Should Bush Have Taken Responsibility for 9/11?

[MonstaThrilla]

With all the talk of the messed up nuclear intelligence and finger pointing, this topic is more relevant then ever. Bush never even came close to saying anything like: "I, as the Commander-in-Chief, take full responsibility for the attacks". I've always thought he should have done so. It would have showed alot of political courage, and probably wouldn't have hurt him much either (that is if he said it in the immediate aftermath of 9/11; now it would be quite damaging).

All we got was something like: "We'll hunt down those folks and kill 'em".

 

[Acanthus]

why again is it the presidents fault that terrorists attacked NYC?

 

[shiner]

Explain to me again how this is his fault? I don't recall him being at the controls of any of the planes.

 

[Acanthus]

Its his fault because hes a republican!

He was president at the time! Thats reason enough!

 

[Moonbeam]

What I want to know is what relationship, if any, is there to the PNAC assertion that we need a Pearl Harbor to take over the Middle East, the fact that Rice said they could never have dreamed of an attack by plane, the fact that just such a possibility was suggested in Gov. documents, the fact that Osama's family and the Bush's are tight, the fact that Osama has not been caught, the fact that nobody predicted the buildings would fall, the fact that bush was on permanent vacation before the attack, out of town, and the fact that the hearings and investigations into such matters are being conducted in secret. I listen to talk radio at night and constantly hear these things linked as concrete facts. Also we witnessed the greatest intelligence failure in history, presumably a failure that is, and the first thing that happened was Bush congratulates and praises the director George T of the CIA. Why all the secrecy with all the potential for conspiracy theories to multiply and abound. It seem very strange.

 

[jjones]

Are you trying to say that the President should take responsibility for the intelligence and assessment failure leading up to the attacks at the WTC and the Pentagon?

If you're trying to say the President should take direct responsibility for the attacks, I really don't know what to say. That seems about as ludicrous as anything conceivable.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jjones
Are you trying to say that the President should take responsibility for the intelligence and assessment failure leading up to the attacks at the WTC and the Pentagon?

If you're trying to say the President should take direct responsibility for the attacks, I really don't know what to say. That seems about as ludicrous as anything conceivable.

As inconceivable as FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?

 

[Brie]

I think that any apology would sound insincere and most people would take it the wrong way. "most people" being the people who are ignorant to the 9/11 controversy.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What I want to know is what relationship, if any, is there to the PNAC assertion that we need a Pearl Harbor to take over the Middle East, the fact that Rice said they could never have dreamed of an attack by plane, the fact that just such a possibility was suggested in Gov. documents, the fact that Osama's family and the Bush's are tight, the fact that Osama has not been caught, the fact that nobody predicted the buildings would fall, the fact that bush was on permanent vacation before the attack, out of town, and the fact that the hearings and investigations into such matters are being conducted in secret. I listen to talk radio at night and constantly hear these things linked as concrete facts. Also we witnessed the greatest intelligence failure in history, presumably a failure that is, and the first thing that happened was Bush congratulates and praises the director George T of the CIA. Why all the secrecy with all the potential for conspiracy theories to multiply and abound. It seem very strange.

All of those are valid points that need to be explained, as well as how these terrorists got into the country (I read from several places they were initially denied entry, but that was over-turned by a higher-up) and who shorted all that airline stock shortly before 9/11. I personally suspect there is much, much more going on than is being released.

 

[Piano Man]

Although I do believe that the US does need to recognize that we helped in making these people hate us, Bush is not to blame, well not entirely. This goes way back to the 50's and every president since then didn't do anything about it.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Although I do believe that the US does need to recognize that we helped in making these people hate us, Bush is not to blame, well not entirely. This goes way back to the 50's and every president since then didn't do anything about it.

You have a point there, but I don't see how President Bush is responsible for those attacks?

 

[phillyTIM]

well bush allowed the damn attacks to happen in the first place

if he'd listened to national intelligence, reported even on sept. 10th 2001, we'd have caught what was happening on sept. 11 (with the planes so far off course, etc.) and been able to prevent the attacks.

if the air traffic controllers were doing their jobs that day, this wouldn't have happened

if the military were on guard that day, this wouldn't have happened

it's pretty damned pathetic that hijackers struck the heart of the military, the pentagon, that day

how'd that happen? bush allowed it to happen, that's where the responsibility lies and that's who needs to own up to it

bush and the republican guard have been cooking up another american "pearl harbor" since mid-90s, and it happened under his watch.

no surprise here.

you nationalists need to put your bias to the side, and look at the situation for the stark reality that it is

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Of course I mean responsibility in the intelligence/military failure to stop the attacks. I don't mean he should say he was the one who flew the friggin planes. I didn't think anyone would be so blind to think that, so I didn't explicitly say it.

He's the commander-in-chief. He's responsible for this nation's protection. The buck stops at him. No amount of finger pointing at the CIA or FBI will change the fact that he's ultimately charged with protecting the people.

 

[Corn]

What I want to know is what relationship, if any, is there to the PNAC assertion that we need a Pearl Harbor to take over the Middle East........

Yet another gross misrepresentation of the "pearl harbor" refrence in the PNAC report. The first thing out of Moonies mouth (keys) is a lie........typical, but a telling indication of the general quality of the rest of his post.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

What I want to know is what relationship, if any, is there to the PNAC assertion that we need a Pearl Harbor to take over the Middle East........

Yet another gross misrepresentation of the "pearl harbor" refrence in the PNAC report. The first thing out of Moonies mouth (keys) is a lie........typical, but a telling indication of the general quality of the rest of his post.

Care to show how that's a gross misrepresentation?? The original quote, as it appears in the PNAC report is:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor.

 

[Corn]

Care to show how that's a gross misrepresentation??

Sure, why don't you step to the head of the class and comment on the context for that quote. Specifically, what was the topic of that portion of the report which contained that quote? Was it about "taking over the middle east"? Or something less sinister, such as funding for research and development for the military?

 

[JellyBaby]

The acts during 9/11 wasn't Bush's fault directly.

The U.S. stuck it's nose in the middle east and began meddling therein a half century ago. That brought resentment. To extremists it brought extreme resentment. No real surprise there. Bush isn't changing our foreign policy to reduce this hate. Instead he's upping the ante with his insane pre-emptive strike doctrine.

Their goal now is to disarm all possible opposition both domestic and abroad (the later being easier?) so that future meddling won't bring ramifications. The idea of perhaps not meddling in the first place doesn't even occur to them.

Also we witnessed the greatest intelligence failure in history, presumably a failure that is, and the first thing that happened was Bush congratulates and praises the director George T of the CIA.

Perhaps the CIA had the goods on him?

That one even had many conservatives stumped. Then they thought he'd get around to dealing with the CIA and FBI after the 2002 elections. Yeah, right. Instead of fixing our existing intel services he created more spendy bureacracy in the form of Homeland Insecurity.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Oh sure, why not - and we can nail him to a cross too.

I think that the arrogant attitude of the incoming Administration and their damn smugness is what made us vulnerable.
He's not really responsible per se but when the outgoing Clinton Administration tried to pass their intelligence data to
the Incoming Bush Die-Nastys, thet wanted to try to add to the Clinton bashing, remember how they were saying all
the things about the destruction, looting, and vandalism, stealing furniture and taking apart the Air Force 1 ?
Well they never retracted those statements, but the auditing of what was done found that most of it was untrue.

The damaged equipment was the residual build up of parts that had broken dating back to Carter, through Reagan and
then Bush 1, and more stuff during Clintons terms. 24 years of desks, computers, telephones that were broken all
claimed to have been personally destroyed by Clinton. There were actually about a dozen keyboards that had the 'W'
taken off and left in drawers nearby. The AirForce One hadn't been looted, and only a few personal furniture gifts taken.
They didn't really empty out the Whitehouse lock-stock-and-barrel, the Bushies just wanted it to sound like that.

If they would have spent a fraction of the time listening to what was being tried to inform them there is a slim chance
that the intelligence community would have focused on the immenent threat that wanted to be presented.
Bush and his Cabal acted as fools, and were made fools - by the close friends that they had cultivated in Iraq,
Afganistan, and Saudi Arabia. Karzi the Afgan leader worked within the oil industry with ties to Cheney and was part
of the group that was trying to put an oil pipeline through Afganistan from Pakistan to Iran. Bin Ladens family was a
contracting group that worked with Haliburton to build structures throughout Saudi for the Royal family. Iraq wouldn't let
Haliburton build a pipeline from the rich oilfields to Jordan because 10% was going to be alloted to Isreal.

9/11 was a payback, and Afganistan was a re-payback, as was Iraq. Read the Bistory of the Bush Dynasty.
There's no way that they are good Christian Gentlemen looking out for the good of the American People.

 

[Trezza]

First of i would like to say that some of you people sicken me. Do you even think about the words that are on the monitor in front of you or are you just randomly typing ridiculous and malious things about the government.

i knew i shouldn't have entered this thread because you guys have way to much time to come up with crack head theories but this tops them all. Here is the next one i plan to see.

"Bush lets thousands die as he laughs and plots how him and his pal osama are going to pretend to fight each other in afganastan and then bush and saddam vacation in time square drinking coronas laughing at the iraq war, which despite its publicity never actually happened and was just a joke." - L337 Crack Head

i swear to god you people need therapy or medicine or something. if your lives are so deranged to believed such things and if you honestly believe that your country (if your a US citizen) would do something like this, then get the hell out cause you obviously don't want to be in a country run by Adolf Bush the Pro Terrorist.

To think that any president would honesly let over 3000 people die just so he could get some oil and to ASSUME that he would be the only one that had any say in saving US lives is rediculous. There is a chain of command and if it went all the way up to the president that there would definately 4 planes taken over and crashed into populated building so many people would know that he would have to do something.


If anyone can put prove that bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen i'll give you every dollar i have. There is no reason to post something if its not true especially things of such a serious nature and you will NEVER in your lifetime be able to get your hands on that information if it did exist.

I didn't bother to look at my spelling so don't be a d!ck and say i spelt something wrong cause i don't care.

 

[sandorski]

I don't think he's responsible for 9/11, but he did ignore(at least his admin did) repeated warnings of an increasing risk of an Al Queda attack involving hijacked aircraft. On that issue he should come clean.

 

[AnImuS]

From the info given i dont think its his fault. Does he have paritial blame? possible. Does the airline security also to blame? possibly. Is congress to blame for such crapy security laws (IE: our joke of a border)? most definite. i dont think all these terrorist decided to come when Bush became president somewhere already here under previous administrations. With a country the size of ours and an estimated 280million population its VERY possible we will have another strike here. Theres just no way to police suspects with a population this huge.

And the only way we can increase are security by a big percentage is for the US to actually have 100% completely control of our border through were foreigners are coming by. If anyone wants to point fingers it should START there.

 

[tcsenter]

Of course I mean responsibility in the intelligence/military failure to stop the attacks. I don't mean he should say he was the one who flew the friggin planes. I didn't think anyone would be so blind to think that, so I didn't explicitly say it.

He's the commander-in-chief. He's responsible for this nation's protection. The buck stops at him. No amount of finger pointing at the CIA or FBI will change the fact that he's ultimately charged with protecting the people.

I think to some degree he is showing that he feels some obligation and responsibility because 9/11 happened on his watch by taking on the burdens of kicking booty all over the world. Actions speak louder than words. Had he said, 'I take full responsibilty for the 9/11 attacks' then did nothing about it except defer to France's wisdom, would that have been to your satisfaction?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Of course I mean responsibility in the intelligence/military failure to stop the attacks. I don't mean he should say he was the one who flew the friggin planes. I didn't think anyone would be so blind to think that, so I didn't explicitly say it.

He's the commander-in-chief. He's responsible for this nation's protection. The buck stops at him. No amount of finger pointing at the CIA or FBI will change the fact that he's ultimately charged with protecting the people.

I think to some degree he is showing that he feels some obligation and responsibility because 9/11 happened on his watch by taking on the burdens of kicking booty all over the world. Actions speak louder than words. Had he said, 'I take full responsibilty for the 9/11 attacks' then did nothing about it except defer to France's wisdom, would that have been to your satisfaction?

Why do people constantly try to confine discussion to the alternatives of their own limited vision? As if actions speak louder than words means anything without knowing particular actions and particular words...................... As if the we could alternately only defer to the French...........

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Of course I mean responsibility in the intelligence/military failure to stop the attacks. I don't mean he should say he was the one who flew the friggin planes. I didn't think anyone would be so blind to think that, so I didn't explicitly say it.

He's the commander-in-chief. He's responsible for this nation's protection. The buck stops at him. No amount of finger pointing at the CIA or FBI will change the fact that he's ultimately charged with protecting the people.

I think to some degree he is showing that he feels some obligation and responsibility because 9/11 happened on his watch by taking on the burdens of kicking booty all over the world. Actions speak louder than words. Had he said, 'I take full responsibilty for the 9/11 attacks' then did nothing about it except defer to France's wisdom, would that have been to your satisfaction?

Ah, recent revelations seem to indicate the French/German/Russian/UN view was more accurate than the US or UK. By about 100%.

 

[AEB]

Just for the recored the terrorists were planning these attacks for 20 or so years. I know a kid who was 4 20 years ago and was a friend of a friend of one of the guys who crashed into teh WTC and now the FBI has tracked him and his family down and are asking him questions about it. To say bush had knowledge of it is rediculous. and as for catching him clinton just recently said that he wanted to catch osama so much it was like an obsession. so this guy obviously has places to hide