If Bush does not take responsibility for 9/11 can he take responsibility for us not getting hit since 9/11?

Answer 1

not LogicaLLy

Answer 2

Do you take responsibility for 9/11? How about the buildings - should they take responsibility for 9/11? Or the firefighters, or the airliners, or grandma on the farm? How about should Cllinton take responsibility since he let Osama loose when the CIA had him in custody during his administration?

With the occurrence of 9/11 we discovered we are vulnerable. Most of our vulnerability lies in our arrogance. Pointing fingers does not do anything but show more arrogance. Sorry.

Answer 3

Do I think he can take credit for it ignoring your logic? No.

However, he had only been in office for less than a year, so
he had had less opportunity to fix security problems than in the
intervening 5 years.

I don't believe he has increased security - if anything, I believe
he has decreased it by making more people in the world think
of us as a likely target.

However, 9 months isn't a lot of time to change a country's
security posture...

However, I'll say it again:

We aren't safe now. We weren't safe before and we will
never be safe again.

We can increase or decrease our security slightly by playing
games with intelligence and perhaps technology and man
power surrounding important infrastructure.

However, if the bad guys want to break in and there are
enough of them, it really doesn't matter what you do with
inteliigence or airport security.

This is why you work like hell to decrease the number of
people who want to harm us rather than telling people that
they have to do everything possible to make themselves
securer. There is no limit to what people can do, and
fundamentally, they will STILL not be secure.

We did more to increase our security by helping out during
the earthquakes and tsunamis than we have done in Iraq
or even Afghanastan in the last 6 years.

Spending $300+ in Iraq has only increased the temperature
of the hostility there. Think how many lives that money
would have saved if applied to medical research or to the
bottom line with poverty or to education or to ...

Remember, orders of magnitudes of people more die of flu
every year than were lost to 9/11 once.

I'm not saying that we should not have security at airports, etc.
However, I am saying that we need to think very carefully
about what is "reasonable".

There is a cost to increased security, both in terms of
productivity and country morale. Poverty kills.

We need to be very careful to not over-react, lest we make
terrorist incidents more deadly than they need to be.

Answer 4

If he can't be a man and say that he has some responsibility in 9/11 he should not be able to claim the responsibility for the luckiness that we haven't been attacked again.

Answer 5

For not getting hit since 9/11? It sure as hell ain't because of Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Michael Moore, Mike Wallace, etc.....

Bush is doing a great job in preventing any more attacks.

Answer 6

I wouldn't say its Bush specficially who has prevented further terrorist attacks, but his administration is responsable for increasing security ever since 9/11. Unfortuneately the same can't be said for the british government.

Answer 7

I don't think he can assume responsibility for either. He neither caused the tragic events of 9/11 nor did he single-handedly keep any more terrorist attacks from happening since. It is only the combined efforts of many of our (and other countries') government agencies that have thwarted any further attacks.

Answer 8

Oh yeah, I forgot, It was Bush who flew the planes into the buildings. How did he survive? Wow and his skin color changed from olive to white. He is such a two face. One minute speaking Arabic and the next talking English. Get real people...just because the liberals won't let us take care of those people, it doesn't mean Bush is to blame. Maybe I should blame him for the fact that today I can't seem to take a crap. My constipation is Bush's fault!!!!

Answer 9

well i'm not exactly a Bush fan ... but i do not think he was 'responsible' for 9/11 ... honestly, if you look more closely, you'll see that the Clinton administration actually put us in more danger of foreign attacks because he had literally no foreign policy ... his administration actually gave money (lots and lots of it) to people who we now know used that money to obtain weapons that could be used against us. Groups that nurture terrorism thrive in situations that provide isolation for them, so ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away ... it only helps it.

Answer 10

This is proof of what Franklin (and a variety of others of the Founding Fathers) was talking about.

When the People acquiesce to the yoke of tyrrany, when actions of the government otherwise criminal are tolerated,

when the People sacrifice liberty in the interest of security, they deserve neither.

And so it is in this age, when the People will not demand that the principals of these criminal actions be held accountable and made to pay for their crimes, but instead heap laud upon their oppressors, that we witness the perfection of totalitarianism in a country too stupid to acknowledge that it is no longer free.

Answer 11

So, you think we haven't been hit because those responsible for the 9/11 attacks haven't hit us again because they've grown a conscience?