For all you Clinton lovers who say personal life doesn't matter if it doesn't affect job, can now see that it did, in fact have an effect on his job, and ultimately 3000 people (r.i.p.) Anybody brave enough to admit to this now?
2006-09-12 03:17:34 · 13 answers · asked by klarf 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Clinton administration should take responsibility for their incompetence and lack of leadership leading up to 911, but I doubt they will. It appears Clinton wasn't in touch with his advisors, and his advisors were a bunch of bumbling idiots.
Regardless, democrats have never been known for a strong position on national defense and this just re-affirms the point.
They are better at taxing Americans to support big government welfare progarms in hopes of achieving their "Utopia".
2006-09-12 03:27:03 · answer #1 · answered by pokeylilturtle 1 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Well, as a conservative I certainly beleive there is enough blame to go around. It can't all be blamed on Clinton. There were way too many players involved and too many of those did not WANT to take responsibility for making the decisions that should've been made (in both administrations). When it comes to national security--screw political correctness! There was enough evidence something was going to happen--but the freakin pansies didn't want to be the one to make the call. National Security needs to take presidence over 'not offending' anyone. It's time they stop covering their own @zzes and start protecting America!
2006-09-12 10:44:21 · answer #2 · answered by Cherie 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Loyalists to Clinton refuse to take blame for anything that's gone wrong. Most of them think it's ok that he was busy getting sucked under a desk while America was being attacked. They fail to see that if Clinton had done more with all the chances he was given to get Bin Laden, most of this wouldn't have happened. These are also the people that think his criminal wife will make a great first female president. It's a very scary thought. There is alot of blame to go around, but most of it rests on Clinton's shoulders. That's why he's so quick to want things left out of reports and is trying dispute facts that have come to light with many investigations. If he's willing to make sure so many people are dead in connection to the AR airport, just imagine what he'll do to protect his name for a terrorist attack that he had intel on and a chance to prevent. Liberals aren't brave, that's why they call Republicans and those protecting this country warmongers.
2006-09-12 10:34:32 · answer #3 · answered by HEartstrinGs 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
There's more than enough blame to go around. We're all at fault for what happened on 9/11. We became complacent, secure in the thought that nothing could touch us in our ivory tower. Around us, the world was becoming a darker and more violent place, but we paid no heed. Life went on as usual. Maybe if we had all paid a little more attention, this would not have happened.
2006-09-12 10:24:25 · answer #4 · answered by whtknt 4 · 8⤊ 1⤋
You want to know who is truly at fault? I'll tell you. You are. I am. The rest of the citizens of this country are and do you know why? We sat by complacent for years while allowing politicians to ruin this country for their own personal gain. We didn't vote any of these cheats, liars, and thieves out of office when we should have. We continue to support their thievery and rape of the US Constitution by not upholding our duty as Americans to defend our own freedom against tyranny. We can point at Dems and Reps to blame but we left them in office, we keep voting for these idiots. Why? So we get that little government handout each month or we keep getting business or we are too busy to take time to do something. There is a lot of truth to the first couple of lines of the Declaration of Independance, I suggest reading it and consider whether that applies to our own government today. I think it does.
2006-09-12 10:26:36 · answer #5 · answered by matt b 3 · 9⤊ 1⤋
Just like the sitting president inherits the fruits of the previous presidents economic policy, the sitting president inherits the fruits of the previous administrations foreign policy. ie: the economic boom in the 90's can be attributed to George H.W. Bush, the failures of the Clinton administration's foreign policy were exposed for the world on September 11, 2001
2006-09-12 10:22:10 · answer #6 · answered by injection_od 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled, demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the right place at the right time.
That the company PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he must not have been such a threat after all.
That whistleblower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and forget what she learned when she took her concerns about PTECH to her employers and federal authorities, suggests she lacked the big picture. And that the Chief Auditor for JP Morgan Chase told Singh repeatedly, as she answered questions about who supplied her with what information, that "that person should be killed," suggests he should take an anger management seminar.
2006-09-12 10:19:01 · answer #7 · answered by dstr 6 · 7⤊ 5⤋
Damn I could have sworn Bin Laden was at fault, guess I need to tune into CNN to get the "real news."
2006-09-12 10:35:34 · answer #8 · answered by Phil My Crack In 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
"Clinton caused 911" after he poured millions into security.
"Nothing is Bush's fault",except he admitted we went to Iraq on bad intelligence.
What drugs do you take to maintain your false right-wing illusions?
It's an election year and the Republicans are DESPERATE.
2006-09-12 10:34:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
no one is to blame for 9/11except for the terrorist. but republicans and bush are to blame for letting our country spiral down like it has.
2006-09-12 10:22:20 · answer #10 · answered by tennisboyusa 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋