could have done more. and clinton wasn't the president at the time. It was clinton admin that warned bush of something like that happening. I think he wanted it to happen to further there plans.
2007-01-12 15:55:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by sydb1967 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
No need to insult anyone, and I promise I won't. I have said many times before that Bush doesn't care about what anyone recommends. He has repeatedly ignored warnings and advice from everyone around him, so it is just in his nature to ignore fact and do what he wanted. In his mind, that was the right thing to do. In his twisted, perverse way of thinking, that shows strength and leadership.
However, he can't debate anyone without being coached.
2007-01-12 23:39:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by David L 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Neglect a threat or a threat-warning, and it becomes a really really bad threat or even an attack against the US. Then we get to use our volunteer military to spread democracy!
2007-01-13 06:31:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by Red Herring 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
he takes no one seriously. even his daddy.
people are saying no one knew for sure,yet thought clinton should have done something. claim bush was not to blame,but clinton was. that don't make no sense.
2007-01-12 23:59:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by kissmy 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
There was a lot of intelligence about an impending terrorist atack, but no one knew how, when or where. Without firm leads there is no way to predict where an attack will take place and be able to stop the act.
2007-01-12 23:51:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
Because they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear and because he would have to cut his vacation short.
2007-01-12 23:44:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Tom C 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hmm didn't Clinton see the warnings also? Seems they both did nothing.
2007-01-12 23:44:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Luekas 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
I don't believe any of these grand conspiracy theories. I think he was just lazy.
2007-01-12 23:38:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by Morey000 7
·
0⤊
1⤋