English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Either through action or inaction, how many people think the current top feds have something to hide about 9/11 attacks?

2007-02-10 14:05:26 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

14 answers

Okay, for ANOTHER point of view, jeez!, take a look at:

(uhhhh, when Bush got elected, many ppl predicted WW3. 911 was very much a RESULT of Bush's election.)

added:
And I really don't see how the question is an insult to either the people fighting for us now (or since then), nor the ppl who lost their lives during 9-11. Whether Bush had 'something' to do with it or not, they all died 'for our country.' (I myself was in NYC at the time, and trust me, I wouldn't think of disgracing any of 9-11 victims' lives...but to me, just asking about Bush's involvement does NOT disrespect them in any way.) There are many conspiracy theories out there, none of which can be proved true. However, they are all worth looking at, as well as other points of view. I think it's crazy that I have been voted down so many times on my answer - have any of you EVER read a foreign newspaper or watched foreign tv? Often, it is completely different from U.S.'s point of view and what is spoon-fed to us. It is amazing how one historical event can be described SO differently, and I'm not talking about 9-11 only here.
On another note, IF Bush took some part in 9-11, it most likely would have been for U.S. interests (in the end). For instance, having a reason to attack the Middle East (Afghanistan & Iraq now), most likely for oil, which our SUV-loving citizens gobble up like water.
There is SO much history (typically U.S. CIA activity) in the Middle East that people don't know about nor care to know about. They call 9-11 an attack on the U.S., as if the U.S. never did anything before that, but they don't know that it could also be called "retaliation," which is what the U.S. names our attack in Afghanistan.

2007-02-10 14:17:35 · answer #1 · answered by n o 2 · 0 5

No. Osama was handed to Gore and Clinton several times and he was not considered a threat. I think it was in 1994 and 1997. There were 9 other aircraft headed for other cities on 9/11, but the actions were foiled by the quick action of the President and the White House. This could have paralized us for months, causing economic and social chaos.The terrorists that kamikasied the jets into the World Trade Center had been trained in the US for many years before 9/11/01. It was Clinton's job to stop Osama and he did not. As for the Pentagon, search for pictures of 9/11 attacks and you will not find any aircraft pieces anywhere near the building. It was something else that hit it, possibly a guided missile?

2007-02-10 14:22:56 · answer #2 · answered by Mark T 6 · 0 0

We have to go back to the days of Robert Gates, and William Casey when he was the head of the CIA....Casey was an old WWII vet, who hated the Soviet Union. There my friends is where Casey made a terrible mistake that lead to 911...I believe. Yes, this is when the CIA became deeply involved in the Afghan, Soviet conflict via Pakistan, or the ISI of later day. Casey wanted to inflict as much pain on the Soviets as possible, and he did just that, but in doing so it also changed the tide of history. SOL people. Then came George Bush Senior...du do I have to say any more. I will point out however that Casey as head of CIA did more than any predecessor in the past or present to use the full potential of that agency that has ever been recorded to date. All other potential heads of CIA were mear bean counters or well you got it du George Bushes. The current CIA boy Michael Hayden, at large is what we call a bean counter or more accurately a statistician by all accounts he will do nicely on the wall of fame. Put 3 thousand stars by the boys name as well, and counting I believe. So do I believe Bush had anything to do with 911, yes I do he was President which is I believe the correct answer, and protector of the country at the time this event took place which puts him in the anals of history as the one accountable for such an event. Yes, he and his father together made a real good team. Who again I might add was the head of CIA at one point in time. Call a buddy bring a friend! We going to have a hoe down. Just sit back relax and enjoy the ride folks, cause 2008 will be here soon.

2007-02-10 15:45:58 · answer #3 · answered by mr bliss 2 · 0 0

It was a Bush that was before Clinton and really messed this country up and didn't do anything about Bin Ladin. I guess he believed the same as me that we didn't need to jump into someone else's battles (Iraq's). Also, if Iraq was such a threat, why didn't George Bush, Sr. get Bin Ladin when he was in office? I noticed that the terrorist threats stopped while Clinton was in office and started back when we got another Bush as president. I'll be glad when Bush finally gets out of office because all he is doing is getting more and more of our sons, daughters, wives, and husbands killed by sending and keeping them in Iraq. I hope our next president is better than this one has been. We don't need another Bush as president ever again. They have messed up our economy too. Clinton was helping the poor when Bush, Jr. became president. Now our we have more and more taxes and have more and more homeless because of this. I think Bush enticed 9/11, but the terrorists actually did 9/11. This is my feelings on this.

2007-02-10 14:49:24 · answer #4 · answered by belle6912 2 · 0 0

With Bush having only been in office for 8 months, and his predecessor having done literally nothing to stop a growing threat (including cut the intelligence budget almost 80% and the military by almost half) a more appropriate question would be: "What could Bush have possibly done to prevent 9/11?"

He is clearly not the most adept politician, nor is he even belong in the top half of historical presidencies... but there are far worse Presidents than Mr. George W. Bush who did way more to harm the state of our nation.

2007-02-10 14:13:52 · answer #5 · answered by futuregopprez 3 · 3 0

No. clinton had a very good idea what was going to happen but he purposely did not tell the new administration anything so it would look like Bush was negligent. It was just one more dirty trick of clintons. Bush wasn't in office long enough to make anybody mad. 9/11 was planned before Bush was a candidate.

2007-02-10 14:15:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

WOW... I think I just answered this a minute ago.... When was the last time you saw the sun??? How bad are your rickets?

This conspiracy theory is B S it's over and done with, please stop insulting the surviving family members and disgusting the rest of us who choose to believe what actually happened.

I'm sure you're trying to laugh through your retainer and calling me an R-tard, good for you.... good for you. This really pisses me off that someone could NOT think of the lives that were lost of our fellow Americans and suggest something like this!!

2007-02-10 14:26:36 · answer #7 · answered by Porterhouse 5 · 1 0

From what I have heard on TV and the radio, there were many warnings of an attack on New York. He obviously didn't take them seriously. I am not one of Bushes biggest fans, but doesn't his inaction say anything about the man?

2007-02-10 15:19:08 · answer #8 · answered by Terry Z 4 · 0 1

Yes actually they did. They were the ones who fought back at the people who carried out the attack.

2007-02-10 14:17:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

No. how do you ask something like that. Men and Women have given up their lives to save their families and fellow American citizens!

2007-02-10 14:19:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anna-Banana 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers