Like closing down valuable military training sites like Ft. McClellan and ignoring CIA intel about Bin Laden and Al Queda. Oh yes, he did so much to keep us safe.
2007-04-28 01:54:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Voice of Liberty 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
Look beyond the smoke and mirrors and you will see that 9/11 was perpetrated by a Saudi group of radicals who see the Saudi royal family as oppressive and secular and keeps hundreds of billions for itself, while most Saudis live in poverty. The family has close personal and business ties to the Bush family and has for years. They resent the American military facilities created there by Bush Sr., so I imagine when his slacker son got elected, it really pissed them off.
But no one can really prevent terrorism, that's the nature of terrorism. There haven't been any major attacks since because the last one had the desired effect, to wit, it caused an irrational reaction to go to war, thus making the "cause" of one group of 200 or so terrorists into a cause for4 Muslims worldwide who (rightfully) feel threatened by the actions and rhetoric of this bumbling administration.
2007-04-28 10:54:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by commandercody70 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
He did do something; he looked the other way when Osama bin Laden was hand-fed to him on a platter.
Had he taken the opportunity to squash Osama bin Laden in his path, Bill Clinton would not have acted like a good little liberal by inviting him to the White House to wine and dine him. (Which is how terrorists are dealt with by Liberals.)
It's my opinion that while Bill Clinton was savoring this potential tasty opportunity, Hillary seriously objected Osama bin Laden's presence (and his host of tempting virgin candy treats - followers) and she put a stop to it by somehow reasoning that Osama would have drawn Chelsea into his fantasy-stricken harem.
Signed,
Liberal Logic Interpreter
2007-04-28 09:43:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mr. Happy, your point is? Why do we and the liberals have to keep coaching a game that happened 12 years ago? Both of our parties have made mistakes. Why can't people like us just quit with the blaming game, kick out a bunch of the politicians on both sides who all they want to do is play the blame game and put people who are more interested in fixing problems instead of trying to blame the other guy?
If MOST Americans fail to pay their house payment, guess what, the bank comes and gets it. They don't sit around blaming one spouse or the other, they just pay their bills or they sell the house and get something they can afford. If you don't show up for work, you get fired. It's your fault, you can't blame your employer or your wife or your dog for that matter. Real people live with making decisions and accepting the consequences. We need politicians that are willing to make hard decisions and live with their decisions. We have to many Blamers in politics, on BOTH sides and we need to do something about it.
http://Ray4VP.com
2007-04-28 08:59:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by ray4vp 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
What exactly did Bush do to prevent 9/11?
2007-04-28 09:56:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Path To 9-11 starts with the Clinton semen stains on the carpet in the Oval Office. He was more concerned with the little terrorist in his pants than the jihadist threats.
2007-04-28 09:03:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by dr_methanegasman 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
What's worse? The unknown horror that happened on 9/11 or the carefully planned constant attact on a country that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11.
No, no... what's even worse than all that is that it's all about OIL AND MONEY.
Don't believe everything you hear on TV. Read a book.
2007-04-28 08:59:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by sixmillionways 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Nope. Everybody knows Bush Jr is responsible for 911. There were no more islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after the first WTC attack. Bush Jr dropped the ball.
=========================================
Richard Clarke was Bush's National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism. Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.
Clarke said, "Frankly," I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He (((IGNORED))) it. He (((IGNORED))) terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11." "I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they got back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
2007-04-28 08:59:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
They have to, in order to promote their Flip-Flop Agenda
*EDIT- I have a Post, concerning much along these lines. If I can have 'Sgt G', go check it out. I would really like his response to it. Simply go to my Profile and click on it. Thank you.
2007-04-28 09:08:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Nunya Bidniss 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
His lack of response to the attacks against the U.S. at home and around the world did convince the terrorists to continue their murderous attacks against us.
2007-04-28 08:57:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mother 6
·
2⤊
3⤋