I was watching this show on nine eleven last night, and if Bush would have put money into this tearorist act. If he did nine eleven may not have happened. Nine eleven was he's fault and it was planned by Bin Laden. Do you think Bush let Bin Laden go ahead and kill us in Nine Eleven?
2006-08-28 06:59:23 · 20 answers · asked by Kitty/Penguin Jillian 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It was on national geographic. Watch it on Tues. at 8 PM!
2006-08-28 07:12:23 · update #1
First off, it was not Clintins's fault. As soon as Bush was elected he had the choice to put the money in. But he didn't.
2006-08-28 07:17:42 · update #2
I've been waiting to hear this for along time and I agree with you it was Bush's fault.and yes i Believe they let it happen. wasn't funny that bush appeared in a classroom on TV at the time.
2006-09-03 06:15:58 · answer #1 · answered by dorrie11206 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What a bimbo you must be!
It's bad enough that you're dumb enough to believe that Bush had anything to do with 9-11.
It was Clinton that was offered Osama's head by the Saudis. It was well known that he was connected to the first bombing of the world trade center and still that dumb-*** bubba refused to accept him from the Saudis. This served only to embolden Bin Ladin, making the attack on NY Clinton's fault.
Could Bush have done more before the attack? Yes. In that he was no different than his predecessors. (Meaning he was just as dumb as the rest of 'em) What sets Bush apart from the rest is the fact that at least once we were attacked he has made it his business to confront Islam on her home turf. For that, if you had any sense, you would be gratefull.
But go ahead and join the other lemmings in their Bush bashing. It doesn't really matter. The war will continue, The war will be won by the western forces. Iraq will be made into a moderate, western-friendly democracy and there is nothing you or your whining liberal hordes can do about it!
2006-09-03 13:51:30 · answer #2 · answered by caesar x 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Puhlease! How old are you that you would believe things like that from TV? 9-11 was mostly a matter of many agencies having small pieces of the puzzle and no good means of putting them altogether. And if you must get into more detail, the "Wall of Separation" between the FBI, CIA and other organizations that needed to connect the dots and didn't, was erected by Jamie Gorelick, who was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration. There is no president, not even the most deified, who could have seen it all in advance, and no president, not even the most reviled, who would have purposely held back and allowed so many people to be killed if it could have been 100% known and prevented up-front.
If you MUST believe conspiracy theories, I highly recommend delving into Area 51. It's much more entertaining.
2006-08-28 14:05:19 · answer #3 · answered by motherknowsbest 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because a president didn't pass a bill or allow money to fund this or that....doesn't mean he's to blame. Islamic terrorists were to blame. You're confusing the facts and drawing illogical conclusions. You could say the same thing about every president since Johnson! The 9/11 show in question was an historical progression of 9/11, not a finger-pointing festival, and you're twisting the message. We need to move past that, learn from our mistakes and make better choices with more forethought...not dwell in "who should've done what when".
2006-08-28 14:06:38 · answer #4 · answered by jamie 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Clinton dropped the ball, he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden twice and he refused, Bush was only in office 7 months when the attacks occurred, their are all kinds of conspiracy theories out their, we have been under attack by terrorists since the late 80's our Embassy's, ships, marines in Beirut, twin towers in 93 and again in 2001, so don't blame it on Bush just because the attack happened in the first 7 months of his term, they were attacking us for years before he became President.
2006-08-28 14:55:15 · answer #5 · answered by hexa 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Did it happen to mention that Clinton had a chance to kill Bin Laden many years before 9/11? Or that Clinton did not respond to attacks on two US Embassies and a Navy ship. Maybe if had shown a little guts it would not have happened. But that being said there is a lot of blame to go around to both administrations and political parties.
2006-08-28 14:11:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I hate Bush. I think the Bush administration is capable of anything. But I think they would have done a better job linking Iraq and Saddam to 9/11. Which they didnt. So no, I dont think they were behind 9/11. They did ignore a memo telling them 1 month earlier that Al Qaeda was planning an attack with airplanes though.
2006-08-28 14:07:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Dont you mean Clinton. Bush did not stop or start any money, he was not in office long enough. Clinton on the other hand did. He knew about things and did nothing. He was worthless and always will be. He is almost as bad as his dyke wife.
2006-08-28 14:10:46 · answer #8 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I find it hard to believe that in the short time since he had become president until the attack that he could have really done much. Maybe there should be more attention paid to the 8 years before he was elected.
2006-08-28 14:05:58 · answer #9 · answered by sethle99 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ask Bin Laden...he WAS a former CIA asset. You will probably catch him in Texas with daddy-o planning the next big one and blaming it on Iran.
To think that a strike carried out by so many people,.... could be co-ordinated down to the letter...by people who couldn't even a fly a plane..is utter garbage.
Placing the blame on Islamic Extremists..is ridiculous.
2006-08-28 14:05:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋