For the people who want to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11?

Question

Ok. Let’s just say that for 8 years he did do nothing to stop terrorists. Like you guys say he just sat there. All right if there is a REMOTE chance of this being true. Let’s say it is true for the sake of the argument. Then how come when you guys elected your “Brave, War” president Bush, he didn’t spring into action to correct what Bill did wrong and keep us safe? It is well know that Bill Clinton warned Bush of Osama and Al Quaida. And he left office leaving Dick Clarke (a capable anti- terrorist expert with this knowledge) to help Bush. But Bush demoted Dick Clarke and went on vacation 42% of the time during the 8 months leading up to the attacks. And ignored CIA warnings of Al Quaida cells and reports of Osama wanting to attack within the U.S. Why? Please explain?

"And George was so enamored with Bill's intellect he Wrongly assumed if Bill didn't think it was important enough to do something about Usama he shouldn't either." ---Oh, please give me a break!!!! This is what the Cons have to say? LOL! You guys are so going to lose the elections in Nov!

Cons: YOu want sources. Do your own research. Read, google! We are tired of holding your hands. Answer the question at hand and stop trying to evade it.

Pain_made: these are well known facts much more credible than tales about "weapons of mass destruction" YOu can't answer my question so you insult me. typical!

Answer 1

Essentially, I'm going to agree with you (believe it or not). The brass tax of your thought anyway, and not necessarily the hyperbole about vacations, ignoring warnings, and Richard Clark.

After all if someone saying terrorists intend to fly planes into buildings at some non-specific time on some non-specific date isn't all that helpful. Richard Clark was part of the administration at the time of 9-11, though not at the post he wanted. The 42 percent vacation thing is just whatever it is.

Before the attack on Pearl Harbor 95 percent of Americans did not want to get involved in WW2. That same mentality existed in America on September 10, 2001.

Despite the number of terrorists attacks on US interests ( the Cole, the kobar towers, the embassies, etc.) there was no real public interest in starting a war on terrorism. Why? I think it's because there was only one attack on US soil. That was the first attempt on the World Trade Center and that didn't raise the temperature in US minds.

Bill Clinton policy followed American mindset at the time. You can debate whether it should have or not, but that's the reality. I don't blame Clinton for 9-11.

When Bush came in as President that temperature had not changed. There would have been no support for a war on terror. As I remember, the Bush administration was developing new policy and strategy.

I don't believe either Bush nor Clinton took the threat seriously enough. Clinton viewed terrorism as a law enforcement matter. In hindsight that didn't work to make us any safer, and may have emboldened terrorists to plan and eventually carry out 9-11. That's not Clinton fault. Those were the times.

Also remember, that when Clinton did try to do something he was attacked as wagging the dog. Every time he carried out a military strike it would be reported and charged by his opponents that he was simply trying to distract from the Monica issue. Maybe e did and maybe he didn't. It didn't help him that he starting a military strike on the very day that congressional hearing were to start.
In any event, he could not build support for a war on terror with his personal issues on the front page every day. If you want to blame Clinton, then you must also blame his detractors at the time.

Bush came in and, from my perspective, did not place terrorism any higher then Clinton. Why? The American mindset. Still, no one was interested in a war on terror. I don't remember terrorism being brought up in the debates. Bush supporters will say that Clinton had 8 years and Bush had 8 months which is true. Still, I don't remember any pr campaign to ratchet up public sentiment on terrorism. I do remember the Bush administration saying they were developing new policies.

The American public was in a December 6, 1947 mood before 9-11. Ther terrorsts were too. They were planning while we weren't looking. Both time America felt invunerable. Both times America was wrong.

Answer 2

I blame the Islamofascists for 911 and terrorism. Bill Clinton was not making terrorism a priority, neither was Reagan, Hw Bush or the current President. The rules changed on 9 11.

I really do not understand why Clinton had that phony blowup on the news. He is on record saying he passed on Bin Laden. He should of stated that he was playing by the rules of the day when he passed on him. He did nothing wrong other than not owning a Chrystal ball.

I hate all of the low level bureaucrats that claim they were sounding the alarm bells and they knew Bin Laden was coming, they are complete liars. If they actually knew yet did not tell anyone or convince someone of the coming nightmare. I believe these people should be charged with a crime. They are Monday morning quarterbacks out for glory using the blood of 3000 people.

Answer 3

I am so tired of the blame game.Neither presidency is blame-free in the events leading up to 9/11. If you want to put the two presidencies leading up to 9/11 on a balance scale, you have Bush with 9 months to get Bin Laden and Clinton with 6 years. But I really don't care. Partisan politics is going to destroy this country quicker than the terrorists. We are so busy bickering about who is at more fault, nothing is getting done. Just SHUT UP and focus on what is important...the war on terror. How we got there is not important anymore. It's here and we need to deal with it.

Answer 4

Read Clarke's book.Both are to blame Clinton never considered Bin Laden as anything but a nuisance if he had thought other wise we would not have the issue.I don't believe anyone truly believed what was done could be accomplished.The blame game gets us nowhere every body screwed up.
But there still are the questions of the hi-jackers being trained at government facilities in the '90s.This issue has not been explored enough.

Answer 5

there was nothing done before during or after the attacks to prevent it or bring those responsible and connected to justice ... lets go there for a sec... they started with about 1000 people detained that were supposedly connected then they were slowly released over the following several months until finally it dwindled down to 6 or so still held in connection with 911 .... there were never any trials or convictions ... my point is the whole thing stinks of a coverup ...blame bill? well, i think if you take in the whole situation with whats going on in the world and what has transpired since the reagan administration, that a very clear picture starts to emerge that everything is interconnected and is part of a larger plan ... i will never be convinced that all the presidents and secret services since at least reagan dont know exactly what is going on with everything ... the alternative belief is to say that all these presidents and people are just oblivious and ignorant retards and that we just happen to be militarizing the entire middle east from the balkans to afganistan and sitting on the worlds largest supply of oil as a stroke of good luck and chance....

Answer 6

Many people and agencies share the blame for 9/11. But the MAJOR blame still goes on the terrorists. Could or should Clinton have done more when he had a chance, by taking out Osama? HELL YES!!!!.... but this would not have ensured that we would not have been attacked in some way, shape or form. The key is that he and his administration knew that AlQ was basically at war with us, but pansied around because they did not want to offend anyone because Clinton 'felt' that AlQ had not 'really' attacked us directly. This was his fatal flaw in national security.

So while I don't "blame" him for 9/11... I do "blame" him for not doing more when he had the chance to start this war on terror sooner

Answer 7

I blame Osama and Al Queda for 9/11

Answer 8

It's simple really. Bill had three excellent chances to get Usama and decided not to do any of them.

And George was so enamored with Bill's intellect he Wrongly assumed if Bill didn't think it was important enough to do something about Usama he shouldn't either.

When 911 happened he realised had made a wrong assumption. That taught him it was wrong to think like a Democrat.

Yep it is Bill's fault. At least partly.

Answer 9

"Its well know that Clinton warned Bush of Osama and Al Qauda"

I'll take whatever your smoking!

No seriously, you put facts, with no source, 42%? is that made up, and who cares. Saying Dick Clarke was able to handle the situation is all opinion.

I believe Osama is to blame for 9-11.

EDIT: Do our own research? We have and have come to the opposite conclusion. Man check this out
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Answer 10

that sounds fair , lets blame bush for not fixing 8 years of clinton doing nothing for 8 months . your vacation theory is stupid considering most of the presidents work is in communication , i am pretty sure wherever he is he has a phone , email and fax . But , we should forget about all of this and put the blame on the person actually responsible , ladin , and support our president for doing something about it