...is doing something right? With all the threats in the interum and all the foiled plots - can you admit that we are lucky to have Bush in place?
2006-09-13 06:11:19 · 38 answers · asked by dlil 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sorry I "assumed" that people knew that 9/11 was planned during Clinton's time in office - the first of the hijackers came over in '98 and most had completed flight school by the end of 2000. Silly me.
Also, some of you have conveniently forgotten the USS Cole bombing and the attacks on the US Embassies (therefore by international law "US Soil") - Clinton failed to react to any of these attacks and let ObL remain free.
2006-09-13 07:58:57 · update #1
Um Bluejacket? Bush created the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11 so how could they have warned him about the attack in advance? LOL!
2006-09-13 09:49:07 · update #2
Are the liberals stupid? Do they really think that Osama and his crew waited until President Bush got into office to let loose their terrorist act?
They were planning this all during Clinton's administration as part of their Holy War against anybody nonislamic. It was a horrible act and leave it as that. President Bush had nothing to do with it you brainwashed people!
2006-09-13 06:22:14 · answer #1 · answered by Mags 3 · 2⤊ 7⤋
Well see the problem with that logic is that 9/11 happened under his watch. Bush had been in office for a while, he was taking a nice long vacation when he should have been working, and while he was at the helm we got attacked.
What he did after the attack is attempt to go after the bad guys, something that any President would have done. Perhaps a better leader would not have dragged us into an expensive conflict with Iraq for no good reason. Perhaps a better leader would have captured Osama in the past five years.
Trying to argue that we have had only one massive terrorist attack under Bush is kinda like arguing that George Bush has done wonders for the space program. After all only one shuttle has blown up under his Presidency, therefore he must be doing a great job. It's ridiculous faux logic that is nothing more than a Republican mating call.
2006-09-13 06:24:28 · answer #2 · answered by ZCT 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think the fact that 3,000 people died in the span of less than 2 hours under his watch overshadows anything. He could have stopped the attacks when he was warned, but he chose to ignore it. And what foiled plots are you talking about? The one that the Canadian government stopped when they arrested the men who had all of the explosives? Or the one the British government stopped when they arrested the men who had the liquid explosives? The fact that we haven't been hit again has nothing to do with Bush being in office. That would be like me saying that I haven't caught a cold in the past three months because I bought a new couch. It's the FBI and the Dept. of Homeland Security's job to protect the nation and foil terrorist plots. They did their job when they warned the White House of a possible attack by Osama bin Laden. That was when the president was supposed to be the "decider" and tell the FBI to stop him. Instead, he decided to go on vacation.
2006-09-13 06:25:50 · answer #3 · answered by bluejacket8j 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm a conservative, but Bush has screwed up a lot of things. He is doing a better job than Kerry would have which is why I voted for him in '04. As far as the no more attacks in our land goes: I can't attribute that to Bush. I attribute that to the guys and gals doing intel and negotiating for intel from other countries to assist in our efforts to battle these goons. Bush had time to take drastic measures to avoid 9/11, but chose not to. He was afraid that the people of our nation would call him nuts. Well he is getting that anyway. I think we need someone who will step on as many toes as it takes to prevent more terror attacks in our country. Unfortunately our people here don't agree with me and we'll have another attack by the end of Bush's 2nd term.
2006-09-13 06:21:50 · answer #4 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That depends on what role the administration actually played in the events surrounding 9/11 and continues to play in the whole scheme. There are way too many mistakes and coincidences that happened on 9/11 for me to believe that the "terrorists" were not known to be in this country and not watched by our intel services. Was 9/11 another Pearl Harbor? Did Bush and his people choose to sacrifice those 3,000 people for the higher aim of going to war to secure Afghanistan and Iraq for the oil and natural gas profits? After some research it appears to me that the president's father and his connection with the Saudis and the Carlyle Group has quite a bit to do with the fact that bin Laden is still free. Bush Jr. has been helped numerous times in his early years by the Saudis and leaving bin Laden alone is small payback in Bush's eyes.
2006-09-13 06:28:44 · answer #5 · answered by Jagatkarta 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Please answer this for me: Why does Clinton get off scott free for 9/11? The plot was hatched in 2000 while Clinton was still in office. I don't care what his groupies say he was more concerned with riding out Monica Lewinsky than he was in eliminating Osama Bin Laden. I am not a huge Bush fan but Clinton has to be called on the carpet for some of the blame re the WTC attacks. Oh by the way do you remember there was an earlier terrorist bombing of the WTC back in Feb '93? Who was president then libs?
2006-09-13 06:21:04 · answer #6 · answered by jimel71898 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
How about the fact that there wasn't a 9/11 under Clinton, but there was, only 9 months into his first term, one under Bush. How come there are documents that prove that Bush ignored the threat of Bin Laden(ie: the papers telling the govt about a risk of terrorism by planes)
before you start attacking liberals why not use some introspection on conservatives
2006-09-13 06:26:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
First of all never assume! President Clinton did attack Ladin on 8 of 1998 and missed. Bush sat and knew for 9 months this could happen . No, we should not have another 9-11 . We shouldn't be that stupid.
2006-09-13 09:48:16 · answer #8 · answered by ₦âħí»€G 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's a double-edged sword. The recent foiled plots were executed by law enforcement, not by military action. You could also argue that terrorists have stepped up their activities since we invaded Iraq.
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed two weeks into Cinton's presidency. He made resources available for law enforcement to catch the perpetrators, and put them in jail forever.
We weren't attacked again 'til 2001. Bush had info that might have prevented it, but chose not to act.
2006-09-13 06:17:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, because your logic is a fallacy. What you are saying is the equivalent to: "I have two sticks that I can beat together and scare off all the lions in the area. Because there are no lions in the area, clearly my sticks work." Nevermind the fact there are other factors in the situation, such as you're in the middle of Kansas when you're beating the sticks together.
It's a false conclusion. It's possible that nothing on the scale of 9/11 has been reattempted because of the complexities in organizing and planning such an attack. Not to mention that other countries HAVE been targeted and HAVE been hit by terrorist attacks such as the London subway and Madrid. We aren't the sole target.
2006-09-13 06:17:13 · answer #10 · answered by azrael505 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Doesn't the fact that there hasn't been US Civil War again prove that every President since Lincoln is doing something right?
Bush is an accident of timing and an even-more failed Deomcratic Party, nothing more. He, not us, is the lucky one.
2006-09-13 06:17:17 · answer #11 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋