Cons, If Clinton is responsible for 9/11, then is Bush Sr. responsible for the 1993 attacks?

Question

All I see is Clinton could have stopped Bin Laden etc... it gets old. Can Bush finally take responsibility for what happened on his watch?

Answer 1

Don't you know that Clinton is to blame for EVERYTHING? If your coffee is getting cold - Clinton's fault - just ask Rush. Car is dirty? Clinton's fault. Just accept that EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault, and in 4 years, it'll ALL be HILLARY Clinton's fault.

Answer 2

Every U.S. president since Carter is responsible for not having dealt more decisively with the Islamic terrorist threat.

When Carter handled the Iranian hostage crisis with such weakness, terrrorists realized you could take on the mighty American superpower and win. Reagan, for all his strong foreign policy and success at fighting Communism, should have responded to the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and marine barracks in Beirut with similar strength. But he didn't -- he pulled all troops out of Lebanon the next year.

Could Bush Sr. have done more? Absolutely. Just about all American citizens and political leaders could have done more to fight the terrorist threat. As a nation we clearly did not do enough between 1979 and 2001 to disrupt and prevent terrorist activities.

Bill Clinton is especially vulnerable to this criticism because there were several al-Queda attacks during his administration, including embassy bombings and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole., and he didn'd do much in response. Al-Queda was a growing threat that was allowed to continue to grow.

Clinton also suffers from a perception that he was too distracted by his "personal issues" and his poll-driven style of politics. What the country needed in the 90s, to deal with terrorism effectively, was a president who could take a bold stand, rally the American people, and take (probably unpopular) decisive action to stop them. A person, in other words, who would do what's right for the country, even if it was politically unpopular. Bill Clinton clearly was not that man.

And say what you want about GW Bush, he certainly has his flaws, but I think that most people would agree that 1. he is decisive; and 2. he is doing what he thinks is best for the country, even if it is politically unpopular.

Answer 3

We are responsible because we elect these people based on what they say while campaigning and then don't hold their feet to the fire when they break their promises.
9/11 happened on all of our watches. Iraq, the Patriot Act and MCA happened on all of our watches. CALEA happened in 1995 on all our watches under President Clinton.

We as a nation stand at the helm and watch the wheel spin and the ship veer towards the iceberg but don't reach out and correct the course until we're rubbing loudly against it and peeling hull plates away. We have to feel the water swirling around our ankles to begin to act and by then it's too late. Bad laws rarely get repealed and the dead are never brought back to life.

Maybe we should blame the apathetic who refuse to write letters and voice their opinions to their legislators. I guess that would require that they invest some time to look at the issues and form an opinion huh? Nope, can't tonight... Heroes is on. God help us.

I sure wish we, the involved, could park these partisan buses and all get out and walk together door to door and wake up our apathetic nation.

I don't know who said it, but I know I've heard it said. The majority of decisions are based on the opinion of a vocal minority. That's a scary thing.

Can President Bush take responsibility for what happened on his watch? I don't know. Can we as a nation take responsibility for what has happened on ours?

Answer 4

Well, if Bush 1 is responsible for the 1st WTC attacks, then Clinton should've been responsible for going after the people who carried it out besides the few they arrested in the states. He also had the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombings happen under his watch and he still did nothing. Granted, he did launch some cruise missiles, but they only blew up some tents.

Answer 5

Why did the US during the Clinton Administration have so many terrorist attacks while he was in office?
It is because the terrorists knew they could get away with it.

Wait till the next Dem pansy's gets in. They are buoyed up by weak feminists.
Have you noticed how the radical Islamics treat females?

Answer 6

Since people like Rush have been around,the Republicans have become the party of no responsibility.Everything is the fault of Clinton or the media.

Answer 7

Yeah I will buy that. Bush Sr. was a disgrace except for Kuwait.

Answer 8

lol good point bud! sock it to the conny ba$tards