Why did the Bush administration ignore terrorism until after we were attcked?

Question

I mean the cons always want to bring up who Clinton could've had Bin Laden 4 times(the fact there was no proof against him does seem to matter!).
Cons also always throw up about how many terrorists attcks during Clintons administration most of which were outside the country!
If terrorism was such a threat when Clinton left office why did the Bush administration ignore it?

Typical con answers so far!

Charles--- you seem to ignore the fact that the final FBI report on the Cole didn't reach Clintons desk until days before he left office.He left it up to the new president to retaliate.........Which of course Bush didn't do!

Bradley-----you still haven't answered the question!

bopoppa--as usual you ignored that the final FBI report on the Cole didn't come in until days before Clinton left office...and he left it up to Bush to decide how to retaliate for the bombing!

Sorry bekind----But that still doesn't explain why the FBI obstructed their own terrorism investigation.........or what actions Bush took after being warned a month before the attck.

Pollox----lets see some proof about that!

Well Polox guess you aren't going to provide that proof.......BTW-The way I heard it Clinton was the one obsessed with getting OBL!

Kudos-Sorry to disagree but it seems like they did fully ignore the issue!

Answer 1

Good question..and remember Condi and Bush were warned NUMEROUS times before 9/11...and they did nothing. Did they notidy the FTA? NOPE...nada. And yet Bozo calls simself the 'terrorism president'. Yeah...because the worst happen under HIS WATCH!
Then lets not forget what he said about Bin Laden on 3/02..a mere six months after 9/11..."I'm just not worried about Bin Laden"......

Answer 2

Did I hear you excuse Clinton because he didn't have a final FBI investigation to work from? Do you believe the FBI had finalized the investigation into 9/11 within 30 days of the event? Then I guess georgie reacted a little too quickly because he didn't have a report pointing the finger at OBL in Afghanistan. Typical LIBERAL logic. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander!!


Your points the "cons" say are all correct, like it or not. Bin Laden has been on the radar screen for nearly 20 years and has openly claimed responsibility for many acts.
What did Bush ignore? Between his inauguration in Jan 01 and the attacks of 09/01, what major event happened that would or should have prompted a response from President Bush? Did I hear you say nothing? That is the correct answer, you get the grand prize!!
President Bush acted swiftly after 9/11/01 and has prevented another attack on this country's soil since. What more do you want?
The SAUDI'S offered Bin laden and Clinton said "not today".

Answer 3

He didn't ignore it. The man had been in office LESS THEN A YEAR. Clinton was there for 8!!!


There was plenty of proof about Bin Ladens activities

Terrorist attacks against Americans are terrorist attacks, I don't care where they take place and the sailors on the USS Cole probably don't either

edit: The FINAL FBI report? God how long did it take for the investigations of 9/11 to be completed? Should we have waited until then to attack the people we KNEW attacked us? Everyone knew OBL attacked the Cole. Clinton didn't need to wait for a report.

Answer 4

The fact is that it wasn't ignored during the beginning of the Bush Administration. Unfortunately the first attack during his term was 9/11 and there were indicators that in hindsight we could've picked up on. The gripe with Clinton is that he had ignored repeated attacks during his tenure and emboldened future attacks by not responding to any of these hits. When you don't retaliate after a U.S. warship is bombed then it sends the enemy a pretty clear message. Its obvious you're just trolling here with the "con" language you are using and a few will chime in and agree with you so you can feel better about yourself.

Answer 5

A better question would be: Why did the cons sabotage Clinton's anti-terror efforts in the '90s?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Or Why didn't Bush follow the anti-terror plan Clinton laid out in '99?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/22/clinton.terrorism/

Or Why do trolls continually try to spread the same DEBUNKED myth about Clinton's anti-terror legacy?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Answer 6

Neither Clinton nor Bush could initiate the anti-terror programs that are in use now, which are unconstitutional, until there was a major attack within the U.S. 911 changed what is seen as important to our legislators. Security now takes precedence over the rights of citizens.

Edit: That is the explanation. Condi said they were tired of swatting flies so they just sat on their hands until the warnings of the attack became reality.

Answer 7

Because it's better for their political agenda being attacked than not.

If the cons thought Wild Bill could have arrested bin Laden then why didn't the Bush family turn him in. After all, he was visiting them.

Answer 8

Like when George Tenet was derided by Clinton cabinet members as being 'obsessed' with OBL?
Guess this was the reason why Tenet had to seek Gingrich out personally to find funding.

Answer 9

Intelligence reports of terrorist attacks were ignored since the officials claimed that the US is invincible but they were wrong.

Answer 10

I don't think that they fully ignored the facts, but they didn't take it seriously enough to devise many solutions and plans for precaution. (Maybe a few, but certainly not enough.)