Do conservatives really believe that 9/11 couldn't be prevented by Bush?

Question

I've heard the argument about it being Clinton's fault which makes no sense because he was out of office for 8 months. Bush was warned and he did nothing. Do cons really believe that no blame goes to Bush and it was inevitable since the day he got into office? Also, if he is looking out for us then why were so many people trapped in NO during Katrina? Even if the local and state failed, wouldn't a good president have the area evacuated? Or is Katrina Clinton's fault too?

Answer 1

Why does not being hit sense 9/11 give Republicans a warm fuzzy. If Bush takes responsibility for not being hit since 9/11 then he must also take responsibility for 9/11 happening on his watch. Did Ronald Regan take responsibility for Japan not bombing Pearl Harbor again. It is a stupid statement but think about. Its not like the Terrorist tell you when they are going to strike. How long did they plan 9/11 for?

Answer 2

You can't blame things like that on any one person. Maybe 9/11 could possibly have been prevented, but that's a long shot. And Katrina? How can you blame a natural catastrophe on the president?? He does not control the weather. It's not Bush's fault, but that does not mean that I think it's Clinton's fault either. The weather is nobody's fault. And it doesn't give very much warning to evacuate such a large area. The people wouldn't all be able or willing to leave within a few day's notice.

Answer 3

First, Bush wasn't 'warned'. That's a flat-out distortion of the reality.

Second, Clinton had failed to respond to each successive attack on the US by al Qaeda. The criminal investigation and prosecution of the 1st WTC bombers did nothing to attack the terrorist operations. He failed to respond to the Khobar towers bombing, the bombings of the US embassies or the bombing of the USS Cole. It was during his administration that the famous 'wall' was erected between the intelligence services, preventing the sharing of info, like when the 9/11 hijackers were coming into this country during his presidency.

Clinton also had gutted the US intelligence capability and the military, AFTER the 1st WTC bombing, and did not even speak to his intelligence chiefs.

So, could the attacks have been prevented? Unknown. The US has had a spotty record of preventing attacks, because basically, until 9/11 we did not realize we were at war, and had been at war for many years.

Was it Clinton's fault? No. Could he have done a better job than he did? Absolutely. Was it Bush's fault? No. Could he have done a better job? Possibly. But there is nothing on record that either Clinton or the CIA told Bush there was any expected great threat from Osama.

Answer 4

The idea that Bush "knew" that 9/11 was going to occur is spurious and frankly ludicrous. The administration may have had some idea that a terrorist attack was being planned, but obviously, if they knew that planes would be hijacked and crashed into buildings, they would have stopped it. America does not have perfect knowledge of everything everyone does.
Yes, Bush should be held responsible, to a reasonable degree, for not doing a better job of finding the terrorists and stopping them. Clinton also deserves reasonable criticism for this.
No, Katrina isn't Clinton's fault, but it isn't Bush's either. It's a hurricane. Presidents don't cause hurricanes. If you have evidence that Bush caused Katrina, I'd love to see it.

However, they do make gear for people with the same... problem as you. Check the link. I'd buy a whole set if I were you.

Answer 5

Looking for "fault" in 911 and Katrina is silly.

Does anyone really believe that any President ( Jessie Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Tom Jones, Marylin Monroe or Peter Pan ) would have allowed 911 or Katrina to happen without doing something to stop it?

One would need to be six or ten cards short of a full deck to entertain such thoughts.

Remember, any person running for the office of President has to be thoroughly investigated by the Press and the opposing party before he is elected to that position. A "crack-pot" would be scratched from his party's ticket two seconds after it was found that he was a nut-case.

It's possible that a President would make mistakes in the way things are handled but saying he deliberately allowed a disaster to take place because he wanted it to happen is something else.

Answer 6

OK. First of all, a HURRICANE is not something that could be prevented by ANY president. Second of all, a HURRICANE is something that comes with at least 5 days notice (I know, I live in FL) to give everyone time to prepare and evacuate. I do not feel too sorry for those that relied on the government to help them (remember Reagans quote: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." )

As for 9/11... that was not an event that could have been prevented unless high people in the government knew when, where, and how al quaeda was going to strike. A nebulous "there might be a terrorist strike" does not qualify as something that was preventable. It is time to accept that Muslims actually attacked this country, on our own soil, becuase they HATE us and want us all DEAD.

Hooligan: How is it Bush's job to take moronic people out of a certain hurricane zone when there is ample warning for them to get the f out? If you MUST blame someone in government, it lies squarely with Nagin and Blanco, the two people who have the most direct control of the evacuation and actions of New Orleans.

Answer 7

It is Clinton's fault becuase he had the opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden and he chose not to. I have not heard that Bush was warned of the terror act but if he had been warned there is a lot involved with the decision to intercepting 4 airliners.
As for Katrina, whether you are black or white, rich or poor you need to evacuate when a catagory 5 huricane is approaching. If your dumb and decied you are capable of waiting it out, and have no concern for your personal safety then it doesn't matter what the local of federal government have available for you. It is the local government's responsibility first and foremost. They having failed their responsibility it then becomes the Federal governments responsibility. Still they can only do so much. I can tell you to evacuate but I can't make you. I can make it law that you have to evacuate but if you refuse and make yourself unavailable then I am not required to find you and protect you. If you are experiencing a huricane don't loot t.v. sets, find food and shelter. First and foremost it is your responsibility to protect your own interests and well being. You demand less government in your life then cry because there is not enough. Grow up and take responsibility for yourselves.

Answer 8

I wouldn't blame Clinton for 9./11, no. I think a lot of people had warnings that were ignored for years. I'd hesitate to blame it on any one person.

As for Katrina- the point of this country is that the states have a certain amount of autonomy. That means they have freedom to disagree with other states in the country, but it also gives them responsibilities, responsibilities that were failed in Katrina. If the federal government jumps in every time the local screws up, not only would there be no resources left, but it would set a precedent for intervention in not so urgent matters, thus going against the spirit of our foundation.

Answer 9

Nimrod—the entire terrorist operation was planned and executed on Clinton’s watch. By a terrorist Bill Clinton could have captured, but didn’t, for fear of tanking in the polls.

The terrorist attack is entirely the terrorists fault. With a big assist from the Clinton administration.

As for Katrina – you do know that we don’t have Star Trek technology, right? We can’t ‘beam’ people out, or help in. Nope, we have to do it the old-fashioned way. We have to get truck drivers to the trucks. We have to get the trucks loaded. We have to drive the trucks to the scene. These activities take days to complete.

Sorta makes you realize that the locals, who are closer and have their trucks and their cargo RIGHT THERE should have handled it. But, being a liberal apparently = being a dunce!

Answer 10

I believe it was Bush's fault not because he could have prevented it but as a former soldier of the Army myself I feel he knew full well in advance about it, just like everything else in this dirty game of politics but it was written to happen decoded in the bible, so I say this "Bush's family are skull & Bone Masons" and this my dear is just history unfolding as predicted by Nortedamus! As for Katrina I have myself assisted in the efforts of Operation Noble Eagle and have seen more than 5 thousand soldiers packed and deplyed effortlessly to Iraq, so it would have eased my soul to see them make an effort to preserve human life, however it is common nature for a certain amount of humans to die so that the world can continue to replenish, so I will say though with all of that sin going on in New Orleans it's a wonder God didn't clean it and humble them sooner!

Answer 11

Im not a Republican,And Clinton gets blamed because of his non reaction to the 1st WTC Bombing,The Attack on the USS Cole...

Also the Clinton Administration Declared Osama n Al quaida a threat, Yet on Three Seperate Occasions he had the chance to send soldiers to capture Osama in Jordan with the Jordanian Govt's approval yet he did nothing............

When it comes to Responsibility,I Believe Both Administrations are to Blame...........

Katrina should be posted as another question......

Why you ask?

Because I have an Appt. to get to.......