Why?
Same, question - assuming a Dem is President?
2007-07-25 07:29:50 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I would blame the terrorist unless there was information available that proved the President liable because of gross negligence.
2007-07-25 07:35:21 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
That already happened... on 9/11... and yes I blamed the President for not alerting NYC and other cities to the intelligence he had. Had he done that, the initial response would have been to a terrorist attack and the south tower would have been evacuated, saving maybe 3 or 400 lives. He was scared that day and had he ordered the military into immediate response, the Pentagon might not have been hit.
So, yes, I will blame the President when said President exhibits gross incompetence on a day like 9/11.
2007-07-25 14:45:59 · answer #2 · answered by Incognito 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The biggest portion of the blame should be shouldered on the corrupt foreign policy of the past 50 years because we are reaping the seeds that we have sown.
But
If the pres is stretching the defenses to the point that they are weak enough not to be able to defend our own nation, then yes I would place much of the blame on the president that weakened our nation.
It is irrelevant what party the pres belonged to, stupidity is stupidity.
2007-07-25 14:36:03 · answer #3 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't matter who is president, if intelligence indicated that an attack was imminent, and indicated the probable mode of attack, I would want to blame the president.
That said, the blame ultimately belongs to the terrorists and those who aided them. I would want their heads on a spike -- just as I STILL WANT JUSTICE for 9/11.
2007-07-25 14:34:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ibelieve the most logical person to take the most fault on such an attack, would be the person plotting and carrying out the assault. However I would not think highly of our commander and chief. Last I heard he was the person responsible for hearing and understanding internal information regarding threats to our country.
That being said I still say he has the ability to prevent dangerous threats to our nation due to the information being taken by our CIA, FBI, and whatever other organization we are paying for. "Knowledge is power" and since you have pre-existing information about something...wouldn't you do the best to prevent it? Esp. since you have every available resource at your disposal.
The government is spending millions on preventing attacks now...they receive all this information and use our over taxed dollars to fund this...I think they should be able to take the fault since they have all the proof, facts, and ability to stop it.
2007-07-25 14:42:37 · answer #5 · answered by thesoulcaged 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who else would you blame nitwit? The president is head of the executive branch of the government and the primary responsibility of that branch of the federal government is to enforce the rules, regulations and laws of the land. If the law of the land is being broken then it's his job to enforce it! Bush fails to adhere to the rules, he fails to regulate the corporations, and he breaks the law repeatedly with no repercussions! He should be strung up by fish hooks until he finally figures it out! If that fails then light him up and let him spread some light onto this dark world he created!
2007-07-25 15:16:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
that depends on what kind of job the President was doing.
if the president was doing all the right things and the attack happened anyway then "No" I would not blame that person.
but if the President was like bush, an idiot who has not made us safer and has made big mistakes then yes I would blame them.
2007-07-25 14:37:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I blame terrorist attacks on the perps, always, irregardless of political party.
I blame a president when they to not act within the best interests of the nation.
2007-07-25 14:34:25 · answer #8 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It really depends on the circumstance of the attack.
If it occured in such a way where it could have been prevent, like 9/11 than yes.
If it occured where the only way to prevent it was to restrict freedom, then no!
2007-07-25 14:34:16 · answer #9 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Wouldn't you? If he's saying he's doing everything to protect Americans and he obviously is pulling the plug on funds for homeland security, wouldn't you blame him. It would be no different if a Dem was president at this point in history.
2007-07-25 14:33:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋