It's easier to blame Bush than to look in the mirror.
2007-08-13 08:48:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Brian 7
·
9⤊
10⤋
Clinton and his cabinet viewed it as a law enforcement issue and consulted liberal lawyers who advised that collateral damages would ruin America's reputation in the Arab world.
Clinton on this advise, missed several oportunities to kill ben ladin.
i just watched the History channel's program called
"Targeted' that gives a historical account of how we were caught off guard and should not have been.
the Clifton administration was very aware of what was occurring but the average citizen had no knowledge of al quida until 9/11.
the Washington Post leaked the info that the Bush adminstration was listening to Bin Ladin's cell phone and we lost a valuable tool and cost many lives. Shame on them!
yes, 9/11 was planned well in advance during Clinton's administration. we failed to realize their potential to do us great harm and sadly, many today are still refusing to realize it.
i wonder if these are the damaging memos that Sandy Buger had to distroy but we will never know now..also, why was he not tried for this crime, that is another post i guess.
2007-08-13 16:02:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
So that would make the responsibility for the Waco incident, Bush Ones? It only happened one month into Clinton's presidency.
Or maybe the Bay of Pigs was Eisenhower's?
Again one month.
But seven months and a very explicit paper referring to planes going into building that was read by Rice and Bush and not acted on, and you want to blame Clinton. Bush had a true hatred for Clinton for winning the election that made his dad a one term president. So much so that Bush refused to consider anything that the Clinton administration deemed important as worthwhile for Bush to listen to.
I wonder if you have ever considered that when Bush won, Al Qaida figured the guy wasn't too smart, and would never catch them and so they decided now was the time to go in and cause huge destruction on American soil.
They must have been right, BIn Ladin is still out there, and Bush went into Iraq instead of sticking with getting the man who masterminded it. Maybe if we had had a stronger, wiser leader they wouldn't have done it, maybe if they had done it anyway they would have been caught and in jail, as Clinton did to the men who tried to bomb the World Trade Center the first time.
Maybe is such a loaded word.
For the record, Burger was tried, pled guilty was fined, there were records of everything that was missing, and there was nothing of major importance. Now, about Gonzales.....
2007-08-13 15:58:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by justa 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
The Clinton administration had a very strong focus on terrorism and tried to impress on the incoming Buhites the magnitude of the threat. Bush of course ignored the warnings, and ignored the Intel that backed it up.
Why won't the Conservatives take responsibility for their failure to prevent 9/11?
2007-08-13 15:56:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by hohn m 3
·
4⤊
2⤋
You do know that Wikipedia isn't exactly on the LEVEL with the truth, right?
According to a PBS documentary on the war on terrorism and the roots to 9-11--the plans for attack started shortly after Bush I took office.
2007-08-13 16:49:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Whom do you think would have the gumption to stand up and look the American people dead in the eye and say: "Stop your bickering, it was my fault and I take full responsibility"
None, no one, nada, zippo.
And the fact remains: WE are to blame.
We have made running this country such a difficult and dreadful prospect that we can not have the audacity to expect that we will ever get leaders who will have the talent to plan for something that enormous.
Anyone with the brains we demand would not be stupid enough to subject himself to the sophomoric vilification we provide.
We have cut off our nose to spite our face. Be ashamed.
2007-08-13 15:59:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
The democrats will never take any responsibility.A few might but the democrats will cut off funds for them and run a candate against them like lieberman. The dems. run thier mouths but never stands up for any thing thats important for our way of life.or country. Any thing thats good for our country they are against. They propagandanize the ignorant into believing the reps are wrong but won't help. They would rather form commities that never amount to a damn.
2007-08-13 16:08:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by woody 2
·
1⤊
3⤋
But Dubya was in office when the attacks occured. You puds that hate Clinton are still more worried about cigars than any terrorists. Too bad your heads were located within thy buttocks and failed to listen or take any action other than the typical "Blame Bill".
Pathetic dude.
2007-08-13 15:54:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by kenny J 6
·
5⤊
3⤋
This is an old argument, so you probably know the answer.
President Clinton did try and get Bin Ladin, on several occasions. When he left office the intelligence was conveyed to the bush jr regime, which they ignored.
2007-08-13 15:58:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Follow the money 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
Maybe if the Republican dominated congress would have not listened to the airline industry and trimmed Clinton's proposals, 9/11 may have never been accomplished.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml
2007-08-13 15:55:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by avail_skillz 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
Bush started planning in the mid ninties!!
2007-08-13 15:49:49
·
answer #11
·
answered by soulsearcher 5
·
3⤊
5⤋