinton's unwilling to invade, does he? I wouldn't put it past Clinton to put a few divisions in Kuwait in order to convince Hussein letting the inspectors back in is the better option, and I wouldn't put it past Clinton and his successors to keep them there until Saddam shuffles off this mortal coil. Face it, if Bush had done the same thing, we'd all be quietly acknowledging he's a foreign policy genius even if his domestic record isn't so hot, and John Kerry would actually be the palooka everyone thought last year instead of someone with a decent shot at winning the White House.

Now, as for this election coming up: there's no 22nd amendment, and Clinton is still a young enough man to run for a fourth term. There's no war in Iraq, but there is a sagging economy and a deficit (not as big as the one in OTL, but if you don't plan on cutting spending in a recession, that's what you get), the 9/11 commission will have pinned ALL the failures on his administration, the win in Afghanistan will be two years in the past, and...well, after 12 years in office, it's virtually impossible not to have pissed off enough people for one reason or another to give the other guy a plurality. The only reason FDR got away with it was because we were busy kicking the shit out of the Nazis and the Japanese. I think Clinton is too big an egotist to not run (unless he's so burned out he doesn't want too--always a possibility), but I don't think he wins. The liberals will all vote for Nader or stay home--what's this warmongering, compromising son of a bitch done for them lately? And the Republicans will be frothing at the mouth to get rid of him.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How would Clinton have handled 9/11?

How would Clinton have handled 9/11?

Re: How would Clinton have handled 9/11?