http://w3f.com/article.html
2006-09-11 15:20:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Yes, Absolutely, without a doubt. The Clinton administration had information brought to their attention that these terrorists were operating in the U.S. and should be investigated. Because the terroists had entered the country on valid Visas...the Clinton administration declined on investigating them.
Since 9/11 there have been tremendous strides made by the Bush administration to ensure this country is safe from attacks. I'm not sure the Clinton administration would have been successful in that regard. In fact... The reason for not investigating those terrorists that caused the trajedy of 9/11 was due, in part, to a policy put in place by the Clinton administration that did not allow the sharing of intelligence information between agencies. The person primarily responsible for that policy ironically will be right back in the White House as one of its key people...that is, in the unlikely event Hilary Clinton is elected President. I don't know about you.. but I feel safer already. Yeah..right.
2006-09-11 15:42:04 · answer #1 · answered by 1yugpj 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
To some extent. Clinton failed to do his job when America was attacked repeatedly by Al Qaeda. His job is to defend America by neutralizing the threat, not just symbolically tossing a few cruise missiles around.
Miserable Failure Clinton could have gone after Al Qaeda like Bush has. I think that may well have disrupted the 9/11 attack.
2006-09-11 22:22:50 · answer #2 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
HELLO!!!! always want to put all the blame on bush because he's a republican. failures in the bush admin. as well as the Clinton administration (93-01). several attacks during his term...1993 WTC bombing, 1996 Khobar towers, 1996 2 US embassies, 2000 USS Cole, and little to nothing was done about it. Clinton had several chances to get rid of bin laden but too afraid to do it.
2006-09-11 23:12:35 · answer #3 · answered by celticgirl27 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Excellent Question........
Both sides arguing over it for a long time to come.........
Some will say 9/11 happenned on Bush's watch.
But..........
Al qaida declared war on the Us during Clintons reign.........
During that time we suffered multiple attacks with no response from Clinton.Also.......The Jordanian Govt. gave Clinton the go ahead to capture or kill bin laden, while he was in their country on 3 separate occasions.......Yet Clinton took no Action,some say because of the political fallout it would have caused him......
Let's not forget that the 1st WTC Bombing happened on Clintons watch,But I guess that wasn't a good enough of a reason to deal with al qaeda as far as clinton was concerned..........
So yes I would say Clintons Failings were what led to the 9/11 Attacks.........
2006-09-11 22:55:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The terrorist are liable for the 9/11 attacks. Terrorism was just one more issue that clinton did not address. As much as I hate clinton, and make no mistake I hate the man, he was not at fault. He just just like Ray Nagin, or Gov. Blanco. They just did nothing, which is the liberal way.
2006-09-11 22:27:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think so a hundred percent...he probably had a deal..sex for weapons during his administration..look up the stats..he was out of the country more than any other president during his presidency...and I use the word presidency loosely here, as I think him and his wife were nothing more than mere grifters
2006-09-11 22:34:46 · answer #6 · answered by jbbrant1 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sleazy administration? Balanced budget and logical and coherent leadership. Get off of drugs ! We never had it so good!
2006-09-11 23:06:05 · answer #7 · answered by worriedaboutyou 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
911 happend under Bush`s watch.
2006-09-11 22:24:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋