Why do they forget that Clinton left a plan to deal with terrorism?Why is it that Condi ignored it?Why is it Cons forget that 9/11 happened 7 months AFTER bush took office?Why is it that cons forget the PDR stating "Bin laden detremined to stike inside US" a month before 9/11.Why is it cons also forget that Clinton never blamed '93 WTC bombing on Bush Sr. even though he was only in office less then 2 months?
2007-08-23 08:03:45 · 12 answers · asked by honestamerican 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Because it's easier to shift the blame on others rather admit the mistakes made by the current administration --focus on this, first we took out the wrong guy, not to say Saddam was an angel, Bin Laden appear to be the villain for 9/11 and we still can't find his location. We found Saddam in a hole, yet, we can't find Laden--I often wonder why not.
2007-08-23 08:21:41 · answer #1 · answered by Joan J 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton's wonderful "plan" was ready in October of 2000, yet he sat on it for the last three months of his administration. Why?
The terrorists were in and out of this country for almost 5 years before 9/11, yet the administration in charge for over 80% of that time was clueless. Why?
The Clinton administration reinforced thw "wall" between the FBI and the CIA, preventing the two agencies from sharing information that possibly could have prevented 9/11. Why?
The PDR contained no specific threat guidance, and mentioned nothing of using planes as missiles.
Clinton never blamed Bush Sr., just as Bush Jr. has never blamed Clinton. That hasn't stopped liberals from blaming Bush Sr. while not blaming Clinton though.
2007-08-23 15:19:54 · answer #2 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't make sense to blame any of our leaders for 9/11. Believe me, I don't mind blaming them if I think they're wrong about something, but 9/11 wouldn't qualify. I think any president past or present would be horrified at the thought of terrorists flying jet airliners into crowded buildings and would do what they could to prevent it. It's very difficult to protect against people who are more than ready to die to do it if they find a chance to kill others. It's hard to believe anyone would even do such a thing. Unfortunately it's easier to believe now.
I do think we may have reacted the wrong way. The first things that should have been done are to seal off all airline cockpits (to make it impossible to get to the pilots) and to bring Bin Laden to justice. The "Patriot Act" basically punishes the average American citizen and Bin Laden is still free.
2007-08-23 15:28:30 · answer #3 · answered by Incognito 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cause he deserves much of the blame knucklehead. According to officials and former officials in the US, Saudia Arabia and the Sudan... The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia. The Clinton administration struggled for 10 weeks about whether or not to accept the offer and then finally gave up (opted to focus on his re-election instead). After that point Bin Laden financed the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the near-destruction of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen on October 12, 2000 and the devastation in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.
2007-08-23 15:25:18 · answer #4 · answered by Andy S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When empty-headed Liberals keep saying Bush was behind 9/11, or that he should have known it was coming due to some vague NIE, we are forced to point out the numerous flaws in Clinton's anti-terror efforts.
Clinton had the first WTC bombings, the Embassies, and the USS Cole occur on his watch. But yet it took one strike on Bush's watch to have him decide to take on terrorism.
Why does Bush have more balls than Clinton?
2007-08-23 15:12:28 · answer #5 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First of all, cons dont always try to shift the blame, some do, most dont. Secondly, Clinton didnt deal with the terrorists, that was a problem. Thirdly, why dont we shift the blame to the actual terrorists, I mean, they commited the actual act. So making terrorism into a left/right issue is pretty stupid. Its a right/wrong issue.
2007-08-23 15:10:37 · answer #6 · answered by Daniel 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They try to shift the blame because they know how ignorant the typical AmeriKan is and they know if they can tell a lie and tell it often enough, the average AmeriKan will believe it... such as Saddam Hussaine was supporting Al Quieda in Iraq... and that he had WMD's.
2007-08-23 15:12:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, FBI dropped the ball, who was in charge of the FBI, a Clinton appointee. Most info came during his time in office and they sat on their hands. Sure doesn't make it a Bush fault, that's for damn sure.
2007-08-23 15:11:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
because it was good way to take the blame off of Bush and all his stupidities. I can never forget his initial reaction though....classic!
it's ignorant people who don't know the facts and are easily persuaded!
I agree with you 110%!
2007-08-23 15:12:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
These non-arguments are the best points they have (basically, they know nothing, and do nothing right, so anything that is blurry must be their best argument for them having actually done something positive).
2007-08-23 15:10:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋