Why is it that only after Iraq started going south did Clinton receive the blame for 9/11?

Answer 1

They needed a scapegoat. All of that bs that started going around about how Clinton just sat by and didn't react to situations like the U.S.S. Cole is just that - BS. Read the below link for what Clinton really did. He definitely reacted, he just didn't launch into a full-scale, preemptive attack like some presidents we know.

Answer 2

First of all, your information is incorrect. People have been blaming the Clinton administration for years for the events of 9/11. It was only recently printed in the New York Times. That made big news everywhere due the to the liberal nature of the Times. Also, the war wasn't going south at this time. As a matter of fact, this became a big story around the time the Democrats were making such a fuss over the report General Patraes was working on. Everything showed the surge was working and the war was going well, so it wasn't a leak by the Bush administration to bolster support for their party. This is supported by the fact I pointed out earlier, it became such a big story after it was released in the New York Times, which usually supports Democrats, especially the Clintons, regardless of what is going on.

Answer 3

Let's play connect the dots. So, because of 9/11 we had to go to war with Iraq. It was one of the justifications used. So when people started questioning why, many wanted to pin it all on Bush. But even Clinton himself acknowledges his concerns about Iraq prior to 9/11, when he was serving in office. I'm not blaming Clinton for anything, just pointing out the connections.

Answer 4

Timing. That's when the 9/11 Commision Report came out and placed a great deal of the blame on the Clinton administration. Remember when he had to strong arm ABC for running a series based soley on the 9/11 Commision Report cause it made him look really bad?

Had nothing to do with Iraq.

Answer 5

Bush was handed a memo saying that terrorists were determined to use planes to attack the US and ignored it...that at least lays a large portion of the blame at his feet. Could Clintont have done more? Sure. But not sure how people can say that Clinton is to blame and Bush isn't. Bush came after Clinton, so he had all of the same info Bill did.

Answer 6

That blame was being thrown around long before the current Iraq war started.

Answer 7

what?

Clinton pardoned Marc Rich (for pay) and he was Saddam's black market moneyman to subvert the entire UN process of the 90s ($6mil reportedly, to the ol' Library)...there was plenty of blame for his administration, immediately for the way they ignored 6-7 major terror-strikes, for Clinton NEVER visiting the WTC in 1993 (people died, by the way!!)... and for not taking-out Osama (or accepting him by an African nation's offer at that). The media still doesn't like to paint Bill Clinton in a negative light, as it's 95% for the DNC and that will only serve to hurt the partisanship plays by the press.

But, Moussaoui was CAPTURED on 8/14/01 and for 4 weeks, our gov't was on vacation, while 6/7 allies shouted that something BIG was underway.. GWB is to blame, more than Clinton for 9/11. Although they BOTH were inept, useless and pathetic on this topic (prior to 9/11, let's be fair).

Answer 8

You're mistaken. Clinton has been blamed for being soft on terrorism since he was in office.

Answer 9

Sure, Clinton didn't go after Al Queda so that one is on him. (I suppose no one even thinks of blaming the terrorists.) And now, Bush won't go after Al Queda and named a terrorist group Al Queda in Iraq so he could pretend he's doing something about the terrorists. So I guess the attacks in Europe and the next attack on the US are on him?

Answer 10

Huh? Clinton told the WMDs in Iraq story over ten years ago? Everyone who is old enough to vote should remember it, why don't you?