2006-08-17 05:50:53 · 13 answers · asked by crux_of_the_equation_is_in_the_? 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Because they're a bunch of ignorant know-nothings who blame clinton for that. If the city hated conservatives so much, then there would be a democrat as the mayor instead.
2006-08-17 06:00:42 · answer #1 · answered by iwannarevolt 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush was just in office a few months before 9/11 so the major planning for this horrible attack was done by the enemy during the Clinton administration. Clinton knew very much about the danger we were in but was to busy in oval office with Monica to have time for such things.
To blame 9/11 on Bush would be like blaming Pearl Harbor on Roosevelt.
2006-08-17 13:31:08 · answer #2 · answered by rallman@sbcglobal.net 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, it was Clinton surrendering to the terrorists that caused 9/11.
2006-08-17 12:57:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I had this long drawn out fact based response to give you about why just the fact that you could ask such a question portrays your utter stupidity.
Then I thought that giving an idiot facts won't make 'em smart.
Sorry, guess you're sh*t out of luck. Pencil-D*ck.
2006-08-17 13:21:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
To bad your hatered has blinded you to the truth. Or is it that you really were not taught truth in school.
The events that lead to 9/11 fell under the watch of MR. BILL and his group.
2006-08-17 13:23:37 · answer #5 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh please. The Bush administration did not ALLOW 9/11 to happen. These kinds of questions are getting really old. They're asked about 50 times a day, half the time by the same people, and no matter how many times they're told different, they still won't listen to reason.
Will you listen to reason? Or are you another that's like the worst on this site that only ask questions in order to have validation for your opinions, and then call everyone who doesn't agree with you ignorant or naive?
I'm going to waste my time, and explain this for the BILLIONTH time, because I prefer to have faith in mankind:
There was NOTHING President Bush could have done to prevent 9/11 short of shutting down all airports, train stations, buses, highways, and freeways, and declaring martial law.
He had EIGHT MONTHS to prevent 9/11. EIGHT MONTHS to find the people who would be responsible, and figure out who they are, and where they are. EIGHT MONTHS to up security everywhere, and still manage to do it all without sending the entire country into a panic.
Could you imagine how awful it might have been? We knew it was probably Muslim extremists. Could you imagine the fallout? There would have been lynch mobs! The fallout was bad enough as it was!
And if you're going to hate President Bush for "allowing 9/11 to happen", and blame the Republicans, perhaps you should remember that FDR had prior warning that the Japanese were planning an attack, and yet he did nothing. Yes, FDR was one of the best presidents in US history, but he "allowed" the death of nearly 2000 innocent people!
Hold the Democrats to the same standards, HYPOCRITE. Stop pointing fingers. It solves nothing. 9/11 happened, it was a tragedy, but it was NOT all Bush's fault, any more than Pearl Harbor was FDR's fault.
2006-08-17 13:15:59 · answer #6 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 9⤋
Very weak troll-fu there. Try again, but this time put some effort into it. I do like conscum thought, sounds almost like barely evolved pond scum.
2006-08-17 15:41:19 · answer #7 · answered by L3-knightw1zard 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I didn't support the Clinton administration.
2006-08-17 12:52:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why do Dems support an admin that let 1993 WTC bombing occur? Why should it make a difference that one attack was successful but the other one wasn't?
2006-08-17 12:57:53 · answer #9 · answered by Brand X 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
ditto with Billy
2006-08-17 12:57:19 · answer #10 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋