A prophet has no honor in his own land, & I get no respect on the SDMB.
Well, then…times have changed!!
Today, after Hurricane Katrina, after the search for bin Ladin is all but abandoned, after seeing the ever-deepening sinkhole that is Iraq, & the ethical & Constitutional questions raised about the Administration, I ask again…
Would George W. have given a damn if the victims of the 9/11 attack, & those endangered by the attack, had mostly been the poor & powerless, rather than stock brokers, commodities brokers, generals & the US Congress?**
If any President were to ignore an Al Qaeda attack on American soil that killed nearly 3000 people, that President’s approval rating would be exactly zero. Maybe his mom would still approve of the job he was doing, but that would be it. Congress would find some pretext for impeachment and removal, and most representatives of the President’s own party would be fine with it.
I don’t particularly like George Bush, but I doubt if a massive terrorist attack on America would leave him personally unmoved, regardless of where it took place.
Do you seriously think he didn’t? I mean, really, do you think he didn’t care? Is that what you’re saying? I know you’re just asking a question, but your question sure seems to assume a specific answer…
Assuming Shrub is not a Cylon meatbag, I don’t think the actual target would matter. The point is a foreign attack on American soil. Even if the planes targeted the NAMBLA headquarters, the President has to respond.
Ah, the Cylons. I’ll join you guys over in the BSG thread as soon as I re-watch it. I did watch it late last night, but alas, that was after consuming too many adult beverages and I don’t remember a damn thing about it!
As for the OP’s poll, yes I think the response would’ve been the same if al Qaeda flew four planes into four different housing projects killing 3,000 poor people. We might have been a bit confused, because terrorists don’t usually just blow up a bunch of poor people to make a point, but I think the reaction would have been the same.
We can’t really argue about things we can never know. Only George Bush will know what he actually thinks. We do know how he acted in response to 9/11 and most reasonable persons will agree that his reaction indicated he felt strongly about the whole situation.
In response to the OP, I believe we would have definitely gone into Afghanistan, as the Taliban were harboring those responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks. The nation, and the President, at least from all that we’ve been able to see, were upset about the 9/11 attacks because it was a terrorist attack on American soil. Not because it was a terrorist attack on an important building housing the officers of a lot of important brokers. Obviously that factored in to why it was such a “bad thing” it hurts the economy more if you kill 3,000 people in the financial services industry than it does if you kill 3,000 homeless people. But it doesn’t change the fact Americans, the President, etc are going to react strongly and angrily to any attack from foreign terrorists, no matter who the target inside the United States.
Sorry, but even as a Bush opponent myself, it’s obvious that the 9/11 attack would have served the purpose of justifying a war against Iraq no matter what Americans it killed. Bush didn’t invade Iraq to avenge a stockbroker.
Besides, why are you implying the people killed on 9/11 were unusually important? Most people killed in the WTC were ordinary shmoes. They WERE mostly the poor and the powerless. Who do you think works in office buildings?
Actually, I think RickJay is pretty much on the money. Once the Afghanistan connection became apparent, invading that country needed no justification—on the contrary, it was something Bush had to do; Iraq, however, did require justification, and the 9/11 attacks served that cause admirably.
OttaDeFe has already said it; Bush’s response would not have been different because it would still justify the Iraq invasion. Of course they would have invaded Afghanistan too, but they had to do that. Cheney et al. never wanted to go to war in Afghanistan; even right after 9/11 they were hoping to pin it in Iraq, and as soon as it could be arranged they de-emphasized Afghanistan and started in on Iraq.
Therefore, it didn’t matter what buildings those planes hit. All that mattered to Bush was using it to invade Iraq. Afghanistan was just a job that had to be at least attempted in the meantime.
What do you mean by “care”? I’m not trying to be a smartass, but when someone “cares” about something I take it to mean there’s emotion involved. As far as I could tell, Bush went through the motions of “caring”. He gave speeches, talked a lot of big talk about getting Osama (for a little while at least), put troops in Afghanistan, pledged to devote his administration to fighting terra…but all this was expected of him as the president. He’s a politician. What was he going to do? Not promise to get bin Laden? Not go to Afghanistan? America would have crucified him had he not done all of that, and he knew it. Plus, a lot of what he has done benefits him politically (like constantly talking about fighting terror) and therefore, shouldn’t be seen as a sign that he actually “cares” about 9/11. I honestly don’t know if he cares in the emotional sense of the word.
I think the more pertinent question is would America have given a damn about 9/11 if only poor people had been victims. Politicians tend to “care” about what the electorate cares about.