To those that mantra "No US Terrorists attacks in past 5 years".Should we thank Bush for letting 9/11 happen?

Answer 1

No it was all Clintons fault.

Even though it was on BUSH'S watch that it happened and the CIA dropped a memo right on Condoleeza Rice's desk titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."

I guess that was too vague for them.

Nope, it was up to Clinton to see years in advance what Bush couldn't see right in front of his face. Seems logical doesn't it?

Answer 2

I don't know that we should blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks, but the fact that no terrorist attacks have occurred on US soil since then means absolutely nothing. It especially doesn't mean that Bush protected the country from them. As I recall, the last terrorist attack on US soil was also on the same edifice which fell on 9/11, the World Trade Center, and occurred in the fall of 1993, a full eight years before 9/11. So an even greater span of time elapsed between those two attacks than has since 9/11. Yet we can't credit the government in place for most of that time span for protecting the country, can we?

The fact is that if terrorists want to inflict damage, they will find a way. Especially with the current crop of incompetents running our government. I need not point out that politicians are not notorious for being very bright. The empty suit currently occupying the Oval Office is a prime example of that point.

Answer 3

I thoroughly detest Bush, but it isn't his fault that 9/11 happened, or Clinton's fault. Bush just used our horror and grief to pad his intent to attack Iraq, and that was the beginning of my intense dislike of this sorry excuse for a President. It's much more complicated than that and involves problems in our intelligence agencies and lack of cooperation and communication between them and the White House, for the most part.

I do think that those who credit Bush with no further attacks happening so far are whistling past the graveyard though. Al Queda takes an average of 5 years to plan its large attacks. We can hope that the plan foiled by Scotland Yard (not Bush by the way) to blow up those planes over the Atlantic was the next planned big attack, but it seems unlikely. Al Queda isn't going to execute small terror attacks in the US after 9/11. They always, but always, try to exceed the death tolls of their last success where the US is concerned. Our ports are still ridiculously unprotected, as are our borders. When Al Queda attacks us on our own soil again it will be something long in the planning, and bigger than 9/11. I hope and pray, just like most Americans, that we find out and prevent it beforehand.

Answer 4

human beings are actually not against the conflict that resulted from the 9/11 assaults. maximum human beings help the Afghanistan marketing campaign. Makes me ask your self: if Bush grow to be at the back of 9/11, why did no longer he blame it on terrorists he could desire to link to Saddam? Saddam tried to have his father killed. in assessment, in the past 9/11 the stuff bin encumbered did ordinarily led to issues for usa under The Clinton administration and could have truly helped Bush get elected by utilising convincing some human beings that The Democrats are actually unable to grant secure practices.

Answer 5

Bush letting 9-11 happen (more likely US did it) is the ONLY explanation for the lack of attacks since then.

No law enforcement or military agency can possibly be 100% effective, which is what would have to have taken place for every terrorist attack to have been stopped.

The tiny arrests made were of such a miniscule nature they posed no threat.

Answer 6

Bush did not let it happen. No one person is to blame. There was a failure of alot of people to react starting in the Clinton term. It was a terrorist attack. Blame them.

Answer 7

I don't think recording when terrorist activities happened on or off US soil is good measure of any presidents foreign policy. I think you'd agree.

It's partially probabilistic and it's partially foreign policy from 10, 20, and 30 years ago.

Answer 8

Yes, it enabled the US to see that the middle east must be freed from certain dictators. And we should not forget to thank Clinton for 7 3/4 years of freedom from Muslim terror attacks.

Answer 9

Clinton had Osama in his sites and did NOTHING to stop him. We bombed a pharmacy instead of bombing Osama because Clinton was a coward. See The Path to 9/11 documentary.

Answer 10

No, he had just as much control over this attack as your or I had. this is an ignorant question that keeps getting asked by ignorant people.