2006-08-26 04:30:06 · 25 answers · asked by tom science 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
nope, the terrorist that took over the plane and crashed it into the buildings are directly responsible... funny how that works, huh
2006-08-26 04:32:33 · answer #1 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. It was his slickness.
I know for a fact that Bill Clinton was the one behind that 9/11 attack. Prove otherwise.
It was planned on his watch.
He and the Ds put a wall between the FBI and CIA preventing the information needed to pass from one to the other.
He and the Ds gutted the US human intelligence operations during the 90s.
The training of pilots happened on his watch.
He turned down OBL's capture several times during his administration.
He did practically nothing to Al Qaeda during his watch.
He was either incompetent or in bed with OBL as well as Monica.
2006-08-26 14:39:11 · answer #2 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure about the "directly" part. I'm sure there is a layer of dead people for insulation, sandwiched in between layers of "unquantifiable accountability," "faulty recollection," "unprovable allegations," "unsupported left-wing sources," and "plausible deniability."
It's a time-proven Bush family pattern going back at least to Grampa Prescott the Nazi final solution advocate.
2006-08-26 11:57:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think sillyrabbit's answer says it all. She reached her conclusion before anyone knew who did it. So did all the other conspiracy nuts. Ever since then - no matter what - in their minds that conclusion, reached as a result of paranoia and a deep seated hatred of George Bush, must be maintained. All facts must be interpreted in such a way as to "prove" it.
2006-08-26 11:51:39 · answer #4 · answered by Will 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree!!! President Clinton had the chance to prevent 9/11, but he didn't know it, when he was given the opportunity to take Osama Ben Laden into custody from Saudi Arabia but refused to. He was afraid he would spoil his image to the world.
2006-08-26 13:51:21 · answer #5 · answered by Duck 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know you don't believe this ....
Why would you even ask a question such as this ?
Do you need attention or some kind of recognition ?
Be recognized for your positive aspects & contributions
rather than negative..
Somtimes it may be easier to be negative but you
should make more of an effort...
To answer your question, NO, I do not agree..
2006-08-26 11:38:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, poor little Bush is just a puppet. I suspect his anal orifice is approximately the size of Cheney's forearm.
But seriously, don't you remember when they tried to take it down the first time, in 93? It has to do more with their hatred of the entire culture.
They have about as much idea of the difference in Democrats and Republicans as we do about the difference in Shiites and Sunnis.
2006-08-26 16:42:02 · answer #7 · answered by finaldx 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe that 9/11 might not have happened, had the Republican majority in the Supreme Court not interfered with the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election and allowed Al Gore to win.
2006-08-26 11:40:14 · answer #8 · answered by Feathery 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Sorry, I do not agree with "directly" responsible.
2006-08-26 11:56:55 · answer #9 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, BIll Clinton's incompetence and abdication of his duties as President enabled Osama bin Laden and HIS little helpers to plan and prepare for the attacks, COMPLETE WITH FLIGHT TRAINING IN AMERICA, long before Bush took office.
2006-08-26 11:37:50 · answer #10 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm still on the fence.
But watch Loose Change over at YouTube. It definately raises some questions.
2006-08-26 11:47:58 · answer #11 · answered by gazoid 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋