For several decades, NORAD had standing orders to automatically scramble fighters immediately upon a report of any highjacking. In July of '01, "president" Bush changed that order. Under the new standing order, no scrambling was allowed without the express order from the Secretary of Defence (Donald Rumsfeld). This order stood for about 3 months...from 2 months before until a few weeks after 9/11. If this order had not been put into effect, fighters would have been scrambled and the planes would have either been escorted to the closest secure airport or shot down.
Regardless of who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, and regardless of any intelligence available or not available, "President" Bush's order allowed 9/11 to happen.
That change of orders seems rather idiotic, doesn't it? An order for NORAD NOT to scramble in an emergency? Or perhaps it was part of the plan...after all, Bush has been shown to have a genius IQ (at least according to some).
2006-09-30 07:59:04 · 21 answers · asked by corwynwulfhund 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Either the change was an idiotic order to the point of negligence, and this man shouldn't be in charge of our military, or it was intended...after all, the order was just given two months before....
If it was intended, that means that Bush was at least complicit in the attacks, in which case he should not be in control of our government.
Either way, he shouldn't be in control of our country!
2006-09-30 08:01:27 · update #1
David...come on...get a friggin clue! Every single person involved in planning and executing the '93 attacks (only 2 months after he got into office) was arrested and convicted. Every one of them that were in the country, and only Osama himself and a couple of his lackeys got away. Every time Clinton wanted to go after him, the Republican Congress refused with one exception. There was one time that they had a target that there was a 50/50 chance that Osama would be there, but there would be a lot of collateral deaths. He told his intelligence people that if they could give him a better chance of hitting Osama, he would be willing to take the chance, but with the chances so bad with so many civilians that would be killed at the same time, it wasn't worth it.
2006-09-30 08:06:26 · update #2
David...come on...get a friggin clue! Every single person involved in planning and executing the '93 attacks (only 2 months after he got into office) was arrested and convicted. Every one of them that were in the country, and only Osama himself and a couple of his lackeys got away. Every time Clinton wanted to go after him, the Republican Congress refused with one exception. There was one time that they had a target that there was a 50/50 chance that Osama would be there, but there would be a lot of collateral deaths. He told his intelligence people that if they could give him a better chance of hitting Osama, he would be willing to take the chance, but with the chances so bad with so many civilians that would be killed at the same time, it wasn't worth it.
2006-09-30 08:06:33 · update #3
I won't even bother commenting on Tok's idiocy. You all should check out that link! It's really funny! Those people have to be full blown schizophrenics! My mother-in-law is schizo, so I know all about it.
If anyone wants proof, just look it up. The internet is a great way to find information, as long as the site's sources are good. You can get lots of info direct from government sources on this issue
2006-09-30 08:09:41 · update #4
Adam...Time magazine claimed to be liberal once...but is owned by one of the largest contributors to and an active member of the RNC. A great way to spew right-wing propaganda is to claim that it is being spewed by liberals.
2006-09-30 08:11:37 · update #5
birdsnake...you are really quite the conspiracy theorist! You "proved" that Clinton was responsible for 9/11 because he wagged his finger during an interview when the interviewer was spewing false accusations at him? You really must be high! I really hope that you are never on a jury!
2006-09-30 08:13:38 · update #6
Isn't it hilarious that conservatives still are doing it? Did they even read the question? Bush caused 9/11, either through gross negligence and idiotic policy in the wake of multiple warnings of a terrorist attack by air, or through intent to make it happen, which is quite likely considering that it was exactly what the PNAC has wanted...and even stated that they wanted less than a year before!
2006-09-30 08:16:53 · update #7
This is a good question. I don't have any answers to it other than it seems like it has become a reflexive action on the part of the Fascists to blame one of the Clintons for everything that goes wrong in the world.
2006-09-30 12:20:02 · answer #1 · answered by Zelda Hunter 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Tell me what happened to the truck found full of gold bars and the rest of the gold cache buried under the WTC towers? Who would have known to spirit these away if 9/11 hadn't had some sort of clandestine complicity within the US establishment? Why were so many people escaping from the WTC towers told to go back in on 9/11? Have any of the so called enquiries done anything to actually enquire into these mysteries? On 7/7 in London last year (when the G8 were meeting in Scotland) a journalist from the Daily Mail asked the press conference, at which the Metropolitan police were answering questions, why the Israeli Embassy had cancelled all external meetings that morning due to a bomb scare - prior to the bombs going off. When enquiries seek to cover up rather than uncover the truth then shhh...urely only the sane are conspiracy theorists?
2006-09-30 08:22:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
If Clinton who was in the Whitehouse when the WTC fas first attacked in 1993 then Al Quaeda would be as defunct as is Lybian sponsored terror today! In the early 1990s Bill Clinton made it clear even before entering the Whitehouse that messing around in domestic affairs and wiping the the noese and padding the butts of Americans was his priority. He hit George HW Bush for spending too much time on foreign policy.
Clinton simply put terror like most foreign policy matters on the backburner, and that included killing Osama!
2006-09-30 08:07:34 · answer #3 · answered by Masterwooten 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your "information" are little off a million) Bush develop into blamed. yet in simple terms to be honest for your argument, GWB develop into in elementary words in place of work 8 months even as Sept 11 happeend. 2) Obama has been in place of work for 4 YEARS and he remains blaming GWB!! At what element will he take any responsibility.
2016-12-04 01:48:11 · answer #4 · answered by thorpe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read the September 7th,1998 issue of U.S. News magazine and you will get your answer there. And the fact that he was in over his head with the Monica thing instead of focusing on the issues at hand. Had they known at the time 9/11 was going to happen he probably would have faced more than impeachment!
2006-09-30 12:12:35 · answer #5 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I didn't even read the rest of your question, I have one for you...Why does anyone insist on blaming a horrific tragedy on anyone but the people who did it? You know the guys who were flying the planes and the guys who set up the plan, do you really think Bill Clinton, George Bush or anyone else talked to these people, gave them tickets and sent them on their way. Why not focus on healing and helping instead of blaming?
2006-09-30 08:02:35 · answer #6 · answered by Barbara C 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't blame Clinton, I blame the terrorists.
Clinton is just guilty of not having a spine and possessing an inability to make a decision without first taking a poll (not exactly my idea of a leader).
He was a very lucky surfer who was out there when the perfect wave came along and lifted him.
2006-09-30 08:07:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If I insist on blaming anyone for 911 it would me Americans and this culture of arrogance that we have. I would like to say though that Bill Clinton had no business throwing a fit on national television like that. His day is over, he left business unfinished. Were I lucky enough to be president one day, I damn sure wouldnt want to leave something like that undone, but Im sure I would show enough grace to leave it all on the field. Instead, he comes back five years after the fact and saying what he wouldve done.
2006-09-30 08:04:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Charges should be brought against Clinton for causing 9/11.
He proved it when he wagged his finger. He proved that he thinks he guilty.
2006-09-30 08:07:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I can only speak for myself when I say that I blame the terrorists.
Perhaps the attention has been cast in Clinton's direction with the constant liberal blaming of Bush for everything.
Y'Think?
2006-09-30 08:08:37 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋