Bush could have prevented 9/11...Why can't Rep's/Cons see that?

Question

Are you really that blind? You somehow blame Clinton for it and you don't even blink an eye....help me understand your crazy thought process.

I'm sorry but Bush had the evidence thrown in his face, not once, not twice, but time and time again and he did nothing. To say it started with Clinton is like a CEO blaming the previous CEO for the company going under.

Answer 1

Most people blame Clinton because he was in office for much of the time that this plan was in progress, and also for a weak action against Al Qaeda when the USS Cole was attacked. However, Bush also received warning of these attacks, just not in the methodology of how they were to be carried out. So I believe that both of them bear some burden of the blame for the attack, but if either one had the inclination to believe that they would use our airliners against us, I'm sure they would have stopped them.

Edit: You say that Clinton had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that Al Qaeda had ample time to plot an attack against the US. I don't think they planned their attack against us in the short amount of time that Bush was in office. Most of the planning happened during Clinton's administration, not to mention the first WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole. I think he was just as much to blame for not trying to put a stop to these people.

Answer 2

"Bush could have prevented 9/11...Why can't Rep's/Cons see that?"

Actually, no, he couldn't have.
Just like Clinton couldn't have prevented the first attack on the WTC soon after he was elected. Do you really think that terrorists send them a memo about it beforehand so that they can decide on whether they want to prevent it or not? The fact is, it happened during Clinton's time in office and he did NOTHING. The other fact is, it happened during Bush's time in office and he did do something about it, and what he did was even originally supported by many Democrats and many Americans. He is to blame for his own poor choices about certain things, but Clinton is too to blame for his own poor choices regarding an obvious attack as well. Don't you see how the mistakes of past presidents can come back with a vengeance?

Answer 3

via fact the Liberals assaults have been in reaction to no longer something better than hatred The Republican assaults on Obama are in reaction to information, economics and actuality The wild card in all it is the mainstream media. They paint the photograph for a brilliant phase of the american public. Ever observe that the daily physique count variety, pronounced daily, stopped, as quickly as Obama took workplace? They paint Conservatives in a nasty gentle, and refrain from doing with the objective to Democrats All this being pronounced, Bush replaced into no Conservative, and out of doorways of the tax cuts, did no longer cope with issues properly. He caved and have been given taken income of, by way of heavy spending Libs, and deficits ballooned as quickly as Dems took administration of Congress in 2006 Then got here Obama, who threw deficit spending into hyperdrive, spending better than all previous administrations blended, in purely his first 2 years. He operates with no funds, and not even Democrats would vote for his present day proposed funds, which purely stored increasing spending

Answer 4

As much as I totally disliked Clinton, neither Bush or Clinton could have prevented Al Queda from doing their thing on 911. These people HATE us and they HATE Isreal. They want us dead no matter who is president!

Answer 5

Clinton had 8 long years in which he accrued all kinds of data on terrorist threats and did absolutely nothing about it except pass his stack of papers off to his incumbent. And, he knew where bin Laden was throughout and he knew he was publicly taking credit for terrorist acts against us.

Why? Because he was more worried about his popularity and budget than our safety.

What don't you understand about that?

I suppose you think Bush should have sat on his hands after 9/11, too?

Unfingbelievable that you place blame upon Bush while exonerating that ho master who sat in the office before him.

Do you really think 9/11 was the result of 8 months of Bush?

Answer 6

Really! You mean Bush had been given a briefing saying a bunch of al-Quaeda militants were going to hijack 4 planes and use them as flying bombs and fly them into prominent US buildings?

I must have missed that. Please let me know where you found this evidence.

Answer 7

oh wow..thats deep..lmfao....somehow blame clinton...lmfao..let me give you the specifics
uss cole
clinton no response
african embassy bombings
clinton no reponse
wtc one
clinton no response
at least six chances to capture or kill bin laden i sudan
clinton no response
somehow..LMFAO..thats rich
you need to sign off the computer now before mom and dad spank you so the adults can talk...night night
liberals...gotta love em (sic).

Answer 8

All the planning for 9/11 was under Clinton's watch. If you want to blame anyone, blame the federal government in general. Putting blame on Bush or Clinton is irrelevant. It was a total failure of the enormous bureaucracy that has evolved in our country.

Answer 9

Yes, Bush could have prevented 9/11, and I could have been an NFL quarterback. Hindsight is 20/20 and what could have been has little bearing on what is. He has beaten himself up over not paying more attention to those reports a thousand times.

Answer 10

You think Bush is that Smart? Thank you for thinking that.

Republican