2006-09-07 08:54:36 · 39 answers · asked by tardis1977 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Maybe if Clinton did something 9/11 would not of happened.
I also believe Carter shares much of the blame
He should never of have let the Shah of Iran come here.
2006-09-07 09:00:11 · update #1
The attacks he ordered were form the bombings of our embassy's.
Which was an act of war!
2006-09-07 09:04:10 · update #2
Because he was too busy doing his intern in the oval office?
2006-09-07 08:56:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
This is has been a question that I have thought about more then once. My husband and I had a friend that was killed on the Cole. He and my husband had been stationed together at more then one command, so we took it personally when more wasn't done after the bombing. I don't know if it would have prevented 9/11, but maybe if there would have been more done after the the first attempt on the Trade Center in the early 90's, and then again when they attacked the Cole, we might have had a different outcome.
I think some people don't consider the Cole bombing terrorist related because it was on a ship full of Military members, and there were no civilians aboard, therefore it just wasn't taken as seriously as terrorist attacks on civilians are. I get the impression that some feel like since they were Military, this kind of stuff sometimes happens.
Clinton defiantly screwed up big time when he didn't put more effort into these terrorist attacks. I don't even want to know how he would have handled September 11th had he been the one that was still running our country.
People are so eager to place the blame of 9/11 on
President Bush, but they refuse to acknowledge that the same terrorist who were behind the first two attacks while Clinton was in office, are the same ones that admitted to being behind 9/11. But I'm sure the Bush haters will find a way to accuse the President of masterminding the other two attacks as well. Why not? They blame him for everything else under the sun!
2006-09-07 13:13:34 · answer #2 · answered by Naples_6 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bombing was on October 12, 2000 and I think Clinton felt that with the election under a month away, he'd leave the USS Cole disaster to the next administration.
I think we can trace the roots of 9/11 back to at least the Carter administration but I do think Clinton deserves most of the blame, lack of action on intelligence-wise.
2006-09-07 12:01:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He didn't do anything because his PR Adviser told him it would make it look like he was avoiding the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal, so he didn't go through with it. No it would not have stopped 9/11 from happening, Look up Operation North-woods, it is an older document that is about America attacking itself for more support for an illegal war. The republicans we have in there now are on record before they took office saying that America would benefit greatly from a "New Pearl Harbor".
2006-09-07 09:34:08 · answer #4 · answered by [ V ] 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Too busy defending himself against the impeachment
proceedings and all that happened was the FBI investigation in the USS Cole bombing.
2006-09-07 09:08:54 · answer #5 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question? That's why Bush has to do all the BS that prior President's did not have the balls to do! If they would have done there job they would have been ridiculed like Bush does now. Whomever is in office will always be bashed. There are always haters so the president that sets a goal and follows through with it will be the one who succeeds.
2006-09-07 09:02:16 · answer #6 · answered by jamie s 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because terrorism wasnt an issue at the time, how many people in the US have died due to terrorism during Clinton's 8 years in office? Compare that to the number of people that have died during 'Dub-yas' presidency so far. Not to mention, the thousands of American soldiers that have died in the war. Bin Laden is the Bush's administration escape goat. Bush is the true terrorist. They were behind 9/11. His administration wanted to infuriate America so much that we would become anxious to go to war and approve the invation of the middle east. The only way to do this was to stage an attack of massive proportion on American soil and blame it on terrorists from the middle east. What they dont tell you is that they are after the oil. You cant believe the lies the media feeds you. Uncover your eyes.
2006-09-07 09:07:22 · answer #7 · answered by maurcal 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Because he was too much of a p*ssy do to do anything besides monica. The stupid motherf*cker had three chances to kill or capture Bin Ladan and all three times he told the military and CIA operatives to let him go.Hes a worthless piece of sh*t. Please remember that in 08 and do not vote for that b*tch he calls his wife.
2006-09-07 11:20:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why did the CIA not arrest Bin Laden after visiting him a few WEEKS before 9/11?
The same reason Dubya let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora. Bureaucratic red tape.
2006-09-07 08:55:47 · answer #9 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Clinton did, he ordered an attack on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was thought to be linked to Bin Laden.
2006-09-07 09:01:52 · answer #10 · answered by loretta 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obviously any answer you get here is pure speculation, on the part of Clinton or Bush.
To many hater's here to actually look at reason. Someone has to be blamed so why not blame the President.
2006-09-07 09:01:01 · answer #11 · answered by Chief 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋