911 might not have happened !
2007-02-01 05:04:17 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Don't blame Clinton or Bush.
It was the extremist Muslims fault.
Stop dividing.
2007-02-01 05:10:16 · answer #1 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, no one thinks of it that way a lot of times though. People blame a guy who was barely in the chair for a few months and not to mention the fact at all the last minute deals Clinton made before he left office that had to be tended to. I forget how many pardons he made in total but he sure cranked them out.
Bush got criticized for taking the same actions as Clinton did...none. Clinton handed over a notebook, and more than likely it got put back on the same shelf that Clinton had it on where it collected dust.
I get tired of the "memo defense" that people use for Clinton. Memo's mean squat. Clinton fired missiles into countries for less reasons, he could have sent a few after Bin Ladin.
The reason the borders are not protected by any Pres. is no one can figure out a way to do it without offending anybody. It has to be PC in this brave new world or nothing.
People say they don't ever want another Bush in office but how come some of them want the same set of Clintons back?
2007-02-01 05:17:32 · answer #2 · answered by j615 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Just by harassing the terrorists during his watch, Clinton kept them jumpy enough not to be able to carry out mass murder. When Dubai Dubya took over, his ignorance and indifference to the terrorist threat made him cancel Clinton's harassment activity, which Dubdub thought was just Wagging the Dog. Dubdub, whose grandfather had financed Hitler, thought that terrorism was for the Jews to worry about, so he didn't really care what Al Qaida was planning. A coward and traitor during Vietnam, the Preppy Pipsqueak and his anti-American class still aren't fighting a real War on Terror, even after 9/11, when we were attacked by the Texxon Protectorate of Saudi Arabia. Treason is all about making money for your family and friends.
2007-02-01 06:15:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton could have bin laden, but chose not to.
"A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem."
2007-02-01 05:36:10 · answer #4 · answered by larspruitt 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually, the Clinton administration had the military and the CIA both looking for Bin Laden and trying to eliminate him. You also may have noticed that Bush hasn't caught him.
We give too much credit to Presidents. Did you think Clinton would personally apprehend Osama? Do you think Bush could?
The Bush Whitehouse ignored direct warnings from the CIA in the first year of the administration that stated Al Qaeda was planning an attack within the US. They flat out ignored it.
2007-02-01 05:27:39 · answer #5 · answered by Year of the Monkey 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Very true. It's sad that we were attacked 4 times by Al Qaida during the Clinton administration and nothing was done to fight these terrorists. remember, the world trade center was bombed during the Clinton administration. Nothing was done. 2 US embassies were bombed during the Clinton Administration. Nothing was done. The USS Cole was attacked during the Clinton Administration. Nothing was done. Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of good things Clinton did during his 8 years in office. But I wish he would have taken these threats a little more seriously. But I guess the deaths weren't significant enough to actually do a lot about it.
2007-02-01 05:12:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Not entirely true...I suppose when Clinton was offered to kill bin laden, he could have overruled the intel agencies and said do it anyway. Clinton didn't back off on his own-- the concern was that they would have too much collateral damage to kill OBL.
The intel folks had tons of info on al qaeda and Clinton's administration did go after them. Just becausae they didn't launch a war doesn't mean they didn't do anything. Clinton's people tried to share all kinds of info on terrorism and the Bush folks would have none of it.
One could argue that If Bush had done his job, 9/11 wouldn't have happend. Bush was warned on a few occasions in PDB's by condi that al Qaeda was intending to do a 9/11 style attack. They did nothing. 9/11 happend on Bush's watch, not Clinton's
net-net-- It's not as black-and-while as you make it out to be.
2007-02-01 05:17:47 · answer #7 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
That is a possibility. If the CIA investigations into the Saudis who were taking flying lessons and didn't seem too interested in learning to land hadn't been squelched from "higher up" then maybe it wouldn't have happened either.
2007-02-01 05:15:12 · answer #8 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
...And if the CIA had done their jobs, and if Bush had done his job... and the flight school instructor... and the gate agents... and if Cheney, Powell, Rice (in defense), heck, let's go back to the mistakes in Iran. If we would have helped out the Shah, there wouldn't have been a fundamentalist regime there.
Sure, people in the Clinton administration put in place policies, or didn't take action, that allowed al Qaeda to get stronger, get in the country, and led by Osama bin Ladin, committ a huge, terrible terrorist act. Was Clinton, himself, the "proximate cause" of 9-11? No. THe question is what we do about it, and what we did after 9-11.
2007-02-01 05:10:24 · answer #9 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
If you would have included Bush's name in your question then I would agree. If anything its both there faults. I know it pains you to agree to that, but its the truth. By the way, since were on this subject, why did Bush vacation 42% of the time during his first eight months in office? And why are our borders still unprotected? Is that Clinton's fault to?
2007-02-01 05:15:29 · answer #10 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋