Is Bill Clinton to blame for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993?

Question

That occurred only 37 days into his first term, yet I don't remember anyone blaming the previous administration. If Clinton is responsible because it happened on his watch, then shouldn't Bush take the responsibility for 9/11?

Answer 1

Yeah, if we're going to start pointing fingers backwards looking for the cause of 9/11 we're going to have to point back, at least, until right after WWII when the US was part of setting up the state of Israel. I mean, I'm pro-Israel, but let's face it, they've been fighting with the Muslims since the whole thing began and when the US took away land from Palestine (that they had won by fighting someone, who had won it from someone who had fought someone else, who had won it...well you get the picture.), we became Israel's friend and the rest of the Muslim world's enemy. And ever since then the Muslims have been plotting/scheming, whatever to "strike back at the heart of the Infidel" "He who is the friend of my enemy is my enemy" and what not. So let's blame the Truman administration for 9/11.

Answer 2

Clinton isn't responsible for the 1993 and Bush isnt' for the 2001

Answer 3

Clinton is to be blamed for that bombing just as much as Bush is to be blamed for the 2001 attacks.

Answer 4

It wasn't finger pointing time until Clinton did no longer respond the subsequent 5 situations the U. S. or this is hobbies have been attacked! It replaced into then that the yank people found out that they had a shameless coward sitting in the seat of the commander in chief. the super distinction between the 1st and final incidents have been this: George Herbert Walker Bush replaced into out of workplace while the 1st commerce center attack happened. This u . s . replaced into being examined by using Islamic terrorists, while the 1st attack happened, while the 2nd WTC attack happened, below GWB, the terrorists already believed the rustic does not respond because of the fact it had no longer, on the final 5 incidents. The precedent had already been set by using Clinton, to no longer react to attack. the guy feared our own protection stress complicated better than he did the enemy. this is authentic, the protection stress had little regard for the Clintons, in spite of the undeniable fact that it does not have allowed this is dislike for them to intrude with this is protection stress responsibilities. You suggested that the Clinton administration began working to maintain us secure from terrorism, it is as far fetched as a fact can likely be. There theory of conserving the yank people from terrorism replaced into to be sure the difficulty in civilian courts. it is as far as Clinton ever went in scuffling with the enemy of as we communicate. this is a similar enemy as that of 1993. basically how deep in the sand are you Clinton fans arranged to bury your heads, until now you will finally admit the Clintons are better than basically losers? they're risky losers, because of the fact they think they could produce a win, win subject for all, and that basically ain't so. between 1992 and 2000, we tried Clintons social test of being staggering to all of us. He grew to become the different cheek, every time our u . s . replaced into attacked. Why, he finally ran out of cheeks to tutor, yet nonetheless did no longer something. So, do no longer you dare tell the yank people who we choose the Clinton's back, do no longer you fu cking dare!

Answer 5

Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy. It is easy to blame the president, as he is the most visible target. How about blaming the perpetrators of the crime, which I believe is a custom in this country. Point taken.

Answer 6

we see the same pattern of false flag operations and military doctrine during clintons administration as well as the present ... so there is obviously powerful figures behind the scenes that are running the show and the president is nothing more than the mouthpiece ... so to blame him would be to overlook the greater part of the problem.

Answer 7

After the bombing, Clinton did not declare war or nothing. When he was president (as with Bush) they both did NOT ask for us to get attacked.

Answer 8

Actually I think you can blame the FBI. Since they paid the guy who set it up to do so. They provided the bombers with the explosives. The guy thought something was screwed up so he recorded some conversations he had with the FBI.

Answer 9

There is no way to but the blame on one single person.

Answer 10

BILL CLINTON IS TO BLAME FOR ALLOT OF OTHER THINGS TOO. THE BOMBINGS OF THE TWO EMBASSY'S IN KENYA AND TANZANIA, THE BOMBING OF THE USS COLE, BLACK HAWK DOWN. JUST TO NAME A FEW. HE DID NOTHING ABOUT TERRORIST WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. HE WAS A SOFT PRESIDENT LIKE MOST DEMOCRATS.