English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Cause he can't control a bunch of crazy Allah-yelling commies who are trying to blow up some planes. And they did dispatch some F-16s to one of the planes.

2007-09-23 16:17:50 · 26 answers · asked by Darth Nihilus 5 in Politics & Government Politics

26 answers

While the Bush administration failed to protect America, terrorism is not the fault of Americans. The problem is religious zealotry. Once you realize that, the solution to the root cause of terrorism becomes clear.

2007-09-23 16:23:51 · answer #1 · answered by God 6 · 2 9

Either attacks on home soil can be blamed on the person in office -- or they cannot.

Bush was informed about the possibility of attack by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda -- so either that warning is sufficient to make it his responsibility and fault -- or it is not.

And the "years of planning" argument works the same way -- either it can be blamed on the previous administration -- making Bush Sr responsible for the 1993 attacks and Clinton for the 2001 attacks -- or it cannot.

And as long as the same standard applies to any other President -- then it's just a matter of personal interpretation who gets blamed, and how far in advance warning would need to be had to let someone "off the hook".

2007-09-23 23:26:08 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3 0

I don't remember anyone saying the WTC bombings in the 90's as Clintons fault? Surprising that a Republican president suddenly is at fault for an attack. Maybe because deep down even the biggest hippie knows that only a Republican will have the stones to make tough decisions

2007-09-27 14:32:04 · answer #3 · answered by brett611 2 · 0 0

I do not think most people think 9/11 was Bush's fault. Immediately following 9/11 Bush enjoyed almost universal support from the American people as well as almost everyone in congress.
It is the way he squandered this unity and support that alienates people.

2007-09-23 23:33:28 · answer #4 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 3 0

Lusitainia (ww1)
Pearl Harbor (ww2)
gulf of tonklin (vietnam)
iran contra and islamic jihad (US incited a holy war to destabilize USSR, it worked: i'll give you that)
911 (iraq 2.0)(finish fathers Job)

all of the presidents serving when these "attacks" happened ALL knew they were going to happen, and actually wanted them to happen, and wrile up the american people into a frenzy and piss us off enough to go to war. War is the most lucritive enterprise ever imagined by capitalism. The world bankers control the many, there are no lines of nationality, counrty, state, or region to these elite few people, the world is THEIR playground, and we just live in it. It is really sad, but horrifyingly true.

and "commies" c'mon your smarter than that...... aren't you?

2007-09-23 23:36:44 · answer #5 · answered by take it or leave it 5 · 2 0

As other's have pointd out, Bush is not directly responsible for terrorism in general nor 9/11 in particular. That said, there was plenty more that he personally and his administration could have done. Whether any of it would have prevented the attacks is anybody's guess. None-the-less, it would have been nice if they had done their jobs responsibly.

For a full accounting of what they ignored, check out the sight below.

2007-09-24 00:13:20 · answer #6 · answered by some_mystery_for_u 2 · 1 1

Well if you want to use that logic the 9/11 would be more Clinton's Fault than anybody. But I don't use that stupid logic. I like to blame Islam first, then Osama and the others that have declared war on America. That is what honest, intelligent thinkers that don't hate America think.

2007-09-23 23:25:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

I don't see how "commies" has to do with any of it. Al Qaeda is certainly not communist, in fact we armed them to take out the communists in Afghanistan

I don't think it's his fault at all. People talk about how they could have connected the dots better with the intelligence but that is because the government didn't have good connections between domestic and international surveillance

2007-09-23 23:22:41 · answer #8 · answered by MrPotatoHead 4 · 13 0

they give out this lie because he was in the white house when it happen was Clinton blamed for all the bombings happening during his no it was Bush's fault according to the Libs.

2007-09-24 00:29:20 · answer #9 · answered by Jeremy P 2 · 0 0

Actually, liberals never really stated that it was categorically 'Bush's fault'. So, your question is null and has no correct answer.

(Iraq and the threat of more attacks, however, liberals and conservatives will 'blame Bush', they are now as we stereotype...)

2007-09-23 23:34:10 · answer #10 · answered by oldmechanicsrule 3 · 1 0

Because Bush was suppose to have ESP the day of 9/11 and know which planes, out of the thousands flying that day, had terrorists on them, and at the same time be able to pick out the planes that turned their transponders off from the other thousand blips on the screen, and he should have been able to have more than the fourteen routine flighter jets protecting us that day. It's all his fault cause he didn't have Ms. Cleo's powers.

2007-09-23 23:29:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 5

fedest.com, questions and answers