Why do Liberals blame Republicans for 9/11?

Question

No question that I am a conservative. I find it disturbing that people on both sides take events such as this and VT massacre and turn it into a political cause.

How can you blame one side or the other without blaming both? I think Bush and his administration ignored several warning signs that could have prevented in his first 8 months of the presidency. However, giving Bill Clinton a pass on this is stupid. He had 8 years of missed warnings. Somalia, First World Trade Center, Cole, and he ignored the warnings as well. Liberals blaming Bush for 9/11 is like saying it is the closer's fault that the starting pitcher gave up 6 runs in the 9th inning. The closer giving up the final run does not make him solely responsible.

Answer 1

Because everyone wants to blame SOMEONE for bad things that happen. I think there may have been warning signs that Clinton and his admin ignored (heck he was offered Bin Laden on a platter and said 'no thanks') AND there may have been warning signs that Bush and his admin ignored.. to be fair to Bush he was just in office for a short time when it happened.

However.. there are always warning signs about one thing or another.. and if the US government jumped up and ran around over each one we'd constantly be in a tizzy.

I think that to lay the blame on anyone, it should be laid at the feet of the people that planned and carried out the whole thing... not the presidents that may have 'ignored' warning signs.. (I cannot believe I just stood up for Bubba Clinton..).

I'm not sure that even if the presidents knew 'something' definitely was coming it could have been stopped.. I know hindsight is 20/20.. but when you are back before something happens you just cannot look at something with that same clairty.

Hope that makes sense.

Answer 2

You do realize that the facts are against you on every one of your points. Clinton inherited an economy that was in a shambles thanks to Reagan and Bush. If you aren't old enough to remember, the failing economy was the major reason Clinton defeated Bush. Clinton then helped not only turn the economy around, but presided over the longest economic expansion in our history, with an unprecedented period of both low unemployment and low inflation. There is no way at all anyone can say that Bush's deficit is Clinton's fault. Bush's deficit is due to the spending policies of the administration and the Republican congress that was in power for the first six years GWB was in office. As to 9/11, the record shows that Clinton did quite a bit to combat terrorism. Certainly more than Bush before 9/11, as he did not consider it a priority. So, the reason Bush is blamed for these things rather than Clinton is because they are clearly not Clinton's fault, as anyone can see. However, I do not blame Bush for 9/11. I doubt it could have been avoided even if he had cared, thanks to the juvenile provincialism that prevailed in our intelligence agencies.

Answer 3

I find it disturbing you can see it's disturbing to place the blame of such things on Republicans, yet you pretty much blame Clinton for 9-11?

Clinton did get closer to killing Osama than Bush ever has, is that "ignoring" to Republicans... and when he did get closer, Republicans complained about it that he was doing it as a distraction (apparently Osama wasn't a threat to them?) wag the dog?

and calling 9-11 "the final run" is like calling pearl harbor a minor sea battle...

I don't blame Bush, but you're clearly FAR TOO PARTISAN to even start to talk about this in a mature manner, which from your question, you almost seem to want to... so I'm not going to bother

Answer 4

Blaming Bush does not equal making him solely responsible. I'd hold the perpetrators somewhat responsible, too, wouldn't you?

Now, Bill Clinton was not president when it happened. Bill Clinton had special projects going after the bin Laden's money, which Bush shut down. Bill Clinton had a habit of following bin Laden around with a cruise missile; another project Bush shut down. Gore made recommendations on airport safety which republicans savaged, and tabled. Those recommendations would have stopped Atta and others at the airport gate.
Bill Clinton's transition team told Bush's people, and Richard Clarke, counter terror chief in both admins confirms this, that bin Laden was priority number one. But, Ashcroft cut anti-terror funding and focused on porn. Bush didn't care. Condi didn't care; even after the fact she couldn't connect the warnings to the reality. Condi said no one could have imagined when it had happened before and plots like it were foiled before. When Tenant and a CIA agent told Bush that Al Queda was coming, Bush extended his vacation. We know where he was and where he stayed when the planes hit. We know he ran from bunker to bunker like Alexander the Great or Caesar or Capt. Crunch.

And his dad was eating breakfast with bin Ladens on 9/11 and Jr was supping with the Saudi ambassador that night.

Answer 5

Well, it seems to me you are phrasing the question with a false pretense, i.e. that Clinton missed several warning signs and did nothing. Please recall that the Clinton administration was actively trying to seek out and destroy al qaeda and even launched several missiles in an attempt to kill Bin Laden. When this occurred, the Republican congress, senate and media (radio) went berzerk with "wag the dog" scenarios and focused its attention solely on Monica Lewinski. Furthermore, the Clinton administration stopped several attempted terrorist attacks, particularly around the year 2000 new year.

Then, upon the current administration entering the White House, all counter-terrorism operations effectively halted while our resources were focused on an anti-ballistic missile defense system. This caused the Russians and Chinease to sign a non-aggression/mutual defense pack (pre-9/11), if you recall. Ultimately, Condoleeza Rice was photographed carrying a "historical" URGENT WARNING in a presidential daily briefing about al-qaeda wanting to use planes in an attack on U.S. soil.

So, in essence, I see a hypocritical Republican party that, during Clinton's presidency refused several counter-terrorism ideas put forth (like taggents to weapons materials to track the same in favor of the NRA special interest); argued that when he did take on the terrorists, it was nothing more than a diversion; and, now wants to blame him for the entire fiasco instead of Mr. "stare blankly into space for several minutes after being notified the country was under attack and then run for cover" Bush.

Answer 6

you are 100% correct. Clinton can be excused on this one though, he and his wonderful Attorney General Reno (a fine American) were fighting home grown terrorism, like the Branch Davidians, Ruby Ridge Rebels and the Iraqi aided Oklahoma City bomber (they found the white guys but didn't care to look for the brown ones).

Answer 7

I agree, they are both partially to blame.
The most blame should go to the President who funded, armed and trained bin Laden and friends back in the 80's.

That would be President Ronald Reagan.

Answer 8

I know its sad isnt it
The only way 9\11 could be considered bush's fault is if he was REALLY warned about it but that has not shown me concrete evidence. Virginia tech is Liberal propaganda on Gun control. I think that is low to use something like Virginia massacre as propaganda for your own ends. If you out law guns then you might as well out law knives and forks cause they can kill people to. Then they will want to out law cars cause someone gets hit.

Answer 9

Anyone that blames Bush or the GOP are stupid. The terrorists were the bad guys, not our government!

Answer 10

Sandy Berger either believes, or was forced to steal & destroy classified documents, to protect Clinton from the 9/11 Commission Investigation.
What did Clinton Know?
And when did he Know it?
The Democrat Cover-Up must end.