Guys..I dont really know much about the terrorist attacks at 9/11..who gets blamed for it? osama, saddam, or bush?

bush admin and osama. saddam had nothing to do with it.

Osama and the Bush Administration.

definistly osma and bush... Bush had made so many mistakes

yeah osama and bush definately because saddam didnt have anything to do with it

Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Bush Administration.

y do u guys say bush?
did u know that the terrorist DID warn us about them gunna attack us for many years... when Clinton was the Presedent.. they kepted on treating us about attacking..
so if u put cush in there.. u should have put Clinton as well...

HHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA... HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

Was there a conspiracy by the Bush Administration that the American people know nothing about? All of a sudden people are blaming 9/11 on Bush.

This is the most RIDICULOUS thing I've heard thus far in this political rabble. Please tell me that you people are kidding.

Even though Bush hasn't done much in your eyes, I can't fathom how the one thing you believe he could have done was causing 9/11. How the hell do you think he managed that?

And Jason, if you don't know much about 9/11 attack, then maybe you should research. Read some old news article and form your own opinions about what happened. The worse you can do by reading old news is learn something, so why not read? Hearsay and forming your opinions from hearsay isn't the best way to learn.

osam first then bish for not protecting us

Sorry to be crude, but what the fcuk are you talking about? Blame the CIA for not figuring it out if you want to blame anyone.

Oh yes Bush is a seer. He saw that thousands of American died and did nothing about it.

And here I thought you people were kidding about it.

DUDE we have been warned before bush was in power..
the terrorist was been warning us about them attacking once Clinton was in power..

but clinton didnt do anything... the US just let it pass.. n they just HAPPEN to attack when bush was in power n people are blaming him.. WTF?

blame clinton cuz he didnt protect us..

Fine I blame both. But when Bush came into power he had the chance to do something but chose not to. Clinton wasn't in power at the time. If 9/11 happened when Clinton was in power I would blame his Administration also.

Had a chance to do what exactly? See the future?

Had a chance to act upon these threats. He should've taken them seriously, and yes Clinton should've too.

ooh, i love how people say 9/11 is Bush's fault. the truth is, it isn't. no one could have imagined it. it is al qaeda's fault, osama and the hijackers fault. NOT george bush's fault.

OK, let me put it this way. There is a mother, a toddler and a swimming pool. The mother knows that the swimming pool is a threat for her child's well being but still decides to do nothing about it. She's been warned and aware of what could happen, but doesn't know where, when, how, and/or if this will happen to her child. The mother decides to proceed and do nothing about this threat and one day her child drowns in this pool. She could've prevented it, but chose not to. She should've taken the threat seriously, but didn't. Who gets blamed? The mother. It's a fact.

Why should this be any different? He's a father figure to us. His job is to protect us; any threat is still a threat, no matter how big or small it is.

what I wanna know is why the hell do you blame bush for?

So, wait, wait, wait, let me get this correct here...

You wanted Bush to pre-expose the airplane industry to the rigorous safety standards they have now, PRE-9/11?!

EXCUSE ME?!

I could go on for pages, and pages about the different varieties of attacks that could have possibly happened...

Hijacking a plane would be the last one I would consider...

It depends on the likelihood of the threat. Could any of us imagined on Sept 10th that they would fly airplanes into buildings?

It was Al-Qaeda's fault and only their fault.

Yes the mother gets blamed, however, lets rewind the whole story.

Lets say that the mother knows about the possible threat and DID take precautions by not letting her child travel anywhere without her and baby the child all the time to prevent a certain death.

Lets state the obvious so that we can better proceed: the American people VALUES their independence and privacy. Even after 9/11, there were people griping and groaning when they were checked extra carefully at airports. People had problems with the extra security even though they KNOW why such precaution measures are enforced. Imagine with me then, a United States where 9/11 is but a mere possibility and hasn't happened. Then imagine with me a President who goes into office and take all the precautions as if 9/11 will happen.

First, I'll tell you now that the President will be thought of as crazy since Americans would never have imagined that the US will be attacked so brutally by any enemy out of the blue. It's just isn't plausible (and of course now we know better). Second, the American people will feel as if they are placed under house arrest, or something like it. After all, no one likes so many restrictions placed on travel or doing things that they need/want. And third, who would want to live under a constant state of fear?

The mother of the child must live her life thinking that something will happen to the child and baby him instead of educating him of the ways to survive. Likewise, if the government tells the people of this nation that there'll also be a chance of an attack, many people will live in constant fear (remember that there were so many people who went for psychological help after 9/11 out of fear).

We cannot have predicted 9/11. Intelligence agencies may have been able to detect the dangers but it was THEIR FLAW that resulted in the tragedy.

And even if the mother knew of such dangers, what can she do? Tell me. Will she forbid her child to swim forever? What about in the case the child was kidnapped or threatened by a shady character? What should the mother do? Forbid her child to ever leave the house?

we do live in a constant state of fear, thats how bush governs. yes it's true we could not have truly prevented or foreseen it, but the house of bush did not even bother to inform the general public of such a threat or really do much at all. i did not expect them to shove us all in little boxes, but the american people deserve to know when they're in danger. also, it's likely that they did want it to happen (The following is all from frontline, which is quite reputable). Bush had always wanted to go to iraq because he felt his father wasn't "tough enough" on saddam. on the night of 9/11 rumsfield that this was a good chance to invade iraq.

Do not generalize me into the category of living in constant fear and I'm sure others will feel the same. People can choose to live in fear or not to and if the governement makes people live in fear by spreading "what ifs", then there will be more fear.

Inform the general public you say? Inform us of what? That there will be an attack? Remember that I said people will not like to be threatened without cause. Who would have believed that some blood thirsty maniac would want to attack this nation without any valid proofs? If the CIA had "warned" the public people will think that it was just a ploy to opress or take away their privacy and refuse to do it, or at least do it but hold a grudge.

The media is doubted because some of the things they say do not have evidence. If the government were to do that and 9/11 didn't happen, then the people will doubt the government even more.

i'm sorry if you felt i lumped you with the general american public, but it's true that most of people afraid of getting bombed and what not. i refuse to worry about getting anthrax in the mail or whatever rubbish i'm fed by the media, who is in turn oppressed by the political climate imposed by bush. as NPR said, "news is no longer news; you turn it on to confirm what you already know."

osama bin laden was already quite well recognised as a crazy bastard, with the bombing of that ship and various other unpleasantries. it would make little difference if people thought it was a way to suppress privacy now, since that is exactly what is happening.

You probably would have considered it if there was a briefing on it pre 9/11? I mean I know I would.

An excerpt from this article taken from the CNN.com website:

osama?

There are many recognized crazy bastards all over the world and there are also unrecognized ones. Would you have guessed that any one of them would attack? I didn't, but I do not dare to disregard the possibility of it either and I think you can agree with me somewhat on this.

If there is such oppression in the media, then it will be general knowledge to ignore what's being said in the news opinion wise and we can just focus on events, which we should be focusing on in the first place. I'm sure you have many different sources for news, do you think that all of them are corrupted? I sometimes browse through European news and sites (such as British and French news) and read American as well as Vietnamese newspapers to get my news and form my opinions based on these different sources. We are NOT limitted to CNN, Fox, NBC, MSN... etc.



We get threats ALL the time. Remember the trend of bomb threats in school after Columbine? I was in PE class (high school) when there was an emergency evac because some idiot sent the principle a bomb threat email. Of course nothing happened, but then there were bomb threats following that one, and nothing happened. The news reported that several schools received bomb threats as a joke.

The excerpt said that the President was warned that there was a possibility of a hijacking. He should have taken it seriously, yes, but what then? Could he have prevented it, you think? The article also CONTINUES that "the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort".

Also, the same article says that Bush DID TAKE PRECAUTIONS:
"It was in May 2001, for example, that Bush asked Vice President Dick Cheney to lead an administration task force to assess the country's counter-terrorism effort."

What more can he do but to assess the situation? What CAN he do without "specific, credible information"?

According to University of Michigan researcher Micaehl Sivak, your chance of being killed by a terrorist attack on any given day is about 1 in 2.6 billion. To compare, your chance of being killed on a rural interstate highway is 1 in 2.6 billion for every 80 yards you drive.

However, delaying airline passengers has cost the economy $20 billion a year, plus the secret police's new $30 billion budget.

So we are spending $50 billion a yearm not to mention what we are doing in other countries, to stop what is really a miniscule chance of death, is the way that the terrorists are winning -- by causing massive disruption.

Whenever someone drives 80 yards on the Ohio Interstate, we don't spend $50 billion trying to make that 80 yards safer -- and for good reason. It's the same deal with terrorism.

Also, remember the dirty bomb? Leading American nuclear engineers say that the dirty bomb would have achieved a result of ... increasing normal background radiation by 25%. The nuclear engineers advise that, if someone sets off a dirty bomb within eye's view of you, you should just calmly walk away.

WMDs are also not a threat. Chemical weapons only work well in gas chambers, and biological weapons rarely work at all. The British military, in 1993, concluded that in wartime situations, it would take one ton of sarin nerve gas to kill one person. By contrast if one ton of sarin nerve gas were detonated in the middle of New York City, the estimated fatalities would be between 300 and 800.

Of course, one ton of sarin gas means setting off at least 200 bombs simulatenously, which the American SpecOps would have trouble doing, let alone Al-Qaeda.

Since 1969, when the state department has begun keeping official count, fewer Americnas have died from terrorism than from lightning.

And remember, lightning never strikes the same way twice.

BUSH!!

Why Bush? He had plans u know to protect the world trade center..it's not his fault..he did everything he could to stop the terrorism..it was actually osama's. he had the idea to crash it. so he did it. period.

osama cause he did it.. and bush for being an idiot and most of all the security in places.
terrorists got a 2 dollar knife from the store, and shoke the world up. while the security there costs 2billion dollars a year, to protect everyone.

u cant blame bush...

u cant expect him to do everything.. cuz one.. it was too early for bush to change anything at the time.. watever cliton put after the election was still on.. like protection or watever...

JW.. y did osama attack us anyways? didnt we help then n paied for then to fight the russians? hmm.. maybe i know,. but its hard to explain..

it's proved that saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, well, so far. the government has been trying to link him to the attack in the past 3 yrs, but there's no luck


osama did it.

Look Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban killed people. But we didn't do all we could to protect our country.

Read and tell me if we did. Here are some excerpts too:

It's Barack Obama's fault.

Alan Keyes '04 (yeah, right)

u really trust cnn? wow.. haha

What do you trust . . . Fox?

duh
how did u know? lol

but.. err i dont have that channel

^^ Lucky guess.

Well... shouldn't we always respond to protect American citizens? It is there job. You're also talking about school bombing threats...not a major scale TERRORIST attack.

1. Oh yea... it's not like Bush's job is to protect America.
2. Yea, I mean as if almost a year wasn't enough. Or... was it because Bush drained the budget surplus?... Gee golly I don't know.

I'm sorry... do you need some ointment for that burn?

Uh, yea, if you were to read into CONTEXT, you would've understand the analogy, but I'll explain. Ever heard of the story "The Boy who Cried Wolf"? Well, what I was getting at was something similar.

I agree that threats should be taken seriously, but how seriously? As in, Americans are already griping about losing their privacy and freedom to certain laws/policies after 9/11, what makes you think that the American people as a whole will agree to losing more freedom and privacy for the sake of their safety?

Me? I don't have much of a problem with it so long as it doesn't interfere much with my life. But since I'm only a college student, I don't have much of a life quite yet. Imagine business travelers who venture around the world having a problem with such policies. Not to say that they're (businesses) more important than the rest of us, but they do have more market power and more power as constituents than the average Joe.

Anyway, back to my point with "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". My school wasn't as responsive to the latter bomb threats as it was to the first and other schools acted the same way. In the story, the boy lied and lied to have his fun but not realizing that one day he will actually needs help. Similarly, one day, a bomb threat will be a serious one, but because there were so many hoax, what do you expect the schools to do? Operate EVERYDAY as if they were going to be bombed?

By the by, schools IS ONLY a smaller, BUT VERY ACCURATE, similation of our nation. Meaning, in my analogy, the smaller picture very well describes the bigger picture. The lives of the school children are just as important as the lives of the American people as a whole. Do you disagree with me?

So, sorry for the long explanation. I feel that it wasn't needed, but since you asked...

I hate how people say Bush drained the surplus. The recession started during Clinton's term, after the internet bubble burst when people realized they overreacted to Y2K and lots of computer related jobs were lost. Next, 9/11 screwed up the economy even further. To say that Bush depleted the surplus would be completely untrue.

what do you mean? what do most people think? or what do i think? or what is the most widely accepted opinion at the moment?

well, all of those would be answered osama, so that would be my answer, i guess

whoops i hate the last post and didnt realize it- didnt mean to double post

read the guidelines- NO polls allowed in debate forum!

to those who are saying bush should have told us there was a threat:
what good would that do? would that have stopped 9/11? cause if it would, then by all means, i blame him too.

osama bin laden and president bush [administration]. yet in polls half of the united states citizens believe that saddam hussein was the one responsible for attacking us on 9/11. hmmmm ... i wonder why? false information from bush *cough cough*

waiting 7 minutes after being informed that the U.S. was being under attacked to do anything does not count as trying to protect us.

Your mom.


if you really wanted to know, do some research its not that hard.

...

So you rather someone act without thinking things over?

Yea...

i completely agree with you..bush just happened to be president when the attack happened..and believe me our country would be in a worse state if it weren't for what bush has done for this country..

that is all..