Who gets blamed for the 9/11 terrorist attack? Options

[*Statistik*]

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

[strice]

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

[MeanBastard]

Osama and the Bush Administration.

[lilazneye10]

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

[*basick*]

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

[inlonelinessidie]

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

[PingPong]

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...

[Spirited Away]

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.

[i ami_am]

osam first then bish for not protecting us

[Spirited Away]

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.

[PingPong]

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..

[inlonelinessidie]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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

[inlonelinessidie]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

[inlonelinessidie]

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.

[JasonAkAWolf]

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

[*CrackedRearView*]

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.

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...

[ComradeRed]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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?

[strice]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[strice]

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.

[inlonelinessidie]

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

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:

President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner

[lucky_clover]

osama?