2007-09-04 17:22:17 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
YEEEESSSSSSSSSS
2007-09-04 17:26:24 · answer #1 · answered by HopeSpringsEternal 2 · 5⤊ 6⤋
There is not sufficient evidence to show that President Bush let 9/11 happen. The invasion of Iraq was approved by the Congress of the United States and is not illegal. So it clearly follows that the answer to both of your questions is no.
2007-09-04 18:19:26 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
like it or not congress okayed going into Iraq. What were the specifics ??? Who knows however if it's anything like the patroit act most of congress didn't bother getting into the details because it was too long to read.
Bush didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Do people realize how many reports a president gets on possible attacks. Yes there either the FBI or the CIA had a report on Ben Ladin possible attack. However how many other reports were there about possible attacks. If every threat was to be acted on the US would be in a total police state.
2007-09-04 18:22:26 · answer #3 · answered by wondermom 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
You raise an interesting question.
I tend to blame the people who perpetrated 9/11--not George Bush (nor Bill Clinton). By that rationale, ought FDR have been tried for letting Pearl Harbor occur?
What happened 9/11 and how our President responded is another matter altogether. Ten years ago, I would have said that he ought not to be tried for invading Iraq. But after the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the 1990's, what now constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (the language for impeachment in the U.S. Constitution) has such a low threshhold that I suppose that you could conceivably indict Mr. Bush.
For my part, I think it would be a bad idea. On the other hand, were it to occur, I think Republicans would have no one to blame but themselves. They set a ridiculous precedent constitutionally. Eventually, it will come back to bite them on the derriere.
2007-09-04 17:36:02 · answer #4 · answered by blueevent47 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
on the commencing up, the prez. heavily isn't waiting to declare conflict, congress, has to supply the okie-dokie, Bush LIED many situations, conspired, misinform, and at one element stated because of the fact the U. S. shape "no longer something yet a god damned piece of paper". He took an oath to get the activity he, F'ed all up, that oath become to "shield and shield, the form". Bush has KILLED better persons than Osama did, Bush has KILLED better possibility loose woman, and youthful toddlers, previous person adult men, farm animals, and worst of all, he's KILLED the yank spirit, alongside with the economic gadget. And his conspirator, or "vice prez.", has made a shaggy dogs tale out of "conflict of activity" regulation's, this Bozo wiped freshen up on tax money, What the hell is a "no bid" contract? it extremely is a clean make certain to that offender, or is it a twist of destiny Halburten, his agency, have been given purely approximately, each and all the "restoration" artwork in Iraq. What a deal. Blow it up, then fee to repair it. Lather, rinse, repeat. So, yeah i comprehend, Bush is a offender, so do billions of people, yet opposite to what you have heard, some each guy or woman is above the regulation, yet do they should rub our noses in it.
2016-10-09 23:43:36 · answer #5 · answered by blust 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For letting 911 happen - NO! For invasion of Iraq - YES! Bill Clinton was partly responsible for the former! So, maybe both should be tried for 911!
2007-09-04 17:26:34 · answer #6 · answered by Sami V 7 · 7⤊ 5⤋
By ignoring terrorism until 9/11 he was derelict is his duty to protect and defend the constitution!Keep in mind the first phrase of the constitution: we the people of the united states!This was PROVEN by his actions after recieving the PDR stating "Bin Laden determined to strike inside US".He went back and finiished his vacation!
2007-09-04 18:03:04 · answer #7 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If you had a functioning thought process you would see that you could also ask if Clinton should be tried for allowing ALL of the training for 9/11 happen, on US soil, under his watch. And why did he allow the attack on the WTC in 1993 happen?
And explain to me what make invading Iraq illegal. If anything was illegal, it was the UN vote against invading Iraq by Grance that was BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by Saddam through the Oil For Food program.
You need to know this suff so that you don't get so PWNED when you ask these kinds of questions on Y! Answers.
2007-09-04 17:41:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 7⤋
Iraq and 9/11 had nothing to do with each other.
CONSPIRACY TRUTHIST. Thats an oxy-moron
2007-09-04 17:37:16 · answer #9 · answered by acot_anthonym 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Then you will have a lot of politicans in jail.
Of course you are about to provide your legimate proof that this is what really happened.
2007-09-04 17:32:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Definitely for invading Iraq.
Iraq had no connections to 9/11!! It's ludicrous!
Murdering thousands of innocent souls, just to steal oil and get rich off of war, its unforgivable.
BUSH HAS TO BE CONDEMNED and PUNISHED.
2007-09-04 17:50:27 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋