2006-10-11 03:45:23 · 20 answers · asked by Amanda F 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think that President Bush had nothing to do with that. We have elected the president to do what is good for our country. Would someone concerned with the good of the people, have a part in something so terribe? I don't understand why someone would say that. Sure, you may not like the president, but that doesn't give ANYONE the right to say that.
2006-10-11 03:52:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is a rumor and it is based on incompetence. Bush Administration appointees were given info that an airplane -based attack was imminent. They had intel that several if the hijackers were planning attacks. They had several of the hijackers on Terrorist watch lists.
The reality is that no one in the administration took the threats seriously, agents and operatives who should have identified patterns and people failed to do so. In an effort to protect political 'turf' agencies didn't share information.
This is not a conspiracy. This is garden-variety, down home fool-sighted incompetence. Never underestimate how badly an incompetent person can screw things up. By giving credence to 'rumors' we give these 'rubes' a pass for the crimes they committed (incompetence and stupidity).
2006-10-11 10:54:28 · answer #2 · answered by hhabilis 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Osama bin creepo is on tape twice admitting to 9-11, why do you think he lied? Why would Bush take a chance like that, not even knowing who all were in the buildings, or planes, he might have had family or friends there that day.
How come so many people always believe conspiracy theory's?
2006-10-11 10:56:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ridiculous rumor.
He loves his country and his fellow man as much as the rest of us... well most of us, anyway. He is a christian who would never have agreed to put lives in danger no matter what the circumstances and has had to put up with so much @#$% since 9/11, he would have never brought it on himself knowing that would be the case.
Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 and that has been well established.
2006-10-11 10:52:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In effect, through incompetence, certainly. M. Thatcher did the same (but intentionally) re. the Falklands, she withdrew a strategic aircraft carrier when intelligence said the Argies were on the brink of invading thus precipitating it, effectively saving her (at the time) doomed Premiership and winning her 2 more General Elections.
2006-10-11 10:53:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have heard the theory and I find it preposterous. To think that a US President would actually conspire to have his own country attacked in order to precipitate a war of choice is the worst sort of treason imaginable. I don't believe for a moment that Bush is capable of that sort of wicked duplicity.
2006-10-11 10:50:09 · answer #6 · answered by rac 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely NOT !! That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. It is nothing more than a rumor. I do not think any US President would do something like that.
2006-10-11 11:01:43 · answer #7 · answered by Caleb's Mom 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Another one of those sad rumors. Those who hate the president will blame him for everything. Have heard people blame him for Katrina saying that he made it destroy New Orleans.
2006-10-11 10:48:06 · answer #8 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Bush deliberately ignored the evidence and warning signs that 9/11 was going to happen - because he knew it would be a political goldmine for him, a great excuse to increase his power and boost defense spending. But I don't believe he actually had anything to do with its planning or execution.
2006-10-11 10:53:45 · answer #9 · answered by Mark P 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It's an outlandish, unfounded rumor, which means, to leftists and the media, it couldn't BE more true.
2006-10-11 10:47:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋